That tends to be the problem with the 'market solution' form of governance. Most people do not have the resources to move around if they do not like local polices and, as you point out, tend to have a pretty small voice in local politics because they are unable to leave.
Or the counterargument is that communities will form their own police for and system of rules that anyone living in the community has to abide by, with local groups of people picking representatives to get together and bring each communities' interests to a governing body, but it won't be a state damn it!
Of course they are fighting for special treatment. Don't you know that even playing fields are communist and lowering one's privilege to that of others is oppression?
Being treated like people 'beneath' you is oppressive, and companies older then 2 years using outdated technology, who fail to be new and hip, is the hight of insult. Can't they see their betters shouldn't be constrained by their rules? Next thing you know people are going to start asking for smaller religions to have the same rights and treatment as Christianity, and we know how oppressive of religious belief that is! The slime should know their place or we will build floating cities and leave all the takers for a maker paradise! Oh, but we will still need that economy and educational system, but since we are makers you shouldn't steal our money to pay for it.
Except the highest earners also benefit the most from the country. That 'net' assistance of the lower earners goes strait back into the pockets of the high earners, and per-capita they get a lot more of it then the working poor.
It should also be noted that when you look at those services were we are 'falling on our ass', our country is still doing better then the vast majority of the world in pretty much all of those categories. Our electrical grid has incredible uptime, almost everyone has power every day unless a storm or other disaster comes through and then we expect it to be up within hours, and we have power ALL DAY. Pretty much every home has running water and sewer, phone and internet service is available almost everywhere.
Yeah, there are countries that are doing better, but we are still doing pretty damn good compared to how most of the world lives. Our infrastructure is dependable, so dependable we bitch and moan about small issues like congestion and short blackouts. That is luxury, that is money that, while it could have been spent better, was still spent well enough that we take significant luxury infrastructure for granted.
We have hundreds of millions of people in this country with a wide range of ideas about what the best way to spend money is. Our government is not a monoculture, it is not a dictatorship, it is a complicated mess of competing interests, priorities, and philosophies. Nobody gets all the solutions they want because there is more then one person involved and they do not agree on pretty much everything.
Which is why the libertarian dream is to derive all the benefits of living in a country where public money is invested in the future while avoiding any of the responsibility or cost themselves. Silicon valley would be NOTHING if not for public investment to build off of.
The DoJ`s assertion here makes sense, US companies can escape the law simply because they store data off shore, now why can:t the IRS say the same thing?
Problem #2 is probably why they partnered up with MakerBot. They have that whole online service/community filled with templates and designs that one can download and print.
Given how many times I have gone into a Home Depot and been told XYZ part is no longer available, having some in-store fabrication like that would be really nice. When one is working on older homes it is pretty common to encounter parts that fit together but are no longer made and you REALLY just want to replace the broken piece rather then rip out the whole assembly.
Home Depot is one of the places selling these devices makes a lot of sense, though hobby stores that cater to people who need to fabricate miniatures would probably work better.
The flaw in your reasoning is these people are not illegal aliens. Rural poor are the largest group, and many of those families have been here for 100+ years.
While cashless might make sense to a middle class with easy access to technology and banks, there is a significant percentage of the population does not have access to such things and they probably will not any time soon. As much as 10% of the US population has no bank access, no SS ID, no IDs of any type, etc.
If we are going for the car metaphor, it would be closer to suing a bar owner for allowing an obviously intoxicated driver get in their car while having a bit advertising their bar as the place to go if you want to avoid cops knowing you are driving drunk.
Ford is neutral, Tor less so since its advocates make a big deal about how well it hides what you are doing from law enforcement and tracing.
Nobody's "giving a free pass" to the revenge porn site. We're just not talking about it, because the revenge porn people, in this particular case, aren't the ones making a public ass of themselves. "This woman" is, and thus, shall be the subject of our collective ridicule.
In that, hey, how sad is it that she's making herself look worse than a revenge porn site?
Read around a bit more. There are quite a few posts here that are putting all the blame on her
Yea - a law student. Who apparently doesn't actually understand the law. Again, not helping her own case here, both literally and metaphorically.
No, she does not understand Tor, which is different then not understanding the law. Going after companies who seem to be aiding in crime or advertising services that make criminal activity easier or undetectable is well within the law. This is why you can go after companies that say sell devices for getting free cable.
You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
Ah yes, the old 'it is not as bad as rape so it is ok' argument. So how bad does something have to be before victim blaming is a problem? Threats? Groping? Harassment? Date rape? Stranger rape? Rape and murder? When is victim blaming ok because the person is not really a victim?
As someone who is also close to multiple victims of violent rape, I take offense at your attitude that anything not as bad does not count since it trivializes all other forms of crimes related to sex. Which also makes it easier to trivialize rape.
It is a no brainer for people here because we have a good background knowledge of Tor and its wider context. To someone not as familiar with that particular part of the internet (and most people are not) it is not nearly as clear cut. It is not unusual for 3rd parties to have some degree of liability when people use their services for illegal activities, esp when their publicly advertised functionality looks like it might be a 'wink and nod' for illegal stuff. For instance pawn shops that deal in stolen goods can be charged unless then keep good enough records to show they are trying to be legit. There has been rumblings of scrap yards needing to keep better records since so much metal theft has been going on. 3rd parties can also be charged with money laundering if it looks like they are knowingly making it easy for criminals to hide profits. So this really is not a no-braining for an outsider to know which category Tor fits into.
And what harm is that exactly? Outside generating a lot of net-rage, this is unlikely to have any effect what so ever. The Tor Foundation will get dropped from the lawsuit as a co defendent and it will move forward against the primary one.
Thing is, the suit is not listing Tor as the attacker, she is (incorrectly) treating it as conspiring with the site.
To use your analogy, it would not be like suing the shoe company, but instead, say, a social venue like a club that knowingly has rapists and when an attack happen hides it behind a curtain, then has as a public selling point that if you are going to attack someone they will make sure no one can see.
She does not have a prayer of that part of the suit working due to safe harbor and Tor's legitimate uses, it is not unheard of to successfully go after services that knowingly build a business model off hiding crimes. It is the core of things like money laundering and why scrap yards and pawn shops are supposed to keep good records on who sells them what.
So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences? Why is it people who are actively crappy to others do not have this same mantra associated with them?
Oh yeah, freedom is for men, but women need to guard themselves and not cause trouble. Malicious acts are fine as long as you can slut shame the other person into silence.
Ah yes, it is not the boyfriend's fault, he has no control over his actions.
What is it with people wanting the person who actually did something crapy to not have any consequences? Well, at least when women are the victims and something like sex is involved.
Ah the Streisand effect, the ethical system were mobs can claim it is the person's own fault for daring to take legal action against something they like.
Slashdot Mirror
That tends to be the problem with the 'market solution' form of governance. Most people do not have the resources to move around if they do not like local polices and, as you point out, tend to have a pretty small voice in local politics because they are unable to leave.
Or the counterargument is that communities will form their own police for and system of rules that anyone living in the community has to abide by, with local groups of people picking representatives to get together and bring each communities' interests to a governing body, but it won't be a state damn it!
Of course they are fighting for special treatment. Don't you know that even playing fields are communist and lowering one's privilege to that of others is oppression?
Being treated like people 'beneath' you is oppressive, and companies older then 2 years using outdated technology, who fail to be new and hip, is the hight of insult. Can't they see their betters shouldn't be constrained by their rules? Next thing you know people are going to start asking for smaller religions to have the same rights and treatment as Christianity, and we know how oppressive of religious belief that is! The slime should know their place or we will build floating cities and leave all the takers for a maker paradise! Oh, but we will still need that economy and educational system, but since we are makers you shouldn't steal our money to pay for it.
Except the highest earners also benefit the most from the country. That 'net' assistance of the lower earners goes strait back into the pockets of the high earners, and per-capita they get a lot more of it then the working poor.
It should also be noted that when you look at those services were we are 'falling on our ass', our country is still doing better then the vast majority of the world in pretty much all of those categories. Our electrical grid has incredible uptime, almost everyone has power every day unless a storm or other disaster comes through and then we expect it to be up within hours, and we have power ALL DAY. Pretty much every home has running water and sewer, phone and internet service is available almost everywhere.
Yeah, there are countries that are doing better, but we are still doing pretty damn good compared to how most of the world lives. Our infrastructure is dependable, so dependable we bitch and moan about small issues like congestion and short blackouts. That is luxury, that is money that, while it could have been spent better, was still spent well enough that we take significant luxury infrastructure for granted.
We have hundreds of millions of people in this country with a wide range of ideas about what the best way to spend money is. Our government is not a monoculture, it is not a dictatorship, it is a complicated mess of competing interests, priorities, and philosophies. Nobody gets all the solutions they want because there is more then one person involved and they do not agree on pretty much everything.
Which is why the libertarian dream is to derive all the benefits of living in a country where public money is invested in the future while avoiding any of the responsibility or cost themselves. Silicon valley would be NOTHING if not for public investment to build off of.
In a "free market", people can still come and bulldoze your house. Who is going to stop them?
Would not making the next Thor be lazy pandering too then?
Now that is the important question.
The DoJ`s assertion here makes sense, US companies can escape the law simply because they store data off shore, now why can:t the IRS say the same thing?
Problem #2 is probably why they partnered up with MakerBot. They have that whole online service/community filled with templates and designs that one can download and print.
Given how many times I have gone into a Home Depot and been told XYZ part is no longer available, having some in-store fabrication like that would be really nice. When one is working on older homes it is pretty common to encounter parts that fit together but are no longer made and you REALLY just want to replace the broken piece rather then rip out the whole assembly.
What would you do with a tablesaw?
Home Depot is one of the places selling these devices makes a lot of sense, though hobby stores that cater to people who need to fabricate miniatures would probably work better.
The flaw in your reasoning is these people are not illegal aliens. Rural poor are the largest group, and many of those families have been here for 100+ years.
While cashless might make sense to a middle class with easy access to technology and banks, there is a significant percentage of the population does not have access to such things and they probably will not any time soon. As much as 10% of the US population has no bank access, no SS ID, no IDs of any type, etc.
Because they are not doing the best work. Often they are not doing any of the work, they simply have brand value.
She is going after both.
If we are going for the car metaphor, it would be closer to suing a bar owner for allowing an obviously intoxicated driver get in their car while having a bit advertising their bar as the place to go if you want to avoid cops knowing you are driving drunk.
Ford is neutral, Tor less so since its advocates make a big deal about how well it hides what you are doing from law enforcement and tracing.
Nobody's "giving a free pass" to the revenge porn site. We're just not talking about it, because the revenge porn people, in this particular case, aren't the ones making a public ass of themselves. "This woman" is, and thus, shall be the subject of our collective ridicule.
In that, hey, how sad is it that she's making herself look worse than a revenge porn site?
Read around a bit more. There are quite a few posts here that are putting all the blame on her
Yea - a law student. Who apparently doesn't actually understand the law. Again, not helping her own case here, both literally and metaphorically.
No, she does not understand Tor, which is different then not understanding the law. Going after companies who seem to be aiding in crime or advertising services that make criminal activity easier or undetectable is well within the law. This is why you can go after companies that say sell devices for getting free cable.
You know, as a close relative of a victim of violent sexual assault, I take offense to your supposition that what my family member went through is exactly the same as what this woman is doing to herself. Don't bandy about the term "rape" for everything you disagree with, as it desensitizes people from the severity of that particular crime.
Ah yes, the old 'it is not as bad as rape so it is ok' argument. So how bad does something have to be before victim blaming is a problem? Threats? Groping? Harassment? Date rape? Stranger rape? Rape and murder? When is victim blaming ok because the person is not really a victim?
As someone who is also close to multiple victims of violent rape, I take offense at your attitude that anything not as bad does not count since it trivializes all other forms of crimes related to sex. Which also makes it easier to trivialize rape.
It is a no brainer for people here because we have a good background knowledge of Tor and its wider context. To someone not as familiar with that particular part of the internet (and most people are not) it is not nearly as clear cut. It is not unusual for 3rd parties to have some degree of liability when people use their services for illegal activities, esp when their publicly advertised functionality looks like it might be a 'wink and nod' for illegal stuff. For instance pawn shops that deal in stolen goods can be charged unless then keep good enough records to show they are trying to be legit. There has been rumblings of scrap yards needing to keep better records since so much metal theft has been going on. 3rd parties can also be charged with money laundering if it looks like they are knowingly making it easy for criminals to hide profits. So this really is not a no-braining for an outsider to know which category Tor fits into.
And what harm is that exactly? Outside generating a lot of net-rage, this is unlikely to have any effect what so ever. The Tor Foundation will get dropped from the lawsuit as a co defendent and it will move forward against the primary one.
Thing is, the suit is not listing Tor as the attacker, she is (incorrectly) treating it as conspiring with the site.
To use your analogy, it would not be like suing the shoe company, but instead, say, a social venue like a club that knowingly has rapists and when an attack happen hides it behind a curtain, then has as a public selling point that if you are going to attack someone they will make sure no one can see.
She does not have a prayer of that part of the suit working due to safe harbor and Tor's legitimate uses, it is not unheard of to successfully go after services that knowingly build a business model off hiding crimes. It is the core of things like money laundering and why scrap yards and pawn shops are supposed to keep good records on who sells them what.
So... why is it the people who upload and host this stuff do not have consequences? Why is it people who are actively crappy to others do not have this same mantra associated with them?
Oh yeah, freedom is for men, but women need to guard themselves and not cause trouble. Malicious acts are fine as long as you can slut shame the other person into silence.
Ah yes, it is not the boyfriend's fault, he has no control over his actions.
What is it with people wanting the person who actually did something crapy to not have any consequences? Well, at least when women are the victims and something like sex is involved.
It looks like Tor will probably get dropped from the suit, the judge is unlikely to allow that part to go forward.
Ah the Streisand effect, the ethical system were mobs can claim it is the person's own fault for daring to take legal action against something they like.