You might send up some red flags when you unlock an unoccupied room while housekeeping is not making their rounds; and if you unlock the room during their rounds they're likely to visit the room while you're in it, or see you entering the room they just finished cleaning and know is supposed to be empty. Expect a visit from hotel management shortly after you settle in if you try this.
Yeah, what I read was "we don't need to test anymore because our testing has proven that what we have works." In other words, we now have a nuclear-armed North Korea with mid-range missiles and ICBMs -- and our President thinks that's good news because it means the testing has stopped.
It's still SESTA that talks about websites, so when you single out websites...
...then you aren't in this conversation, which is about Cloudflare.
Several times now, you've tried to direct the conversation as though I were talking about one thing when I was clearly talking about another. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. That would be why I'm not addressing all of your points.
You know that "escort service" is not "prostitution", right?
I do. Then again, that has nothing to do with my post, other than the fact that I used the word "escort" the same way the post I was replying to did, primarily so as not to confuse the person to whom I was replying. If you want to correct someone, correct them.
The bill would make websites criminally liable for hosting ads and other content linked to a sex-trafficking enterprise. The result would be a major exception to existing Safe Harbor provisions, and has been opposed by groups like the EFF and ACLU
Well, the EFF and ACLU have staff lawyers. Are you an attorney? No? I'll trust their interpretation, then.
I didn't misunderstand, I simply told you that your first sentence was wrong. It is NOT "more like" finding out after the fact that the customer was doing something illegal, it requires knowing BEFORE THE FACT that the intended use is illegal and selling the service WITH THE INTENT of promoting that illegal act.
Ah, I see, you think I was talking about FOSTA, so you did misunderstand. FOSTA came up later in my comment, but the bit you misunderstood there was in response to:
A more apt example would be selling someone a gun when you know they intend to use it to use it to rob a bank. Surprise, that is already illegal!
which, in turn, was in response to:
Imagine a law that says you cannot serve food in restaurants to anyone that either has a felony conviction or is a suspect in an ongoing case in any jurisdiction in the US.
Now, that last one was about FOSTA, but it was also wrong.
Additionally, the following statement you made is also wrong, for the same reason. If you have no way of knowing what someone will use the service for, then you cannot have the requisite intent of selling it to them for the promotion of that illegal activity.
Ah, that logic works fine for a gun, because the gun leaves your store before being used in the commission of a crime (unless it's used to rob your store, of course). It falls apart when referring to a service rendered wholly on your premises, such as the services offered by Cloudflare because, ostensibly, you should know what is being done on your premises. Once it's been used for illegal purposes, you can no longer claim you didn't know; and, unlike a gun, it's not something you sell once and you're no longer involved -- Cloudflare is providing services until they or the client choose to stop.
I think my comment that you apparently agree with the laws shows I understood that you agreed with the laws.
Then you certainly misunderstood.
Before FOSTA, Cloudflare had the option of simply not looking at what their services were being used for and, until and unless someone reported illegal activity to them and they failed to act on that report, they would bear no liability. A prosecutor could rant on and on all day long about intent and, even were they able to convince a judge and a jury that Cloudflare intended to allow these things on their platform, unless they can prove that Cloudflare had specific knowledge, which they could avoid by simply not looking, Cloudflare would have no liability. Now, with FOSTA, they must look; not looking may be construed as intent, as you're effectively (and intentionally) allowing anything and everything that you aren't specifically looking for.
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote, because nothing you wrote after what I just quoted disagrees with my point. In fact, that's one of two points I was trying to make.
I never said "just", did I? Also, one site does not the entire market make. Pick up a sleazy adult mag, flip to the back pages, and do your research before you reply. Of course, ignore any ads that don't include a URL; but you'll find at least one ad there that shows a lot of leg.
Because that's one of the ways escort sites advertise.
If you're on the actual site, well, the advertising worked. I wouldn't know what that looks like, though, because I've never had to pay for "company".
All plausible. It really will be impossible to differentiate ignorance from malice in this instance, I believe... unless you consider purposely attempting to legislate something you do not understand without taking the time to at least attempt to understand it a malicious act, in which case we're looking at clear-cut malice no matter what angle we look from.
I, for one, always consider willful ignorance to be malicious.
Actually, it's more like selling someone a gun, then learning after the fact that they intend to use it to rob a bank, with the slight difference that, in this case, Cloudflare can take the gun back. In neither case, though, is there (nor should there be) any liability for the initial sale; except that FOSTA actually puts that liability on Cloudflare even though they have no way of knowing what someone will use their service for until after they've used it.
Now, if you want to say Cloudflare should be liable for illegal activities they're aware of, facilitated by their services, and don't take action to stop, we can probably agree on that. And, funny enough, that's exactly what the existing Safe Harbor laws already do.
And both are wrong as both harm people who've done nothing wrong. Isn't the point of law supposed to be to protect the innocent? When law harms the innocent, the law has gone awry.
It does matter if you're going to accuse them of doing it to cover up spotty coverage. If you have no coverage, you get no ringtone because your call never connects to their network for them to fake the ringtone in the first place; suddenly, it matters who's calling who.
I suppose in this case they were fined because they were doing this in order to cover up their spotty coverage. As in it was malicious.
Other way around. They weren't playing the ringtown to people calling their customers from rural areas, they were playing the ringtone to their customers calling landlines in rural areas. read the comment you replied to again, they explained the reasoning quite aptly.
Nevermind, I clicked to expand the definition, and sure enough you're right:
hawk2
hôk/
verb
gerund or present participle: hawking
carry around and offer (goods) for sale, typically advertising them by shouting.
"street traders were hawking costume jewelry"
synonyms: peddle, sell, tout, vend, trade in, traffic in, push
"hawking his wares on the street"
Huh, well, I'm guessing you didn't grab a dictionary before you posted, either. I did, after reading your post, and, well...
hawk1
hôk/
verb
gerund or present participle: hawking
1.
(of a person) hunt game with a trained hawk.
"he spent the afternoon hawking"
2.
(of a bird or dragonfly) hunt on the wing for food.
"swifts hawked low over the water"
I prefer noninflammable because it confuses people who don't know that flammable and inflammable are the same thing, but do know that one should not use a double negative. They know it can't possibly mean not-not-flammable, but they can't reconcile that knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
You might send up some red flags when you unlock an unoccupied room while housekeeping is not making their rounds; and if you unlock the room during their rounds they're likely to visit the room while you're in it, or see you entering the room they just finished cleaning and know is supposed to be empty. Expect a visit from hotel management shortly after you settle in if you try this.
Yeah, what I read was "we don't need to test anymore because our testing has proven that what we have works." In other words, we now have a nuclear-armed North Korea with mid-range missiles and ICBMs -- and our President thinks that's good news because it means the testing has stopped.
It's still SESTA that talks about websites, so when you single out websites...
...then you aren't in this conversation, which is about Cloudflare.
Several times now, you've tried to direct the conversation as though I were talking about one thing when I was clearly talking about another. Sorry, I'm not going to play that game. That would be why I'm not addressing all of your points.
Cloudflare is not a website [...] By the way, if you read the law, it is SESTA that talks about websites.
Right, that's why I'm talking about the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act.
You know that "escort service" is not "prostitution", right?
I do. Then again, that has nothing to do with my post, other than the fact that I used the word "escort" the same way the post I was replying to did, primarily so as not to confuse the person to whom I was replying. If you want to correct someone, correct them.
FOSTA requires INTENT
Oh?
The bill would make websites criminally liable for hosting ads and other content linked to a sex-trafficking enterprise. The result would be a major exception to existing Safe Harbor provisions, and has been opposed by groups like the EFF and ACLU
Well, the EFF and ACLU have staff lawyers. Are you an attorney? No? I'll trust their interpretation, then.
I didn't misunderstand, I simply told you that your first sentence was wrong. It is NOT "more like" finding out after the fact that the customer was doing something illegal, it requires knowing BEFORE THE FACT that the intended use is illegal and selling the service WITH THE INTENT of promoting that illegal act.
Ah, I see, you think I was talking about FOSTA, so you did misunderstand. FOSTA came up later in my comment, but the bit you misunderstood there was in response to:
A more apt example would be selling someone a gun when you know they intend to use it to use it to rob a bank. Surprise, that is already illegal!
which, in turn, was in response to:
Imagine a law that says you cannot serve food in restaurants to anyone that either has a felony conviction or is a suspect in an ongoing case in any jurisdiction in the US.
Now, that last one was about FOSTA, but it was also wrong.
Additionally, the following statement you made is also wrong, for the same reason. If you have no way of knowing what someone will use the service for, then you cannot have the requisite intent of selling it to them for the promotion of that illegal activity.
Ah, that logic works fine for a gun, because the gun leaves your store before being used in the commission of a crime (unless it's used to rob your store, of course). It falls apart when referring to a service rendered wholly on your premises, such as the services offered by Cloudflare because, ostensibly, you should know what is being done on your premises. Once it's been used for illegal purposes, you can no longer claim you didn't know; and, unlike a gun, it's not something you sell once and you're no longer involved -- Cloudflare is providing services until they or the client choose to stop.
I think my comment that you apparently agree with the laws shows I understood that you agreed with the laws.
Then you certainly misunderstood.
Before FOSTA, Cloudflare had the option of simply not looking at what their services were being used for and, until and unless someone reported illegal activity to them and they failed to act on that report, they would bear no liability. A prosecutor could rant on and on all day long about intent and, even were they able to convince a judge and a jury that Cloudflare intended to allow these things on their platform, unless they can prove that Cloudflare had specific knowledge, which they could avoid by simply not looking, Cloudflare would have no liability. Now, with FOSTA, they must look; not looking may be construed as intent, as you're effectively (and intentionally) allowing anything and everything that you aren't specifically looking for.
Actually you are wrong.
You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote, because nothing you wrote after what I just quoted disagrees with my point. In fact, that's one of two points I was trying to make.
I never said "just", did I? Also, one site does not the entire market make. Pick up a sleazy adult mag, flip to the back pages, and do your research before you reply. Of course, ignore any ads that don't include a URL; but you'll find at least one ad there that shows a lot of leg.
Because that's one of the ways escort sites advertise.
If you're on the actual site, well, the advertising worked. I wouldn't know what that looks like, though, because I've never had to pay for "company".
It is, in fact, and it largely does away with the Safe Harbor provisions. Read my first paragraph again to learn why that's a problem.
All plausible. It really will be impossible to differentiate ignorance from malice in this instance, I believe... unless you consider purposely attempting to legislate something you do not understand without taking the time to at least attempt to understand it a malicious act, in which case we're looking at clear-cut malice no matter what angle we look from.
I, for one, always consider willful ignorance to be malicious.
You know showing a lot of leg isn't porn, right? It's one of the ways escort websites advertise, though. Then again, so is porn.
Actually, it's more like selling someone a gun, then learning after the fact that they intend to use it to rob a bank, with the slight difference that, in this case, Cloudflare can take the gun back. In neither case, though, is there (nor should there be) any liability for the initial sale; except that FOSTA actually puts that liability on Cloudflare even though they have no way of knowing what someone will use their service for until after they've used it.
Now, if you want to say Cloudflare should be liable for illegal activities they're aware of, facilitated by their services, and don't take action to stop, we can probably agree on that. And, funny enough, that's exactly what the existing Safe Harbor laws already do.
And both are wrong as both harm people who've done nothing wrong. Isn't the point of law supposed to be to protect the innocent? When law harms the innocent, the law has gone awry.
Until someone develops an assembly robot assembly robot, then all the work will be in assembling those.
It does matter if you're going to accuse them of doing it to cover up spotty coverage. If you have no coverage, you get no ringtone because your call never connects to their network for them to fake the ringtone in the first place; suddenly, it matters who's calling who.
I suppose in this case they were fined because they were doing this in order to cover up their spotty coverage. As in it was malicious.
Other way around. They weren't playing the ringtown to people calling their customers from rural areas, they were playing the ringtone to their customers calling landlines in rural areas. read the comment you replied to again, they explained the reasoning quite aptly.
Graphene is carbon... what happens when the batteries are disposed of? Or when they burn after a catastrophic failure?
Nice, but you're the one who planted the "approved" goalpost.
and graciously allow some people to run "approved" Linux distributions in WSL
Except for the tool they released, which was featured on the front page earlier this week, to allow you to install your distro of choice.
Nevermind, I clicked to expand the definition, and sure enough you're right:
hawk2
hôk/
verb
gerund or present participle: hawking
carry around and offer (goods) for sale, typically advertising them by shouting.
"street traders were hawking costume jewelry"
synonyms: peddle, sell, tout, vend, trade in, traffic in, push
"hawking his wares on the street"
I believe I'll just take my seat, now.
Huh, well, I'm guessing you didn't grab a dictionary before you posted, either. I did, after reading your post, and, well...
hawk1
hôk/
verb
gerund or present participle: hawking
1.
(of a person) hunt game with a trained hawk.
"he spent the afternoon hawking"
2.
(of a bird or dragonfly) hunt on the wing for food.
"swifts hawked low over the water"
If more people realized this, it would be so much easier to get them on board with distributed social media networks.
I prefer noninflammable because it confuses people who don't know that flammable and inflammable are the same thing, but do know that one should not use a double negative. They know it can't possibly mean not-not-flammable, but they can't reconcile that knowledge.
The advertisers we're being sold to, who are hocking products we don't want and aren't going to buy?