Had they previously had consensual sex? Then the first two lines were factual.
Ok. In that case, I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the truth or falsehood of the accusations. You're surely aware that attack by strangers accounts for a minority of all rapes.
In a murder trial, would you point out that, at some determined point in time prior to the victim's death, they were most definitely not being murdered by the defendant?
Well, sex which starts consensually but continues after consent is withdrawn is not consensual sex. So that's the first two lines shot.
And then you just casually tossed in language like "come up with" and "raped" in scare-quotes, with no particular reason to do so. If the allegations are true, they didn't just "come up with a story", and there's no reason to put rape in quotes; the events, as described by the accusers, are rape.
Two different women with a chance to co-ordinate their stories.
Uh, you know that this is how rape investigations often work, right? Rapists typically victimize more than one person, and they typically do so in a fashion that leaves the victims with no real evidence against them except for their own testimony? That isn't much to go on, and alone it is rarely enough to get a conviction, and to come forward with a rape accusation without any proof generally means facing a world full of skeptical criticism just like what's going on all over here, so it doesn't take a huge leap of insight to see that many such victims won't ever tell their stories unless they first find each other.
[a bunch of bullshit which you don't, in any sense of the word, 'know']
What a coincidence, obviously we should construct a narrative which assumes that they're lying because they're clearly just a couple of angry bitches who want to take down a nice guy and brave a shitstorm of skeptical and crypto-misogynistic Internet glibertarians casting aspersions on their character, shouting loudly about how there's no evidence it was nonconsensual except for their word on the topic, and quietly disregarding that there's no evidence it was consensual except for his word on the topic.
but if ISPs started switching to this model, what is to stop an ISP from just doing things as SOP (flat-rate) and making hand over fist when all the streamers, gamers, downloaders jump ship of the ISPs bilking them from the new model?.
Well, then that ISP would find that it has to buy enough bandwidth to service a lot of streamers, gamers and downloaders, but it wouldn't be able to offset that bandwidth cost by charging Grandma $45 a month for 10 or 15 SMTP and POP3 transactions. All those grandmas would be quite happy sticking with their (now much cheaper) ISPs, and you won't have their subscription money to help subsidize the hungrier customers.
If anything, this will be an incentive for ISPs to start trying to build out their networks and actually make an effort to deliver as many bytes as possible, since suddenly extra network capacity becomes extra earning potential, rather than something they just have to maintain in order to keep people from leaving.
The actual per-byte price will have to be competitive if they don't want to lose all their customers - but imagine if Comcast's engineers started looking at things like Netflix as a sales opportunity rather than a nuisance to their infrastructure!
It's so they can continue to sell their content to "first-run" network broadcasters at an artificially high price, while doing a halfhearted bare minimum to be able to claim that they're playing nice with online distributors and trying to give their geeky customers an alternative to piracy.
Ubuntu lets you choose too. If you want off the roller coaster and just want a stable system based on proven technology, install an LTS and wait for the next LTS. Easy.
Yeah. I can't think of a way to make this system work, except using a database which would constitute the kind of personally-identified tracking system that it seeks to prevent. In order to get website maintainers to comply with these rules, the government would have to provide them with exactly that data which they're being forbidden to collect, and then, I don't know - put them on the honour system, make them pinky-swear not to use it for anything but the intended purpose? Is that the plan?
You create. You can sue someone who uses it improperly, and win. That is a right.
You grant a license. The licensee uses your work. You used to be able to sue them for such a use. Now you can't. Your aforementioned right no longer exists.
(assuming you had such a right in the first place. Plenty of asshole EULAs give the user 'permission' to do things which they were already entitled to do.)
Slashdot Mirror
Had they previously had consensual sex? Then the first two lines were factual.
Ok. In that case, I'm not sure what bearing you think this has on the truth or falsehood of the accusations. You're surely aware that attack by strangers accounts for a minority of all rapes.
In a murder trial, would you point out that, at some determined point in time prior to the victim's death, they were most definitely not being murdered by the defendant?
Well, sex which starts consensually but continues after consent is withdrawn is not consensual sex. So that's the first two lines shot.
And then you just casually tossed in language like "come up with" and "raped" in scare-quotes, with no particular reason to do so. If the allegations are true, they didn't just "come up with a story", and there's no reason to put rape in quotes; the events, as described by the accusers, are rape.
Two different women with a chance to co-ordinate their stories.
Uh, you know that this is how rape investigations often work, right? Rapists typically victimize more than one person, and they typically do so in a fashion that leaves the victims with no real evidence against them except for their own testimony? That isn't much to go on, and alone it is rarely enough to get a conviction, and to come forward with a rape accusation without any proof generally means facing a world full of skeptical criticism just like what's going on all over here, so it doesn't take a huge leap of insight to see that many such victims won't ever tell their stories unless they first find each other.
Well, let’s see. What we know:
[a bunch of bullshit which you don't, in any sense of the word, 'know']
What a coincidence, obviously we should construct a narrative which assumes that they're lying because they're clearly just a couple of angry bitches who want to take down a nice guy and brave a shitstorm of skeptical and crypto-misogynistic Internet glibertarians casting aspersions on their character, shouting loudly about how there's no evidence it was nonconsensual except for their word on the topic, and quietly disregarding that there's no evidence it was consensual except for his word on the topic.
FTFY. No need to thank me.
Let's all just simmer down now.
Those are probably a hell of a lot easier to blacklist for anti-abuse purposes too.
You've got one. It is the device between your keyboard and your chair.
I for one welcome everyone dogpiling onto the first post to make fun of the people making fun of the people making fun.
but if ISPs started switching to this model, what is to stop an ISP from just doing things as SOP (flat-rate) and making hand over fist when all the streamers, gamers, downloaders jump ship of the ISPs bilking them from the new model?.
Well, then that ISP would find that it has to buy enough bandwidth to service a lot of streamers, gamers and downloaders, but it wouldn't be able to offset that bandwidth cost by charging Grandma $45 a month for 10 or 15 SMTP and POP3 transactions. All those grandmas would be quite happy sticking with their (now much cheaper) ISPs, and you won't have their subscription money to help subsidize the hungrier customers.
Yeah; peering agreements between providers are definitely commerce.
If anything, this will be an incentive for ISPs to start trying to build out their networks and actually make an effort to deliver as many bytes as possible, since suddenly extra network capacity becomes extra earning potential, rather than something they just have to maintain in order to keep people from leaving.
The actual per-byte price will have to be competitive if they don't want to lose all their customers - but imagine if Comcast's engineers started looking at things like Netflix as a sales opportunity rather than a nuisance to their infrastructure!
It's so they can continue to sell their content to "first-run" network broadcasters at an artificially high price, while doing a halfhearted bare minimum to be able to claim that they're playing nice with online distributors and trying to give their geeky customers an alternative to piracy.
Not unless they want to put a specific bleeding-edge app onto an older, more stable base distro.
That's what backports and PPAs are for!
I love Onstad and I wish he would update his comic.
Ubuntu lets you choose too. If you want off the roller coaster and just want a stable system based on proven technology, install an LTS and wait for the next LTS. Easy.
Yeah. I can't think of a way to make this system work, except using a database which would constitute the kind of personally-identified tracking system that it seeks to prevent. In order to get website maintainers to comply with these rules, the government would have to provide them with exactly that data which they're being forbidden to collect, and then, I don't know - put them on the honour system, make them pinky-swear not to use it for anything but the intended purpose? Is that the plan?
So how exactly are websites going to keep track of who has opted out of being tracked?
"To affirm that you do not consent to appearing in a list, please add your name to this list."
And no, most rich people do not have empathy.
Perhaps more pertinently, most people with empathy do not become rich.
If you are guilty of any crime, YOU ARE GUILTY OF ALL CRIMES.
Principle of explosion, right?
"Sorry. Voice mailbox full."
Goddammit, he's Slashdotted.
To be fair, the summary (and the article it quotes) does a completely miserable job of describing the feature in question.
and win
Yes. Did you? Try it again and you'll see it.
You create. You can sue someone who uses it improperly, and win. That is a right.
You grant a license. The licensee uses your work. You used to be able to sue them for such a use. Now you can't. Your aforementioned right no longer exists.
See? Pretty straightforward.
(assuming you had such a right in the first place. Plenty of asshole EULAs give the user 'permission' to do things which they were already entitled to do.)