Treading the alleged rape as credible at this point involves as much willful stupidity as expecting Saddam's WMD's to surface any day now.....any day now.
I didn't write rape, I wrote "sexual assault." There's a reason for that.
From being cleared to leave the country by the prosecutor who heard the women's request for an STD test,
And authorities only allow you to travel when they've absolutely cleared you from charges. Oh, wait... they do that all the time when people are still under investigation too.
to Sweden refusing to promise they wont hand Assange over to the United States
Why should they? Have they done that before? Do they normally offer guarantees to such treatment to people that they question?
Why is Sweden so much more convenient to pull Assange from than the United Kingdom -- where he was let out on bail from December 2011 to June 2012 -- which has a "special relationship" with the UK?
Oh, by the way, you skipped the whole "bail jumping" thing... probably because that act is indefensible.
to refusing to interview Assange remotely as they've done in dozens of other cases since he sought asylum, it just goes on and on.
Why should they? Have they done that before? Do they normally offer to travel internationally to the people that they question?
So pull your head out of John Brennan's ass already - you disingenuous hack.
Can't even make up your own insult. Sad.
Daniel Ellsworth didn't jump bail. Not the same. So sorry.
never mind that what [Julian Assange] and Wikileaks has done is essentially the same thing Daniel Ellsberg and the NYT did when they published the "Pentagon Papers".
Did Daniel Ellsberg commit various sexual assaults and then jump bail to avoid answering those charges? No? Then it's essentially a completely different thing. But you knew that, you disingenuous hack.
When the game boots have some data structures with critical assets that must be loaded from data that is only available on servers.
We've found our next publisher-industry consultant folks, call off the search. "New idea" that retreads concepts that have been in use for years -- product activation and/or required-all-the-time internet access -- CHECK. Consumer hostile mechanism that ensures that once the publisher loses interest and takes down the servers, the consumer loses their ability to use what they've purchased -- CHECK.
Release day should also be the day that a new protection layer is introduced, so even if the pre-relase DRM had been cracked, somehow; folks would have to start over after release.
Updating DRM on the release copy while magically thinking that the previous version wouldn't have roadmapped how to defeat it -- CHECK.
You're the trifecta, man. Get your resume out there.
As I sit here 4 or 5 days in my Windows 10 Professional version, bought, paid for, came on high end laptop from day one, is indicating that it is not a valid license and that I need to activate it.
If you're too full of yourself to run the activation troubleshooter, that's on you. They had this fixed the next day, so I can only imagine what you've been up to over the weekend.
So Google makes corporate net income from ad revenue based on UK users. Presumeably pays corporate income tax on that, yes? To which country? Ireland currently?
Is this going to be double taxation?
I dunno. Is it double taxation to tax my income when I earn it, then tax my income when I spend it, and by the way here's a tariff on that thing that you spent the income on? I'm mean, you're immediately equating an income tax with a services tax, so I'm merely drawing the same analogy with sales taxes and tariffs.
She had top secret stuff on her unsecured network... any proof that Trump is talking about top secret stuff?
Considering that you provided no proof that she had "top secret stuff" on her unsecured network, your demand for proof of the content of Trump's phone calls is the height is hypocrisy.
Whatever the excuse, if you are significantly more political ads blocked from one side than another, then you're making an in-kind donation to one party.
Name one FEC decision that fits that fact pattern. I'll wait. For a long, long time.
You appear to like to manufacture your own rules. Your problem is, neither I nor the rest of reality are obligated to follow them, so we don't.
What you cited doesn't really back up what you said, unless you want to abuse the notion of "otherwise objectionable" to include "any content I disagree with". Of course, that's exactly what many social media sites do: e.g., we find ads supporting the pro-life position objectionable, so we ban them. They're pretending to ban on "objectionable" instead of "political speech we disagree with".
Funny how you treat political speech, especially from the Trump right, as incapable of being objectionable and gloss over that when most posts are moved the objectionable content is cited. "I disagree that that's objectionable" neither makes it so nor takes it outside of the broad "good faith" standard that it applied.
I think the legal theory was that a provider that proactively polices its users' material for copyright infringement may become considered legally "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" without practical ability to recognize said "facts or circumstances" as such.
No, the legal theory was:
witter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment.
Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.
Where the "checking" had nothing to do with checking for copyright infringement but rather "political bias."
The argument was that if a service implemented a political bias that they'd lose the copyright safe harbor. "Political bias" is not red flag knowledge of copyright infringement under 17 USC 512(c).
If twitter is a publisher, then they may have the right to reject some tweets. But, that also means they are responsible for *everything* that is tweeted.
Wrong. The CDA permits them to screen out the overtly and covertly racist drivel that passes for the sort of material suppressed for "bias" that Trump is complaining of.
(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
Doesn't actually matter if they're not a government entity. Twitter has testified that they consider themselves the "new public square" for political discussion. They promoted that as well. There's been a whole assload of cases on this whereby a company presents itself as a public square, 1st amendment rules apply.
Pretty sure they've revoked that policy at this point. Just because they promoted that at one time does not mean that they're locked into it for all eternity.
ls down to this: Either the 1st amendment rules apply, in which case they're far more broadly protected and so are people. Or it doesn't, in which case they're not only curating content, but the people allowed to post there. In which case CDA S.230 no longer apply and they become liable for anything posted there.
No. The CDA expressly says otherwise. 48 USC 230(c)(2):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of -- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
The "reasonable" defense section only applies if they allow access but don't actively curate, something they stopped doing a few years ago, when they made the change of how people become verified and in turn stated that they support the views of the people who are verified.
Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.
Prove it. Show me anything in the CDA or DMCA that conditions the safe harbors upon a lack of "bias" in the material that a service carries.
I'll even give you the links to the relevant CDA and DMCA provisions because you're not going to find them.
There should be no doubt though- this bridge was partially to be a political show to Hong Kong and partially to be a great way to get tanks and troops to Hong Kong quickly should they ever be troublesome about one party rule.
If this bridge were so critical to the movement of tanks and troops, then it would be a horrible way to move them. Destroy a handful of sections longer than basic temporary bridge equipment and you have a 34 mile long bridge to nowhere. If you can operate behind the spearhead then you can bottle up troops and equipment on the bridge.
It's funny how you managed to make the conclusion that is the opposite of reality. In short term, it's a loss, because during the period of conflict, there's suffering.
After there's a better deal in place, it's a long term win.
Tell that to the Brexiteers.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a really nasty illness.
Yes, all opposition is derangement. Have fun with the next two years. You'll need that attitude to offset the loss of the House.
motion alarms that will sound if someone attempts to move them without unlocking them, which is an attempt at least by their owners to secure them.
That is not an attempt to secure them. That is an attempt to prevent people from moving property from where it's been improperly abandoned.
And just like with car alarms, especially since a large number of people hate the things being strewn across their sidewalks, essentially will care about this "securement."
Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org ought to do it. If you can copyright the official law of a state, you can surely copyright a bespoke contract or license.
There is nothing in 17 USC 102(b) that denies copyrights to "legal language" versus comparable "literary language."
Also, one of the more noted treatises and authorities on copyright law disagrees with you.
1-2 Nimmer on Copyright  2.18[E]: âoeThere appear to be no valid grounds why legal forms such as contracts, insurance policies, pleadings and other legal documents should not be protected under the law of copyright.â
The lawyer who devised that nonsense clearly has some pals in the field who are looking forward to big lengthy but more importantly expensive legal discussions on the subject.
Fork of MongoDB that retains the AGPL v3 license coming in 3... 2... 1...
Threatening letter from someone who's contribution to MongoDB under the AGPLv3 is being impermissibly relicensed in clear violation of AGPL v3 section 10 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.") quite likely depending upon the political leanings of the contributors who give a damn.
Softshoe letter from the Free Software Foundation explaining that they cannot rip off the language of the AGPL v3 to create a non-compliant license, I'd bet, also coming.
Just like people in Europe call ourselves Europeans. Maybe it's you who don't know Spanish or Portuguese?
The European who is confusing language with nationality is supposing that I don't know a language, in addition the fact that it somehow proves his argument.
Why are right wing people blamed for or treated as benefiting from various election interference measures when they are the only ones wanting to secure our election system with the equivalent of a user name and password?
Because they try to tie voter registration to only certain government IDs, which you obtain by going to the equivalent of a bank window hidden in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." For example, a driver's license. Easy to obtain if you drive to a Secretary of State's office located in a metro suburb during business hours. A bit harder if you do not drive, live inside a city, have a couple a jobs, and can't blow at least your own day (assuming you don't have someone drive you, then it's only half a day each) taking the bus out and back to do it.
And they expect you to pay for it.
You want to call it "the equivalent of a user name and password?" Then make it just as easy. Allow people to obtain one from practically anywhere and make it free. Untill then, it's a false analogy.
Uh, Tesla's "autopilot" is a driver assist, not a self-driving vehicle
Semantics and legalities.
It wasn't "semantics and legalities" when "autopilot" steered a vehicle into a highway divider.
It wasn't "semantics and legalities" when "autopilot" drove into the side of a tractor trailer.
Then it was the stupid driver who mistakenly used autopilot as a substitute for paying and attention because "autopilot" is not a self-driving vehicle system. Now, when it's convenient for you to argue so, it suddenly is equivalent to one.
You post in just about every Tesla-related article on Slashdot. Shall I look for your comments at the time to see if you made precisely the opposite argument then to the one that you're making now?
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't write rape, I wrote "sexual assault." There's a reason for that.
And authorities only allow you to travel when they've absolutely cleared you from charges. Oh, wait... they do that all the time when people are still under investigation too.
Why should they? Have they done that before? Do they normally offer guarantees to such treatment to people that they question?
Why is Sweden so much more convenient to pull Assange from than the United Kingdom -- where he was let out on bail from December 2011 to June 2012 -- which has a "special relationship" with the UK?
Oh, by the way, you skipped the whole "bail jumping" thing... probably because that act is indefensible.
Why should they? Have they done that before? Do they normally offer to travel internationally to the people that they question?
Can't even make up your own insult. Sad.
Daniel Ellsworth didn't jump bail. Not the same. So sorry.
Did Daniel Ellsberg commit various sexual assaults and then jump bail to avoid answering those charges? No? Then it's essentially a completely different thing. But you knew that, you disingenuous hack.
ACs definitely require government intervention.
Fixed, loser.
Yes.
Says you. Addiction is a health issue. Has been since before you were born.
"Health issues" are not limited to cancer. K thx bye.
We've found our next publisher-industry consultant folks, call off the search. "New idea" that retreads concepts that have been in use for years -- product activation and/or required-all-the-time internet access -- CHECK. Consumer hostile mechanism that ensures that once the publisher loses interest and takes down the servers, the consumer loses their ability to use what they've purchased -- CHECK.
Updating DRM on the release copy while magically thinking that the previous version wouldn't have roadmapped how to defeat it -- CHECK.
You're the trifecta, man. Get your resume out there.
If you're too full of yourself to run the activation troubleshooter, that's on you. They had this fixed the next day, so I can only imagine what you've been up to over the weekend.
No. The lawsuit never included a defamation claim.
I dunno. Is it double taxation to tax my income when I earn it, then tax my income when I spend it, and by the way here's a tariff on that thing that you spent the income on? I'm mean, you're immediately equating an income tax with a services tax, so I'm merely drawing the same analogy with sales taxes and tariffs.
How is this any different from a sales tax on digital services that is collected by Google? The US got rid of the 'I don't have a business presence in that state" exception', but I haven't seen widespread concern over 'double taxation' regarding that.
Considering that you provided no proof that she had "top secret stuff" on her unsecured network, your demand for proof of the content of Trump's phone calls is the height is hypocrisy.
Name one FEC decision that fits that fact pattern. I'll wait. For a long, long time.
You appear to like to manufacture your own rules. Your problem is, neither I nor the rest of reality are obligated to follow them, so we don't.
Funny how you treat political speech, especially from the Trump right, as incapable of being objectionable and gloss over that when most posts are moved the objectionable content is cited. "I disagree that that's objectionable" neither makes it so nor takes it outside of the broad "good faith" standard that it applied.
No, the legal theory was:
Where the "checking" had nothing to do with checking for copyright infringement but rather "political bias."
The argument was that if a service implemented a political bias that they'd lose the copyright safe harbor. "Political bias" is not red flag knowledge of copyright infringement under 17 USC 512(c).
Wrong. The CDA permits them to screen out the overtly and covertly racist drivel that passes for the sort of material suppressed for "bias" that Trump is complaining of.
(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
They're an interactive computer service, and get reasonable control of content on a good faith basis with 0% responsibility for what they allow.
CDA section 230(c):
(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of--
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)
Pretty sure they've revoked that policy at this point. Just because they promoted that at one time does not mean that they're locked into it for all eternity.
No. The CDA expressly says otherwise. 48 USC 230(c)(2):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of --
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Pure fiction.
Prove it. Show me anything in the CDA or DMCA that conditions the safe harbors upon a lack of "bias" in the material that a service carries.
I'll even give you the links to the relevant CDA and DMCA provisions because you're not going to find them.
-IP/Technology Attorney
If this bridge were so critical to the movement of tanks and troops, then it would be a horrible way to move them. Destroy a handful of sections longer than basic temporary bridge equipment and you have a 34 mile long bridge to nowhere. If you can operate behind the spearhead then you can bottle up troops and equipment on the bridge.
No thank you.
Tell that to the Brexiteers.
Yes, all opposition is derangement. Have fun with the next two years. You'll need that attitude to offset the loss of the House.
That is not an attempt to secure them. That is an attempt to prevent people from moving property from where it's been improperly abandoned.
And just like with car alarms, especially since a large number of people hate the things being strewn across their sidewalks, essentially will care about this "securement."
Moving the goalposts, are we?
Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org ought to do it. If you can copyright the official law of a state, you can surely copyright a bespoke contract or license.
There is nothing in 17 USC 102(b) that denies copyrights to "legal language" versus comparable "literary language."
Also, one of the more noted treatises and authorities on copyright law disagrees with you.
1-2 Nimmer on Copyright  2.18[E]: âoeThere appear to be no valid grounds why legal forms such as contracts, insurance policies, pleadings and other legal documents should not be protected under the law of copyright.â
Fork of MongoDB that retains the AGPL v3 license coming in 3... 2... 1...
Threatening letter from someone who's contribution to MongoDB under the AGPLv3 is being impermissibly relicensed in clear violation of AGPL v3 section 10 ("You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License.") quite likely depending upon the political leanings of the contributors who give a damn.
Softshoe letter from the Free Software Foundation explaining that they cannot rip off the language of the AGPL v3 to create a non-compliant license, I'd bet, also coming.
Citation needed.
The European who is confusing language with nationality is supposing that I don't know a language, in addition the fact that it somehow proves his argument.
Try again.
Because they try to tie voter registration to only certain government IDs, which you obtain by going to the equivalent of a bank window hidden in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard." For example, a driver's license. Easy to obtain if you drive to a Secretary of State's office located in a metro suburb during business hours. A bit harder if you do not drive, live inside a city, have a couple a jobs, and can't blow at least your own day (assuming you don't have someone drive you, then it's only half a day each) taking the bus out and back to do it.
And they expect you to pay for it.
You want to call it "the equivalent of a user name and password?" Then make it just as easy. Allow people to obtain one from practically anywhere and make it free. Untill then, it's a false analogy.
It wasn't "semantics and legalities" when "autopilot" steered a vehicle into a highway divider.
It wasn't "semantics and legalities" when "autopilot" drove into the side of a tractor trailer.
Then it was the stupid driver who mistakenly used autopilot as a substitute for paying and attention because "autopilot" is not a self-driving vehicle system. Now, when it's convenient for you to argue so, it suddenly is equivalent to one.
You post in just about every Tesla-related article on Slashdot. Shall I look for your comments at the time to see if you made precisely the opposite argument then to the one that you're making now?