The grammar in question is part of state law, not a contract, and contra proferentem only appears to apply to contracts. Even if it was applied to laws, the state isn't a party to the lawsuit and therefore can't "lose" the case.
It was loaded as part of the login screen, before the person had actually gotten into the site (and onion addresses are intentionally nonsense, so there is no way to know what site you are actually going to end up at when you click a link).
They are charging people on the basis that the presence of the FBI spyware alone is proof of guilt, whether or not they find any child porn on the persons computer, and more importantly, whether or not they had actually accessed anything illegal.
It's like setting up a camera at the door to an illegal brothel, and charging everyone who goes through that door with soliciting prostitution, even if they were just drunk and lost.
I suspect that they are hiding some fatal flaw in the evidence collection method, which will invalidate the evidence (or at least violate the warrant) if the full method is revealed. Other sites have mentioned that the malware may have been loaded too early, before the target had actually broken the law (which takes it beyond the scope of the warrant)
From what I read, the FBI's real problem is that the malware was sent to every visitor to the main login screen, BEFORE they had a chance to log in, and BEFORE any child porn had actually been viewed.
That's how they did it. They didn't exploit TOR directly, all they did was planting a 'tracking beacon' on the target computer, then wait for the target to reconnect outside of TOR
After a certain height, the hanging weight of the water at the bottom causes the pressure at the top of the water column to drop below the vapor point, and all you get is near-vacuum water vapor going into the pump.
Yeah, I agree that its a system that doesn't actually account humans, and probably never would have worked the way he thought.
My biggest issue, though, is that everything that happened afterwards was not only not his fault, but also tainted public perception against anything even remotely similar, and it has pushed the US farther in the opposite direction than we might otherwise be.
Nationalized health care is a perfect example, most 1st world countries have it, but the US doesn't, because it's considered too much like communism.
There was once a visionary, all the way back in 1848, who foresaw that this day would come. He witnessed the the early attempts at farm automation and realized that machines would someday make human labor redundant, and knew that a new economic system would be required to handle it.
Unfortunately, over the following century, other people would co-opt and distort his ideals for the sake of personal gain and public suppression, giving his system an unfair and undeserved bad reputation.
I picked up an old Asus netbook for like $50, and it it had a bios setup password. Asus refused to tell anyone how to clear it (pulling the cmos battery doesn't work) and insisted the only fix was to send it to a service center.
I did eventually find a way to clear it using a command-line bios update though.
Where does it say that the " firmware to revert an electronic device" has to reside on the device itself? All they really have to do is provide the files for download (like they do for most smartphones) and a method to re-flash everything using a PC.
Carbon credits are garbage, I agree. It basically allows one company to pay another company to pollute less, in order to allow them to pollute more.
That doesn't mean we can't mandate carbon scrubbers, catalytic converters and other devices to at least reduce the amount of crap we put in the air each day.
This is where it gets political, because the companies who would have to install these devices don't want to pay for them, and would rather put that money towards convincing politicians that the problem doesn't exist.
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
In other words, the weather is getting more extreme and less predictable. Our only options are 1) accept it, and build bigger reservoirs, flood canals, and levees. 2) try to fight back. or 3) ignore it and hope it goes away.
Refusing to accept weather record data falls into the 3rd category, BTW
In a later comment he said he went to school in the USSR (his answer to my question of what school he went to).
I chalked it up to a severe reaction against his experience of socialism gone horribly wrong, leading to a full retreat into the opposite end of the spectrum (communism is evil, therefore the opposite of communism must also be the opposite of evil).
The irony here is that roman_mir grew up in the USSR and is the one arguing in support of capitalism, while I'm the American arguing in support of socialism.
Now that I know you are from Russia, I can start to understand your viewpoint. You saw the absolute worst-case scenario for how communism could turn out, so it's only natural you would embrace the exact opposite of the spectrum.
The real joke of it all is that the US is the worst-case scenario for capitalism.
All the evils you saw in communism growing up, I see those same evils in capitalism. Both systems served to enrich the powerful at the expense of the weak, the only difference was the particular lie they used.
Instead of a small group of men controlling the means of production in the name of the greater good (the communist lie) it's a small group of men doing the exact same thing in the name of individualism and self-betterment (the capitalist lie)
No system of government or economy that humans can create will ever be immune to the slow rot of corruption, the only solution is to tear it down and start over every once in a while (or wait for a war to tear it down for you, which was the whole point of the original article)
however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.
I'm not sure you understand what a trade deficit is. It doesn't mean China sent the US stuff and the US never paid for it (like some gigantic unpaid bar tab). It just means that the US bought more stuff from China than China bought from the US, leading to a steady flow of money into China that never comes back. http://www.investopedia.com/te....
The debt that the US owes to China is a totally separate issue, where the US federal government has been constantly borrowing money from China to cover the yearly budget deficit, and is now stuck paying tons of interest on that loan because they can't even begin to pay it off.
As far as taxes being theft like you said before, a government needs money somehow. Every government in the world either collects taxes (Europe, US/Canada, etc) or confiscates natural resources such as oil and gold to sell to other countries. (Middle east and parts of Africa). There is also the 3rd option, which is to just spend nothing on government and let the warlords figure it out (parts of South America and Africa)
If you know of a way a government can pay for itself without collecting taxes or taking natural resources from the people (or simply descending into anarchy), I would love to hear your solution.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.
Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground
Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).
Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services.
What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?
USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.
1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.
It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself. You are right that if more money was available, more of it would go to China, but only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company that produced it, most of it goes to middle-man markup and shipping fees (which is money that stays in the US).
I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft. It would be ironic if it was a taxpayer funded public school, but judging by your disdain for public schooling, it was probably some fancy-ass private school.
Slashdot Mirror
The grammar in question is part of state law, not a contract, and contra proferentem only appears to apply to contracts. Even if it was applied to laws, the state isn't a party to the lawsuit and therefore can't "lose" the case.
Can't remember the principle that causes it, but water can't be "pulled" uphill through a pipe more than 30ish feet.
This is the part I was referring to, not the article itself.
It was loaded as part of the login screen, before the person had actually gotten into the site (and onion addresses are intentionally nonsense, so there is no way to know what site you are actually going to end up at when you click a link).
They are charging people on the basis that the presence of the FBI spyware alone is proof of guilt, whether or not they find any child porn on the persons computer, and more importantly, whether or not they had actually accessed anything illegal.
It's like setting up a camera at the door to an illegal brothel, and charging everyone who goes through that door with soliciting prostitution, even if they were just drunk and lost.
I suspect that they are hiding some fatal flaw in the evidence collection method, which will invalidate the evidence (or at least violate the warrant) if the full method is revealed.
Other sites have mentioned that the malware may have been loaded too early, before the target had actually broken the law (which takes it beyond the scope of the warrant)
From what I read, the FBI's real problem is that the malware was sent to every visitor to the main login screen, BEFORE they had a chance to log in, and BEFORE any child porn had actually been viewed.
That's how they did it. They didn't exploit TOR directly, all they did was planting a 'tracking beacon' on the target computer, then wait for the target to reconnect outside of TOR
Except they just gave the other 135 people a free pass with this. All they have to do is demand the source code as well.
After a certain height, the hanging weight of the water at the bottom causes the pressure at the top of the water column to drop below the vapor point, and all you get is near-vacuum water vapor going into the pump.
When it sees a police car, does it change to an advertisement for donuts?
(the mention of Russia made me think of this, because of the police-detecting bus-stop billboard)
Yeah, I agree that its a system that doesn't actually account humans, and probably never would have worked the way he thought.
My biggest issue, though, is that everything that happened afterwards was not only not his fault, but also tainted public perception against anything even remotely similar, and it has pushed the US farther in the opposite direction than we might otherwise be.
Nationalized health care is a perfect example, most 1st world countries have it, but the US doesn't, because it's considered too much like communism.
Is there an H in there somewhere too? And lets just drop the lower-case 'o' entirely.
(I hope someone understands this really convoluted joke)
There was once a visionary, all the way back in 1848, who foresaw that this day would come. He witnessed the the early attempts at farm automation and realized that machines would someday make human labor redundant, and knew that a new economic system would be required to handle it.
Unfortunately, over the following century, other people would co-opt and distort his ideals for the sake of personal gain and public suppression, giving his system an unfair and undeserved bad reputation.
His name was Karl Marx.
No, the radiation makes it to the southern hemisphere eventually.
It makes for a miserable 12 months, waiting for certain death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Do you get those speeds to the rest of the world, or just within NZ?
It doesn't have to be open-source, or even in an unencrypted format.
How do you think smartphone OEMs provide firmware images, despite containing proprietary licensed code?
If Apple and Samsung can do it (legally) than anyone else can too.
I picked up an old Asus netbook for like $50, and it it had a bios setup password. Asus refused to tell anyone how to clear it (pulling the cmos battery doesn't work) and insisted the only fix was to send it to a service center.
I did eventually find a way to clear it using a command-line bios update though.
Sounds a lot like ink cartridges.
Where does it say that the " firmware to revert an electronic device" has to reside on the device itself? All they really have to do is provide the files for download (like they do for most smartphones) and a method to re-flash everything using a PC.
Carbon credits are garbage, I agree. It basically allows one company to pay another company to pollute less, in order to allow them to pollute more.
That doesn't mean we can't mandate carbon scrubbers, catalytic converters and other devices to at least reduce the amount of crap we put in the air each day.
This is where it gets political, because the companies who would have to install these devices don't want to pay for them, and would rather put that money towards convincing politicians that the problem doesn't exist.
Record high temps, record low temps. record rain, record drought.
In other words, the weather is getting more extreme and less predictable. Our only options are 1) accept it, and build bigger reservoirs, flood canals, and levees. 2) try to fight back. or 3) ignore it and hope it goes away.
Refusing to accept weather record data falls into the 3rd category, BTW
In a later comment he said he went to school in the USSR (his answer to my question of what school he went to).
I chalked it up to a severe reaction against his experience of socialism gone horribly wrong, leading to a full retreat into the opposite end of the spectrum (communism is evil, therefore the opposite of communism must also be the opposite of evil).
That's still collecting tax.
The irony here is that roman_mir grew up in the USSR and is the one arguing in support of capitalism, while I'm the American arguing in support of socialism.
Now that I know you are from Russia, I can start to understand your viewpoint. You saw the absolute worst-case scenario for how communism could turn out, so it's only natural you would embrace the exact opposite of the spectrum.
The real joke of it all is that the US is the worst-case scenario for capitalism.
All the evils you saw in communism growing up, I see those same evils in capitalism. Both systems served to enrich the powerful at the expense of the weak, the only difference was the particular lie they used.
Instead of a small group of men controlling the means of production in the name of the greater good (the communist lie) it's a small group of men doing the exact same thing in the name of individualism and self-betterment (the capitalist lie)
No system of government or economy that humans can create will ever be immune to the slow rot of corruption, the only solution is to tear it down and start over every once in a while (or wait for a war to tear it down for you, which was the whole point of the original article)
however, it is consumption of goods that were *not paid for* that causes the trade deficit.
I'm not sure you understand what a trade deficit is. It doesn't mean China sent the US stuff and the US never paid for it (like some gigantic unpaid bar tab). It just means that the US bought more stuff from China than China bought from the US, leading to a steady flow of money into China that never comes back. http://www.investopedia.com/te....
The debt that the US owes to China is a totally separate issue, where the US federal government has been constantly borrowing money from China to cover the yearly budget deficit, and is now stuck paying tons of interest on that loan because they can't even begin to pay it off.
As far as taxes being theft like you said before, a government needs money somehow. Every government in the world either collects taxes (Europe, US/Canada, etc) or confiscates natural resources such as oil and gold to sell to other countries. (Middle east and parts of Africa). There is also the 3rd option, which is to just spend nothing on government and let the warlords figure it out (parts of South America and Africa)
If you know of a way a government can pay for itself without collecting taxes or taking natural resources from the people (or simply descending into anarchy), I would love to hear your solution.
Which stimulates an economy more, yachts or groceries?
- neither. The fact that you are using this logic is enough for me to know that I am dealing with somebody who has no understanding of economics, which is the point of modern 'education', to produce population that is incapable of understanding most basic things.
Yes, start with insults, that's always a good way to prove that you have the intellectual high-ground
Consumption does not stimulate the economy, production stimulates the economy. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. A person with a million dollars stimulates the economy by investing that money into new/existing businesses to make profit, this in turn allows the business to start/expand and the productive output of that business is what stimulates the economy while providing the people working for the business with income (and unfortunately providing various levels of government with money as well through the theft of taxation).
Spending money on consumable goods is not stimulating the economy at all, it is irrelevant to the economy. Economy is all production and exchange of produced goods/services.
What happens to these goods after they have been produced and exchanged, if there is nobody to consume them.?
USA cannot stimulate the economy by any extra level of spending because it lives on borrowed money and (500 Billion / year for the last 25 years or so). This borrowing goes towards consumption of foreign produced goods, which is why it is a trade deficit.
1 man with 1 million dollars is more stimulative to the economy because that is wealth that's concentrated and actually can be used to start/run/expand a business. A million people with 1 dollar each is wealth dissipation, it will do nothing to improve the economy, it will only worsen it if the dollar came from the theft of taxation *because* it deprived the 1 man of his million.
It's consumption of non-domestic products that cause a trade deficit, not consumption by itself. You are right that if more money was available, more of it would go to China, but only a very small portion of what you pay for a Chinese-made product actually goes to the Chinese company that produced it, most of it goes to middle-man markup and shipping fees (which is money that stays in the US).
I'm curious which school YOU went to, where you were taught that taxation is theft. It would be ironic if it was a taxpayer funded public school, but judging by your disdain for public schooling, it was probably some fancy-ass private school.