I hate to be a broken record, but in every other instance, we (Slashdot commenters) tell people not to put information about their personal life online unless they want other people to see it. If you attach your name, you should not expect it to magically disappear.
This is a hard truth to learn. Some people don't get it and are later angry. Some people get it, act accordingly, and prepare for/accept the consequences.
That, and if you're found to have been wrongfully convicted, the prosecutors/plaintiffs should be put on trial as an automatic action. Might make the system a bit fairer.
Yep. I agree that we should rely more on societal norms moderating peoples' actions rather than using the law for absolutely every last little instance. He got fired from his place of employment after posting a staged photo of him holding a knife to a co-workers throat.
That said, when you cross into actual, physical violence, or direct threats, the law can and should come down on you. One of his posts in question was actually talking about the difference between direct threats and speaking in a meta sense about threats. I've quoted that above in another post.
Just to clarify, I'm assuming in that scenario that the girl showed a license, did it on camera, with audio, and the (presumably fake) license is admitted as evidence, and it's a convincing fake. Just to make it clear, I'm assuming the case in which the person did the absolute best someone could be expected to do. He said/she said isn't going to cut it, clearly--but if you *did* have solid, incontrovertible evidence?
"the girl told me she was 18 and even showed me her driver's license with the age" will see no mercy as statutory rape generally has strict liability rules.
Would that be an actual case of entrapment, because you demonstrated that you were attempting to observe the laws to the best of your ability and to the best of the ability a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to have?
What? Offtopic? Did the mods miss TFS or TFA? This is about a guy being offensive.
"Hi, I’m Tone Elonis.
Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? . . . It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to say. . . . Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife. . . . Um, but what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to say I really, really think someone out there should kill my wife. . . . But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher. Because that’s its own sentence. . . . I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be from the cornfield behind it because of easy access to a getaway road and you’d have a clear line of sight through the sun room. . . . Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated diagram. [diagram of the house]. . .." Id., at 333.
Shit, this guy could practically be a Slashdot commenter.
This is absurdly broad. Anyone want to venture prior art?
A computer-implemented method for providing output(s) of machine readable instructions comprises providing software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions. The one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, and the output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component. Next, the software is executed using a computer processor to generate the output. The one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then displayed on an electronic display of the user. In some cases, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are displayed on a web-based user interface on the electronic display. Based on one or more edits received from the user, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then updated. In some cases, the machine-readable instructions are updated without re-executing the software.
It most certainly DOES affect anonymity. Read the slides, which explain how to set up a correlation attack. They can become the HSDirs for specific hidden services, for a pittance, and then they can run a correlation attack since you'll be having to go through them first to get to said hidden service.
How the fuck did this factually incorrect tripe get modded up?
Really? The slides go over the needed steps to become an HSDir... or several HSDirs... and perform a correlation attack to de-anonymize someone. -1, Overrated.
The researchers essentially brute forced their way into running Tor's "hidden service DNS servers" for a day.
You only need 4 days uptime to become an HSDir. That's a pretty insignificant bar. They also still held 4 of those 6 spots on day #2. It cost a pittance. -1, Overrated.
The new hidden service proposal that fixes this issue among plenty of other improvement is being worked on.
Possibly the only useful part of your comment. +1 Informative.
If you answer a simple question with a simple, factual answer, and someone complains that the answer isn't to their satisfaction (barring factual errors), it indicates that that person has an axe to grind. These people are clueless shits and/or trolls. Either way, it's a waste of time talking to them.
Plus, many people seem unable tell a statement of fact from one of opinion. Over the years, I've informally asked people if they ever had to do an exercise in school asking them to distinguish between the two. The vast majority of people I've spoken with have said that they did not./anecdote
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to be a broken record, but in every other instance, we (Slashdot commenters) tell people not to put information about their personal life online unless they want other people to see it. If you attach your name, you should not expect it to magically disappear.
This is a hard truth to learn. Some people don't get it and are later angry. Some people get it, act accordingly, and prepare for/accept the consequences.
Actually, that's 00000000.
It means they're going to shove a red hot poker up the ass of anyone found to not be sufficiently consumerist in the proper manner.
You're entirely right. It was a poor choice of wording, but I don't have an edit button.
So, are they going to pay the guy for his time?
That, and if you're found to have been wrongfully convicted, the prosecutors/plaintiffs should be put on trial as an automatic action. Might make the system a bit fairer.
Yep. I agree that we should rely more on societal norms moderating peoples' actions rather than using the law for absolutely every last little instance. He got fired from his place of employment after posting a staged photo of him holding a knife to a co-workers throat.
That said, when you cross into actual, physical violence, or direct threats, the law can and should come down on you. One of his posts in question was actually talking about the difference between direct threats and speaking in a meta sense about threats. I've quoted that above in another post.
Just to clarify, I'm assuming in that scenario that the girl showed a license, did it on camera, with audio, and the (presumably fake) license is admitted as evidence, and it's a convincing fake. Just to make it clear, I'm assuming the case in which the person did the absolute best someone could be expected to do. He said/she said isn't going to cut it, clearly--but if you *did* have solid, incontrovertible evidence?
"the girl told me she was 18 and even showed me her driver's license with the age" will see no mercy as statutory rape generally has strict liability rules.
Would that be an actual case of entrapment, because you demonstrated that you were attempting to observe the laws to the best of your ability and to the best of the ability a reasonable person could reasonably be expected to have?
What? Offtopic? Did the mods miss TFS or TFA? This is about a guy being offensive.
"Hi, I’m Tone Elonis.
Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? . . . It’s one of the only sentences that I’m not allowed to say. . . . Now it was okay for me to say it right then because I was just telling you that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife. . . . Um, but what’s interesting is that it’s very illegal to say I really, really think someone out there should kill my wife. . . . But not illegal to say with a mortar launcher. Because that’s its own sentence. . . . I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be from the cornfield behind it because of easy access to a getaway road and you’d have a clear line of sight through the sun room. . . . Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated diagram. [diagram of the house]. . . ." Id., at 333.
Shit, this guy could practically be a Slashdot commenter.
And we have plenty of proof that they do monitor at ISPs. QED. Thank you for proving my point.
I am also pleased that they've finally posted it, but still seriously miffed that it took this long.
This is absurdly broad. Anyone want to venture prior art?
A computer-implemented method for providing output(s) of machine readable instructions comprises providing software comprising one or more lines of machine-readable instructions. The one or more lines are associated with an output upon execution by a computer processor, and the output comprises at least one visual and/or audible component. Next, the software is executed using a computer processor to generate the output. The one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then displayed on an electronic display of the user. In some cases, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are displayed on a web-based user interface on the electronic display. Based on one or more edits received from the user, the one or more lines of machine-readable instructions and the output are then updated. In some cases, the machine-readable instructions are updated without re-executing the software.
And I just donated to you fuckers.
If they weren't before, they will be now? /cynical
Give it a week.
It most certainly DOES affect anonymity. Read the slides, which explain how to set up a correlation attack. They can become the HSDirs for specific hidden services, for a pittance, and then they can run a correlation attack since you'll be having to go through them first to get to said hidden service.
How the fuck did this factually incorrect tripe get modded up?
This is not de-anonymizing anyone.
Really? The slides go over the needed steps to become an HSDir... or several HSDirs... and perform a correlation attack to de-anonymize someone. -1, Overrated.
The researchers essentially brute forced their way into running Tor's "hidden service DNS servers" for a day.
You only need 4 days uptime to become an HSDir. That's a pretty insignificant bar. They also still held 4 of those 6 spots on day #2. It cost a pittance. -1, Overrated.
The new hidden service proposal that fixes this issue among plenty of other improvement is being worked on.
Possibly the only useful part of your comment. +1 Informative.
Sheesh, I made a mod more offended than the person I was replying to? No sense of humor.
The test cases support the latter and help to prevent future devs from blaming you for causing bugs (assuming they at least run the tests).
FTFY.
Maybe its time to stop reading /.
Looks up at your UID. But you just started! Why leave when we're having all this fun?
It's okay. If you stick around here long enough, you'll get jaded and cynical and fit in perfectly with the groupthink.
The Romans may not have given us massive amounts of civil engineering technology or anything, but Latin has done something for us.
Latin's a dead language,
As dead as dead can be.
First it killed the Romans,
And now it's killing me.
c.f.
It's one word. Not two. Only 1 period. "cf." == "confer".
I often run into this.
If you answer a simple question with a simple, factual answer, and someone complains that the answer isn't to their satisfaction (barring factual errors), it indicates that that person has an axe to grind. These people are clueless shits and/or trolls. Either way, it's a waste of time talking to them.
Plus, many people seem unable tell a statement of fact from one of opinion. Over the years, I've informally asked people if they ever had to do an exercise in school asking them to distinguish between the two. The vast majority of people I've spoken with have said that they did not. /anecdote
Make sure to also read The Last Answer, as well.
I'll take this over Bennett any day. At least I don't have to scroll very far to get to the shit talking.
Welp, I see that the mods are out in farce today.