When they whine about free speech, we remind them that enemy combatants don't have rights.
Interesting. So saying despicable things makes them enemy combatants?
I despise the alt-right as much as you do, as the sniveling little shitheads they are. But careful, cowboy.
No, it isn't. Extortion is defined as the use of force or threat to achieve a gain of some sort for the party threatening the use of force (i.e., I put a gun to your head and say "I won't shoot you if you give me $100, otherwise I will").
It also isn't blackmail unless Wikileaks is attempting to achieve some sort of gain for themselves by threatening to release the information publicly unless these companies fail to pay them.
In other words, if wikileaks isn't gaining anything (money etc) from this, it isn't extortion or blackmail. It's Wikileaks allowing the tech companies to fix the holes the CIA created before they release information about those holes to the general public - thereby possibly allowing the tech companies to save face. That makes sense, since it's quite possible that it's no fault of any of these companies that the CIA decided to completely trash their products in the name of spying on everyone. The damage is already done, in other words, and there's really nothing stopping Wikileaks from just telling the world what the damage is. It's kind of nice of them to give Microsoft etc some breathing room first, so that when they do release details on the damage done, they can also include information that shows these tech companies have already fixed the problems.
...to call BullShit on this story. Assuming someone hasn't already done so)
Sorry, it's simply not believable that he would have been given such a test, with such explicit, and actually fairly demanding questions.
Try again.
Beat me to it. And then to think that a border/customs agent administered it? And then checked his answers? Come on.
*Sigh.* Again, what I meant was that SHE doesn't need an attorney and therefore wouldn't necessarily be required to foot that expense.
I am really curious, though, for the entertainment value (even if the saner part of me may regret asking). What other "class of legal beagle" were you referring to?
Sorry, what I meant (and I wasn't clear) was that she should wait until they try to come after her for it. A ding on her credit report, harassing her for the money, selling the account to a 3rd party and representing this amount as correct, her inability to get credit at another company for a cell phone because of the report, etc might qualify as damages.
Not being a lawyer, I wouldn't make a prediction on the "emotional distress" component, though stranger things have happened...
Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff. And no, even if they were to sue her, they'd have to do it in the county of her residence, or the court has no jurisdiction. You can't just sue someone in NY when your business is in CO and she lives in GA, because you think the NY court is going to rule in your favor.
Secondly, regarding arbitration - even if they produce a contract that they can prove she agreed to (far from a certainty), they're probably not going to want to actually go through with arbitration on a $10K claim.
Thirdly, your last comment is so asinine I'm not sure how to respond to it. The arbitrator is not biased against the litigant because there's some shady deal in which they make "millions" by Verizon bringing them cases. Verizon (and all major corporations) generally avoid actual courtrooms and arbitration whenever possible because it costs one hell of a lot of money (even if they win). So, no, that "obvious bias" doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination. If there's a bias (and I'm certainly not insinuating that the AAA is always as impartial as it claims to be) it wouldn't be for that reason.
It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.
Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys (or at least it's not unusual to not have one). Fight it. That kind of mentality is why they try this sort of thing. If everyone they did this to took them to small claims court they'd think twice.
Got a "buddy" in the process of suing AT&T like this right now. They've already offered to settle for about 50% of what he was asking for. He's holding out.
So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility.
Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.
Right, and the result of this is repression of creativity. If you can't borrow on another's idea, expand on it, take it in a new direction (to use a common example, I'm thinking about Shakespeare set in different eras, highlighting themes more relevant to the current age than to the author's, etc) without being heavily penalized, then no one will try - at least not in the open.
It's easy to immediately assign the worst possible motives to the perpetrators. Those motives may or may not exist - maybe we can't know the insides of their heads. But the effects of these kinds of laws are the same; regardless of whether those who write these laws actually intend to repress free speech/expression and destroy freedom, that will be the result.
$12.50/hr works out to about $2K/month. A quick Zillow search of apartments in the SF area turns up nothing (not one) under $1K/month. The cheapest thing I could find (in 5 minutes, I grant you, but still) was $1300 - for a 140 square feet studio apartment (that's 14ft by 10ft - smaller than the single room I'm sitting in right now).
Maybe she's an idiot for living in SF. But regardless, if that's what housing costs in SF, $2K/month ain't gonna cut it.
It's no longer "copyright", it's a gagging order for the common man.
*This.* Call it paranoia if you want, but I think that's exactly where this is headed - the death of free speech/expression (and not just on the internet - anywhere; these rules don't just apply to the web). Of course not every case will (or can) be tried, but you don't want to be used as the deterrent example, and neither do I. So, shut up civilian, and let the government/mass media tell you what to think. Then don't you dare criticize it, or the penalties will be more than you care to deal with.
I think we're saying the same thing, essentially. Whether the finances are a means of control, or the control is a means of gaining more finances, in the end the result is the same - a ruling elite with everything, and a peasant class to serve them.
I don't think pornography is taboo in western society. The idea that western society considers it shameful is a straw man created by western media. It's only used for shaming if a person "needs" to be shamed for other reasons (ironically, extreme religious beliefs are often used in the same way) - i.e., Charlie over there won't carry the party line, so we need some dirt on him to make him go away. Did you know he watches porn?? GASP
On the contrary - the average person doesn't really care what you watch online in private, as they likely watch plenty of the same stuff themselves (or both). I don't have statistics in front of me and I'm too lazy to go looking for them at the moment, but I believe it's estimated that something like 60% of 12 year olds in the US are already hooked. It's safe to say most people watch porn or have at some point - if that's true, then any "taboo" is artificial.
All this will do is kill a certain proportion of UK porn websites...
My point is that shutting down porn sites (following the rules or otherwise) isn't the goal. In fact, if I'm right about it being more about revenue than anything else, shutting down these sites runs contrary to the actual goal - because a shut down site can't pay a fine. Crusades like this never produce real results - there may be an "example" or two made in the beginning, but that's just more about continuing the program and keeping a few thousand overpaid bureaucrats in a job - i.e., making sure the funding keeps on coming. Fines and tax revenue make sure that gravy train never stops - so in the end, it's just tool for channeling all real money to the ruling class. Jerk off to your silly porn all you want, peasant.
If the government really cared about shutting down porn sites, they'd just shut them down, and no, it wouldn't be impossible. If GHCQ and the NSA can record and archive every single voice call in the developed world, and build a search engine for finding single phrases in those calls at will, then they know damn well what you're watching online and whether or not it's "legit" or not. Similarly, making porn impossible (or so difficult as to be utterly impractical for all but the most die-hard) to obtain would be relatively trivial.
The government knows damn well that ideas like this are unenforceable. It's not about banning porn anymore than it's about protecting children (as if the government gives a shit about your kids safety). It's about revenue. You can't keep kids from seeing porn - but you can fine the hell out of anyone you catch not following the law. The harder it is to follow the law, the better! If nobody can actually be compliant, then everyone pays a fine.
"My first change is from Supra Cat-7+ to Audioquest Cinnamon playing a piece from Eric Satie, a performance by Alexandre Tharaud of Gnossienne No. 1. I immediately notice an increase in air and a wider stage with the Cinnamon. The recording room has grown and the playback is a little more fluid, more natural I would say."
Oh brother. Somebody needs to set this jackass up in a blind test (with 2 cheap cables and nothing else, of course) and ask him which is the $10K cable. Film the results and post them for a laugh.
Egoistic psychopaths and narcissists who lack any semblance of taste will pay a fortune for that poseur status and they will kill anyone and everyone, either directly or indirectly through indifference to the outcomes of their actions, to earn the money to pay for that status. This so they can pose over their poor they create.
Holy shit, that's the best description of the United States I've ever read.
Sadly, so many kids today seem to see their music as disposable, and many have never HEARD what a good sound system can sound like...and only know white, cheap earbuds...or worse...the thudding of "Beats" headphones, that so far I've yet to find a tweeter installed.
Well hell, what with the steaming shite they listen to, does it make a difference? I doubt a decent system is going to make the average poptart sound any better. Maybe worse, actually.
Eh, no. Not having access to the multiplayer capabilities of any game is not going to change much about my life - EA might wish it did, but at worst it'd be a minor inconvenience requiring the acquisition of some other entertainment (a 5-second endeavor).
Roger, same here. I just don't "need" new games bad enough to eat their bullshit, and regardless there are other studios out there who don't practice this screw-the-customer-at-every-turn routine. It's typical corporate greed - yes, they can do everything just short of actually sending a goon to your house to rape you and your dog, and there will still be plenty of people who buy their crap and they'll still make a profit. But I don't have to be one of them.
Hilarious! Ah, the irony of ad hominem attacks made while parading some imaginary skill in rationality. I love how people take this kind of thing so personally. You are entertaining, friend.
Slashdot Mirror
When they whine about free speech, we remind them that enemy combatants don't have rights.
Interesting. So saying despicable things makes them enemy combatants? I despise the alt-right as much as you do, as the sniveling little shitheads they are. But careful, cowboy.
This is extortion.
No, it isn't. Extortion is defined as the use of force or threat to achieve a gain of some sort for the party threatening the use of force (i.e., I put a gun to your head and say "I won't shoot you if you give me $100, otherwise I will").
It also isn't blackmail unless Wikileaks is attempting to achieve some sort of gain for themselves by threatening to release the information publicly unless these companies fail to pay them.
In other words, if wikileaks isn't gaining anything (money etc) from this, it isn't extortion or blackmail. It's Wikileaks allowing the tech companies to fix the holes the CIA created before they release information about those holes to the general public - thereby possibly allowing the tech companies to save face. That makes sense, since it's quite possible that it's no fault of any of these companies that the CIA decided to completely trash their products in the name of spying on everyone. The damage is already done, in other words, and there's really nothing stopping Wikileaks from just telling the world what the damage is. It's kind of nice of them to give Microsoft etc some breathing room first, so that when they do release details on the damage done, they can also include information that shows these tech companies have already fixed the problems.
Beat me to it. And then to think that a border/customs agent administered it? And then checked his answers? Come on.
I'm just hazarding a f*cking guess here, but of the two of us, I'm betting I'm the only one who's actually ever been in said courtroom.
*Sigh.* Again, what I meant was that SHE doesn't need an attorney and therefore wouldn't necessarily be required to foot that expense.
I am really curious, though, for the entertainment value (even if the saner part of me may regret asking). What other "class of legal beagle" were you referring to?
Sorry, what I meant (and I wasn't clear) was that she should wait until they try to come after her for it. A ding on her credit report, harassing her for the money, selling the account to a 3rd party and representing this amount as correct, her inability to get credit at another company for a cell phone because of the report, etc might qualify as damages.
Not being a lawyer, I wouldn't make a prediction on the "emotional distress" component, though stranger things have happened...
Wow. Uh, no! First off, if she sues them (which is what I was clearly indicating should happen), SHE's the plaintiff. And no, even if they were to sue her, they'd have to do it in the county of her residence, or the court has no jurisdiction. You can't just sue someone in NY when your business is in CO and she lives in GA, because you think the NY court is going to rule in your favor.
Secondly, regarding arbitration - even if they produce a contract that they can prove she agreed to (far from a certainty), they're probably not going to want to actually go through with arbitration on a $10K claim.
Thirdly, your last comment is so asinine I'm not sure how to respond to it. The arbitrator is not biased against the litigant because there's some shady deal in which they make "millions" by Verizon bringing them cases. Verizon (and all major corporations) generally avoid actual courtrooms and arbitration whenever possible because it costs one hell of a lot of money (even if they win). So, no, that "obvious bias" doesn't exist except in your fevered imagination. If there's a bias (and I'm certainly not insinuating that the AAA is always as impartial as it claims to be) it wouldn't be for that reason.
It'd cost more than $9100, even counting your time as free, to fight this as an individual. So companies know they can do to you what they please.
Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court doesn't allow attorneys (or at least it's not unusual to not have one). Fight it. That kind of mentality is why they try this sort of thing. If everyone they did this to took them to small claims court they'd think twice.
Got a "buddy" in the process of suing AT&T like this right now. They've already offered to settle for about 50% of what he was asking for. He's holding out.
So, at the speeds Verizon provides me, 569 gig in a few days is a physical impossibility. Definitely agree with other posters - sue them for the max amount allowable in small claims court. Bet they settle without you ever actually talking to a lawyer.
Right, and the result of this is repression of creativity. If you can't borrow on another's idea, expand on it, take it in a new direction (to use a common example, I'm thinking about Shakespeare set in different eras, highlighting themes more relevant to the current age than to the author's, etc) without being heavily penalized, then no one will try - at least not in the open.
It's easy to immediately assign the worst possible motives to the perpetrators. Those motives may or may not exist - maybe we can't know the insides of their heads. But the effects of these kinds of laws are the same; regardless of whether those who write these laws actually intend to repress free speech/expression and destroy freedom, that will be the result.
$12.50/hr works out to about $2K/month. A quick Zillow search of apartments in the SF area turns up nothing (not one) under $1K/month. The cheapest thing I could find (in 5 minutes, I grant you, but still) was $1300 - for a 140 square feet studio apartment (that's 14ft by 10ft - smaller than the single room I'm sitting in right now). Maybe she's an idiot for living in SF. But regardless, if that's what housing costs in SF, $2K/month ain't gonna cut it.
It's no longer "copyright", it's a gagging order for the common man.
*This.* Call it paranoia if you want, but I think that's exactly where this is headed - the death of free speech/expression (and not just on the internet - anywhere; these rules don't just apply to the web). Of course not every case will (or can) be tried, but you don't want to be used as the deterrent example, and neither do I. So, shut up civilian, and let the government/mass media tell you what to think. Then don't you dare criticize it, or the penalties will be more than you care to deal with.
I think we're saying the same thing, essentially. Whether the finances are a means of control, or the control is a means of gaining more finances, in the end the result is the same - a ruling elite with everything, and a peasant class to serve them.
I don't think pornography is taboo in western society. The idea that western society considers it shameful is a straw man created by western media. It's only used for shaming if a person "needs" to be shamed for other reasons (ironically, extreme religious beliefs are often used in the same way) - i.e., Charlie over there won't carry the party line, so we need some dirt on him to make him go away. Did you know he watches porn?? GASP
On the contrary - the average person doesn't really care what you watch online in private, as they likely watch plenty of the same stuff themselves (or both). I don't have statistics in front of me and I'm too lazy to go looking for them at the moment, but I believe it's estimated that something like 60% of 12 year olds in the US are already hooked. It's safe to say most people watch porn or have at some point - if that's true, then any "taboo" is artificial.
All this will do is kill a certain proportion of UK porn websites...
My point is that shutting down porn sites (following the rules or otherwise) isn't the goal. In fact, if I'm right about it being more about revenue than anything else, shutting down these sites runs contrary to the actual goal - because a shut down site can't pay a fine. Crusades like this never produce real results - there may be an "example" or two made in the beginning, but that's just more about continuing the program and keeping a few thousand overpaid bureaucrats in a job - i.e., making sure the funding keeps on coming. Fines and tax revenue make sure that gravy train never stops - so in the end, it's just tool for channeling all real money to the ruling class. Jerk off to your silly porn all you want, peasant.
If the government really cared about shutting down porn sites, they'd just shut them down, and no, it wouldn't be impossible. If GHCQ and the NSA can record and archive every single voice call in the developed world, and build a search engine for finding single phrases in those calls at will, then they know damn well what you're watching online and whether or not it's "legit" or not. Similarly, making porn impossible (or so difficult as to be utterly impractical for all but the most die-hard) to obtain would be relatively trivial.
One word: ineffective.
Good point, though probably both are true.
The government knows damn well that ideas like this are unenforceable. It's not about banning porn anymore than it's about protecting children (as if the government gives a shit about your kids safety). It's about revenue. You can't keep kids from seeing porn - but you can fine the hell out of anyone you catch not following the law. The harder it is to follow the law, the better! If nobody can actually be compliant, then everyone pays a fine.
"My first change is from Supra Cat-7+ to Audioquest Cinnamon playing a piece from Eric Satie, a performance by Alexandre Tharaud of Gnossienne No. 1. I immediately notice an increase in air and a wider stage with the Cinnamon. The recording room has grown and the playback is a little more fluid, more natural I would say."
Oh brother. Somebody needs to set this jackass up in a blind test (with 2 cheap cables and nothing else, of course) and ask him which is the $10K cable. Film the results and post them for a laugh.
Egoistic psychopaths and narcissists who lack any semblance of taste will pay a fortune for that poseur status and they will kill anyone and everyone, either directly or indirectly through indifference to the outcomes of their actions, to earn the money to pay for that status. This so they can pose over their poor they create.
Holy shit, that's the best description of the United States I've ever read.
Sadly, so many kids today seem to see their music as disposable, and many have never HEARD what a good sound system can sound like...and only know white, cheap earbuds...or worse...the thudding of "Beats" headphones, that so far I've yet to find a tweeter installed.
Well hell, what with the steaming shite they listen to, does it make a difference? I doubt a decent system is going to make the average poptart sound any better. Maybe worse, actually.
Eh, no. Not having access to the multiplayer capabilities of any game is not going to change much about my life - EA might wish it did, but at worst it'd be a minor inconvenience requiring the acquisition of some other entertainment (a 5-second endeavor).
Riiiiight. 'Cause a hundred billion flies eating shit can't be wrong.
Roger, same here. I just don't "need" new games bad enough to eat their bullshit, and regardless there are other studios out there who don't practice this screw-the-customer-at-every-turn routine. It's typical corporate greed - yes, they can do everything just short of actually sending a goon to your house to rape you and your dog, and there will still be plenty of people who buy their crap and they'll still make a profit. But I don't have to be one of them.
Hilarious! Ah, the irony of ad hominem attacks made while parading some imaginary skill in rationality. I love how people take this kind of thing so personally. You are entertaining, friend.