He and George W Bush in the critical months of 2008-2009 basically saved the world from a global depression. Say what you will about Obama, but the fact remains that the US's massive effort to prevent a global credit market freeze up will be seen as one of the most important economic interventions of the last 200 years.
As much as I think Trump may end up being the worst US president since Buchanan, I can't see how his pissing match with China is anything more than a more vocal version of what Obama has been doing for a few years now. The US Navy has been doing sailbys and flyovers of this artificial island for some time now, which in a helluva more direct way is telling China "The most powerful navy that has ever existed on the planet Earth does not accept your concreted seamount as actual territory." On this particular score I think giving Beijing a frequent and very vocal middle finger is rather important.
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault. It's quite something to attach "on a computer" and then declare that somehow you can argue away both intent and harm.
In this case it appears to be a lawsuit, but at the end of the day if the court deems this a legitimate case, criminal or civil, then the court has the authority to order Twitter to reveal whatever identifying data it may have on the defendant/accused.
Since this appears to be a civil suit, then yes, suing the perpetrator means the victim get's the alleged perpetrator's identity. It's still a court ultimately ordering the identity of the individual be revealed. Why would a civil court not have the same power to compel Twitter as a criminal court?
Here's a tip for anyone thinking of pulling a stunt like this, don't do it. You will very likely end up in either in a criminal or civil court, or possibly both. If common decency won't restrain you, then how about self-preservation?
If you commit a crime under partial anonymity (which is what a Twitter account is), and a warrant is issued by a judge to unmask you, then that is how the system is supposed to work. Anonymity is not, nor should it ever be an effective means of evading prosecution for criminal acts. Yes, there need to be limits such as not allowing warrantless access to data or back doors in encryption, but providing it is technically possible to unveil the perpetrator and the police have gone through the appropriate judicial channels (to assure judicial oversight), then what could your problem possibly be.
This is like arguing that if someone mails you a letter bomb, but he puts a fake return address on it, trying to determine the attacker's true identity somehow violates his privacy rights.
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
This isn't like someone sending someone with a nut allergy a candy bar with nuts in it. This is like sending someone you know has a peanut allergy a loaf of bread laced with peanut oil, with the intent of either harming or killing them.
The flipside to the Westminster system is that the Government only serves so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. To remove a president is a rather arduous process, and one that is almost certainly doomed to fail (Nixon probably being the only example of a president that would almost certainly have been removed from office via impeachment). In Westminster system, Parliament can simply vote no confidence in the Government, and the head of state (monarch or elected president) can either ask someone else to form a government or new elections are called.
The US model is largely based on the British system as it functioned in the mid-18th century, before the constitutional convention requiring Ministries be formed out of Parliament had fully evolved. Interestingly enough, one of the times when a government did fall to a confidence vote was Lord North's Ministry, because it was his government that lost the rebel colonies.
Because what I want to see when I look up the Holocaust is Stormfront. This is the equivalent of looking up Big Bang cosmology in an encyclopedia, but the first article you find being electric universe nonsense.
The Neo-nazis can do whatever they like. The problem these days is that fringe groups have figured out how to use mainstream Internet portals to further their ends. If all the Neo-nazis were on Stormfront, nobody would give a shit (except the FBI, which probably would be tracking IPs of those going to the site). The problem arises when Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like are used as vehicles to propagate this kookery and villainy, because it allows the various cranks and racists to borrow the goodwill of these sites to create a veneer of respectability around what are ultimately noxious and vile views.
The biggest worry I have these days aren't the goose stepping Neo-nazis, wild-eyed white supremacist skin heads and off the nut Christian Reconstructionist types. Those people, by and large, are so out of their minds that they can't help but behave in horrific ways. But there has been a, forgive the pun, whitewashing of white supremacism in the last few years; talk of "white pride" and the like, and this has indeed used more mainstream channels to communicate what does ultimately amount to white supremacism, but in a way that seems, at least on the face of it, to be oh so eminently reasonable.
I appreciate the difficulty services like Google have in trying to make sure these groups don't mainstream themselves in this way, and it does amount to a significant technical problem, but at the same time Google, like Facebook and Twitter, has little choice. The service becomes devalued when fringe racist groups start ending up at the top of search lists and newsfeeds.
The evidence for the Holocaust is enormous. It's one thing to ask "How do scholars and historians arrive at the figures?" But when the question amounts to a thinly coded "The Holocaust was a fraud", then it's not really questioning at all, but simply a rhetorical device used by Holocaust Deniers.
Well thank 48 of the states, which adopted the idiotic winner take all formula, which pretty much completely undermined the original intent of the Electoral College. Walter Bagehot put it best:
The main function of the [British] House of Commons is one which we know quite well, though our common constitutional speech does not recognize it. The House of Commons is an electoral chamber; it is the assembly which chooses our president. Washington and his fellow-politicians contrived an electoral college, to be composed (as was hoped) of the wisest people in the nation, which, after due deliberation, was to choose for President the wisest man in the nation. But that college is a sham; it has no independence and no life. No one knows, or cares to know, who its members are. They never discuss, and never deliberate. They were chosen to vote that Mr. Lincoln be President, or that Mr. Breckinridge be President; they do so vote, and they go home. But our House of Commons is a real choosing body; it elects the people it likes. And it dismisses whom it likes too. No matter that a few months since it was chosen to support Lord Aberdeen or Lord Palmerston; upon a sudden occasion it ousts the statesman to whom it at first adhered, and selects an opposite statesman whom it at first rejected. Doubtless in such cases there is a tacit reference to probable public opinion; but certainly also there is much free will in the judgment of the Commons. The House only goes where it thinks in the end the nation will follow; but it takes its chance of the nation following or not following; it assumes the initiative, and acts upon its discretion or its caprice.
Walter Bagehot - The English Constitution 2nd Edition - 1873
And so it will be best to look at who is standing behind Trump. The United States has another dull-witted Republican in charge. So, as with GWB, look at the VP and senior members of the cabinets, with the additional fun that now Trump's kids, and by all accounts Ivanka and her husband in particular, will play significant roles in the administration.
One thing I can see happening is the Senate is going to give Tillerson a rough ride, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't make the cut. Trump may think Russia is America's new bestest friend, but it's pretty clear there's bipartisan sentiment in the Senate that the Kremlin is the same as it ever was.
Why not just raise an extra $20 per head for human trafficking? First of all, the filter will almost certainly end up being disabled, so it's an utter waste of time, and second of all it's going to raise costs on buying new computers, which won't do PC sellers any favors.
Another stupid idea by a stupid politician who just wants to be seen to be doing something.
Slashdot Mirror
He and George W Bush in the critical months of 2008-2009 basically saved the world from a global depression. Say what you will about Obama, but the fact remains that the US's massive effort to prevent a global credit market freeze up will be seen as one of the most important economic interventions of the last 200 years.
As much as I think Trump may end up being the worst US president since Buchanan, I can't see how his pissing match with China is anything more than a more vocal version of what Obama has been doing for a few years now. The US Navy has been doing sailbys and flyovers of this artificial island for some time now, which in a helluva more direct way is telling China "The most powerful navy that has ever existed on the planet Earth does not accept your concreted seamount as actual territory." On this particular score I think giving Beijing a frequent and very vocal middle finger is rather important.
Time to start looking at Twitter's patent portfolio. Gonna be a whole lot of "on a network" patents that can be used in East Texas to extort cash.
Clearly the Clinton Crime Family is behind the destruction of Twitter! Oh when will the murderous Clintons be dealt with?
Oh, and Chy-na!
So what's your solution then? Force everyone to work for pennies an hour?
What does any of this have to do with the case being discussed here?
People.have always and will.alwsys die, so I guess it's okay if someone walks up and smashes a brick over your head, right?
Further translation: "We need a place where we can bugger all in tax and wages, while we build the robots so we can fire our entire workforce."
I don't see it as controversial at all. If you knowingly do someone bodily harm, then that is assault. It's quite something to attach "on a computer" and then declare that somehow you can argue away both intent and harm.
Getting into an online pissing match doesn't mean you suddenly gain the right to assault people.
It would be assault, yes.
In this case it appears to be a lawsuit, but at the end of the day if the court deems this a legitimate case, criminal or civil, then the court has the authority to order Twitter to reveal whatever identifying data it may have on the defendant/accused.
Since this appears to be a civil suit, then yes, suing the perpetrator means the victim get's the alleged perpetrator's identity. It's still a court ultimately ordering the identity of the individual be revealed. Why would a civil court not have the same power to compel Twitter as a criminal court?
Here's a tip for anyone thinking of pulling a stunt like this, don't do it. You will very likely end up in either in a criminal or civil court, or possibly both. If common decency won't restrain you, then how about self-preservation?
Ah, the alt-right, back to blaming victims.
If you commit a crime under partial anonymity (which is what a Twitter account is), and a warrant is issued by a judge to unmask you, then that is how the system is supposed to work. Anonymity is not, nor should it ever be an effective means of evading prosecution for criminal acts. Yes, there need to be limits such as not allowing warrantless access to data or back doors in encryption, but providing it is technically possible to unveil the perpetrator and the police have gone through the appropriate judicial channels (to assure judicial oversight), then what could your problem possibly be.
This is like arguing that if someone mails you a letter bomb, but he puts a fake return address on it, trying to determine the attacker's true identity somehow violates his privacy rights.
Exactly. One of the pillars of a criminal prosecution is intent. It's one thing to send out a seizure-inducing animation to someone, unaware that this was produce a seizure. It's another thing to target someone who you know is an epileptic with the clear intent to cause harm.
This isn't like someone sending someone with a nut allergy a candy bar with nuts in it. This is like sending someone you know has a peanut allergy a loaf of bread laced with peanut oil, with the intent of either harming or killing them.
Tell that to Comet Ping Pong
The flipside to the Westminster system is that the Government only serves so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House of Commons. To remove a president is a rather arduous process, and one that is almost certainly doomed to fail (Nixon probably being the only example of a president that would almost certainly have been removed from office via impeachment). In Westminster system, Parliament can simply vote no confidence in the Government, and the head of state (monarch or elected president) can either ask someone else to form a government or new elections are called.
The US model is largely based on the British system as it functioned in the mid-18th century, before the constitutional convention requiring Ministries be formed out of Parliament had fully evolved. Interestingly enough, one of the times when a government did fall to a confidence vote was Lord North's Ministry, because it was his government that lost the rebel colonies.
Because what I want to see when I look up the Holocaust is Stormfront. This is the equivalent of looking up Big Bang cosmology in an encyclopedia, but the first article you find being electric universe nonsense.
I'll stick to Google, thanks.
The Neo-nazis can do whatever they like. The problem these days is that fringe groups have figured out how to use mainstream Internet portals to further their ends. If all the Neo-nazis were on Stormfront, nobody would give a shit (except the FBI, which probably would be tracking IPs of those going to the site). The problem arises when Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like are used as vehicles to propagate this kookery and villainy, because it allows the various cranks and racists to borrow the goodwill of these sites to create a veneer of respectability around what are ultimately noxious and vile views.
The biggest worry I have these days aren't the goose stepping Neo-nazis, wild-eyed white supremacist skin heads and off the nut Christian Reconstructionist types. Those people, by and large, are so out of their minds that they can't help but behave in horrific ways. But there has been a, forgive the pun, whitewashing of white supremacism in the last few years; talk of "white pride" and the like, and this has indeed used more mainstream channels to communicate what does ultimately amount to white supremacism, but in a way that seems, at least on the face of it, to be oh so eminently reasonable.
I appreciate the difficulty services like Google have in trying to make sure these groups don't mainstream themselves in this way, and it does amount to a significant technical problem, but at the same time Google, like Facebook and Twitter, has little choice. The service becomes devalued when fringe racist groups start ending up at the top of search lists and newsfeeds.
The evidence for the Holocaust is enormous. It's one thing to ask "How do scholars and historians arrive at the figures?" But when the question amounts to a thinly coded "The Holocaust was a fraud", then it's not really questioning at all, but simply a rhetorical device used by Holocaust Deniers.
Well thank 48 of the states, which adopted the idiotic winner take all formula, which pretty much completely undermined the original intent of the Electoral College. Walter Bagehot put it best:
Walter Bagehot - The English Constitution 2nd Edition - 1873
And so it will be best to look at who is standing behind Trump. The United States has another dull-witted Republican in charge. So, as with GWB, look at the VP and senior members of the cabinets, with the additional fun that now Trump's kids, and by all accounts Ivanka and her husband in particular, will play significant roles in the administration.
One thing I can see happening is the Senate is going to give Tillerson a rough ride, and I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't make the cut. Trump may think Russia is America's new bestest friend, but it's pretty clear there's bipartisan sentiment in the Senate that the Kremlin is the same as it ever was.
Someone would be putting up new computer kiosks on major routes just across state lines.
It's just like Porky's, but with computers instead of tits!
Why not just raise an extra $20 per head for human trafficking? First of all, the filter will almost certainly end up being disabled, so it's an utter waste of time, and second of all it's going to raise costs on buying new computers, which won't do PC sellers any favors.
Another stupid idea by a stupid politician who just wants to be seen to be doing something.