I thought that was implicit. Copying passwords is not stealing. You could call it hacking, unlawful access of a omputer system, invasion of privacy, hell- maybe even copyright infringement. Any use of said password would certainly be fraud. But no, copying a password is not stealing. You have deprived them of nothing. If the word stealing can be so malleable as to include the copying of something that someone owns, we may as well go all out and call it burglary. Password burglary. Even worse sounding.
In case I wasn't clear, I'll repeat it- copying a password is not stealing, any more than plagiarism is.
You misunderstood what was written... That's ok.
I'll say it again, RedBox sells the codes after separating them from the DVD that they rent out. I know because my girlfriend gets the damn things all the time. They do not resell the codes- you can't, because the codes can't be re-used.
As far as I can tell, almost every Electoral College voter actually voted the way the general populace in his/her district voted.
No- not even close. Not even close to close.
Almost every EC elector voted the way the majority of voters in their *state* voted.
Had it been by district, it would have been a near-tie, or a Hillary win in the EC.
States are winner-take-all (minus 2). The largest plurality gets 100% of elector votes.
My understanding (possibly misguided) was that the electoral college was designed to ensure that states with less population still had at least some voice in the decision making.
It was actually designed so that states with less *franchised* population had the weight of their *non-franchised* population.
The large gap between electors-per-elector for our largest and smallest states these days is a product of the fact that we haven't increased the number of representatives in the House of Representatives in 100 years. It wasn't that way initially. The gap was very small. What it did allow for, was states where only landed citizens could vote, having the electoral clout of all the people in their state that couldn't vote (slaves, people without land)
Your understanding isn't backed up by significant evidence. It is refuted by quite a bit of evidence, though.
More likely, Twitter is a company that survives on advertising revenue. Bots don't click ads. Bots that do nothing but amplify the perceived size of an audience and add garbage to the platform as a whole are not profitable. The vast majority of bots right now are doing this amplification in the name of a particular ideology, due to a certain world state deciding it was the best way to fuck with an adversary. A number of conservative users may have been locked out, a number may not have been. Some of them may have been legitimate, some may not have been. There's almost certain to be collateral damage, but at the end of the day, if the Twitterverse were really conservative-leaning, they wouldn't dare piss off those eyeballs. They've identified the amplification factor, and have decided to clean it up. The most likely explanation to all of this, is they know something you don't- that the vast majority of viral conservative-leaning tweets simply aren't real.
Wouldn't it seem logical that since they claim to have identified the bots, they know how they are accessing their system?
I see a lot of people second-guessing their mediation. When I fix problems in my systems or on my network, I don't roll out solutions that don't stop the problem...
The codes are one-time-use. Redbox doesn't rent them- they sell them.
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying. Rent physical media, sell code they weren't going to use.
I'm pretty sure we've made it completely clear that that is exactly what we would like you to do.
You may continue to enjoy the fruits of our labors, though;)
They haven't stolen any passwords. They have most certainly committed some form of fraud. You will not see them charged with theft. Just like a copyright infringement case isn't brought as theft.
Just because my argument is simply insisting on using the correct words doesn't mean it's no problem. That's disingenuous of you to claim.
Of course that isn't theft. The name is catchy and a lot easier to say than what it technically is. Catchy names stick. Theft has a legal meaning, and to call copyright infringement theft just further muddies up the conversation.
I agree with everything you said... minus that. I don't like seeing copyright infringement described as stealing. It is certainly depriving a copyright holder of revenue you may or may not have given them... But you have stolen nothing from them. You have breached their statutory rights to control copies of something they made. There was no theft.
I can't claim 40+ years, but I can claim the same list you've given, and more (as I imagine you could too)
I find that people who claim that one of the 4 discussed platforms is universally worse than the other doesn't lack experience, just objectivity.
That's what I was thinking, without taking any sides in the debate.
I'm impressed with how many people on here who consistently cry for the right to discriminate against who they please within their own life are suddenly so offended by an organization asserting that same right... against them.
We've devolved to a point where our cognitive dissonance is so strong that we can't even see our own hypocrisy anymore.
What an ignorant standpoint.
If I think you're a fuckstick, I'm infringing on your freedom by telling you to get the fuck out of my house?
No, I'm not. You're free to fuck off elsewhere. When FreeBSD does something beyond exercising their own right of agency, then we can talk about your infringed freedom, snowflake.
Not that I support the position you're arguing against... But your argument is pretty absurd. You're comparing very dissimilar forms of advertising. The Russian trollvertising was rather brilliantly designed to go viral, amplify, and kill the immune system. The advertisement for of HIV.
Run-of-the-mill political advertising is really just annoying bullshit that most people roll their eyes at. The Russians built theirs to put us in ideological bunkers. They didn't want to change minds, they wanted to keep minds from changing.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it was demonstrating the absurdity of the argument to begin with.
I thought that was implicit. Copying passwords is not stealing. You could call it hacking, unlawful access of a omputer system, invasion of privacy, hell- maybe even copyright infringement. Any use of said password would certainly be fraud. But no, copying a password is not stealing. You have deprived them of nothing. If the word stealing can be so malleable as to include the copying of something that someone owns, we may as well go all out and call it burglary. Password burglary. Even worse sounding.
In case I wasn't clear, I'll repeat it- copying a password is not stealing, any more than plagiarism is.
You misunderstood what was written... That's ok.
I'll say it again, RedBox sells the codes after separating them from the DVD that they rent out. I know because my girlfriend gets the damn things all the time. They do not resell the codes- you can't, because the codes can't be re-used.
As far as I can tell, almost every Electoral College voter actually voted the way the general populace in his/her district voted.
No- not even close. Not even close to close.
Almost every EC elector voted the way the majority of voters in their *state* voted.
Had it been by district, it would have been a near-tie, or a Hillary win in the EC.
States are winner-take-all (minus 2). The largest plurality gets 100% of elector votes.
My understanding (possibly misguided) was that the electoral college was designed to ensure that states with less population still had at least some voice in the decision making.
It was actually designed so that states with less *franchised* population had the weight of their *non-franchised* population.
The large gap between electors-per-elector for our largest and smallest states these days is a product of the fact that we haven't increased the number of representatives in the House of Representatives in 100 years. It wasn't that way initially. The gap was very small. What it did allow for, was states where only landed citizens could vote, having the electoral clout of all the people in their state that couldn't vote (slaves, people without land)
Your understanding isn't backed up by significant evidence. It is refuted by quite a bit of evidence, though.
More likely, Twitter is a company that survives on advertising revenue. Bots don't click ads. Bots that do nothing but amplify the perceived size of an audience and add garbage to the platform as a whole are not profitable. The vast majority of bots right now are doing this amplification in the name of a particular ideology, due to a certain world state deciding it was the best way to fuck with an adversary. A number of conservative users may have been locked out, a number may not have been. Some of them may have been legitimate, some may not have been. There's almost certain to be collateral damage, but at the end of the day, if the Twitterverse were really conservative-leaning, they wouldn't dare piss off those eyeballs. They've identified the amplification factor, and have decided to clean it up. The most likely explanation to all of this, is they know something you don't- that the vast majority of viral conservative-leaning tweets simply aren't real.
Wouldn't it seem logical that since they claim to have identified the bots, they know how they are accessing their system?
I see a lot of people second-guessing their mediation. When I fix problems in my systems or on my network, I don't roll out solutions that don't stop the problem...
When it comes to defending democracy, I'll take epsilon over zero every day of the week and twice on Tuesday.
This is exactly what it comes down to. You have to do *something*
The codes are one-time-use. Redbox doesn't rent them- they sell them.
They're increasing their monetisation of the retail assets they are buying. Rent physical media, sell code they weren't going to use.
You operate a lot off of assumption. Your poor life must be fraught with constant mistakes.
Didn't disagree with OP, just objected to incorrect word use.
I assumed your question mark was rhetorical. That's my bad. I apologize for assuming you were just being an ass.
I'm pretty sure we've made it completely clear that that is exactly what we would like you to do. ;)
You may continue to enjoy the fruits of our labors, though
I deliberately omitted saying that I see copying passwords as stealing? I think you over-thought that one, chief.
Agreed. And when FreeBSD prevents you from exercising your right of agency outside of their club, I will stand next to you and scream and yell.
Only to the illiterate. Please go educate yourself. We've got enough of you dragging down our average IQ.
They haven't stolen any passwords. They have most certainly committed some form of fraud. You will not see them charged with theft. Just like a copyright infringement case isn't brought as theft.
Just because my argument is simply insisting on using the correct words doesn't mean it's no problem. That's disingenuous of you to claim.
Of course that isn't theft. The name is catchy and a lot easier to say than what it technically is. Catchy names stick. Theft has a legal meaning, and to call copyright infringement theft just further muddies up the conversation.
Putting words in peoples' mouths? Odd.
I admire your honesty. Hell, I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.
Don't steal.
I agree with everything you said... minus that. I don't like seeing copyright infringement described as stealing. It is certainly depriving a copyright holder of revenue you may or may not have given them... But you have stolen nothing from them. You have breached their statutory rights to control copies of something they made. There was no theft.
I can't claim 40+ years, but I can claim the same list you've given, and more (as I imagine you could too)
I find that people who claim that one of the 4 discussed platforms is universally worse than the other doesn't lack experience, just objectivity.
Their org, their rules.
That's what I was thinking, without taking any sides in the debate.
I'm impressed with how many people on here who consistently cry for the right to discriminate against who they please within their own life are suddenly so offended by an organization asserting that same right... against them.
We've devolved to a point where our cognitive dissonance is so strong that we can't even see our own hypocrisy anymore.
What an ignorant standpoint.
If I think you're a fuckstick, I'm infringing on your freedom by telling you to get the fuck out of my house?
No, I'm not. You're free to fuck off elsewhere. When FreeBSD does something beyond exercising their own right of agency, then we can talk about your infringed freedom, snowflake.
Not that I support the position you're arguing against... But your argument is pretty absurd. You're comparing very dissimilar forms of advertising. The Russian trollvertising was rather brilliantly designed to go viral, amplify, and kill the immune system. The advertisement for of HIV.
Run-of-the-mill political advertising is really just annoying bullshit that most people roll their eyes at. The Russians built theirs to put us in ideological bunkers. They didn't want to change minds, they wanted to keep minds from changing.
I'm not entirely certain you should count yourself among those who speak English...