Spoiler: contracts don't have to be ruled valid to be valid. They're valid when they're agreed, and the only legal review they're going to get is a ruling that they're NOT valid. If it is valid, you know it by nobody having gotten it declared invalid. If it didn't happen, it is valid. The only other thing they would be looking at is what some of the words mean if it is ambiguous.
The whole thing is just old FUD from the Microsoft anti-linux days, trying to raise a question that causes concern and won't ever be answered because it isn't a real question that will ever get addressed. It was only ever a lie to deceive people. I guess you fell for it, because MS stopped paying people to shill that shit decades ago.
This situation though is at the other end; the prosecutor says they can prove intent. So he's going to need a pretty good story. Imagine, you're live-streaming from your car while speeding, and the prosecutor has the video. You won't be able to claim that the car was malfunctioning and driving fast on its own.
A more applicable car-related situation would be of a person accused of reckless driving whose defense is they were avoiding a squirrel in the road. If everybody agrees there was really a squirrel, then the defense works. If the jury doesn't believe you that there even was a squirrel, you're guilty. So in this case, does the researcher have some excuse? (spoiler: no)
That's great, for the cars that are targeted at the right people, or DIY ones, you can configure it. Prius is pretty good at giving control. But not everything even asks. There are lots of control ICs that use a built-in brake table.
If you build a knife in the UK, and advertise it in the US as being better at murder than a regular knife, and Americans send you money to buy it, and you ship it to them, and they commit murders with it, you in fact you committed numerous crimes in the United States.
Being a foreign national isn't some sort of diplomatic immunity! lol
When you sell an item to a person in another country, it is up to you to know if it is legal to sell the thing in that country. If you only want to deal with your own country's laws, have that foreigner come and visit your country, and sell it to them there! And make sure they don't involve you in any planning of whatever they're doing in the other country. It is actually very simple. If you sell products to people who will receive them in another country, you need to be following the laws of both countries.
If I build a rocket in UK, sell it to a guy in Canada, who launches it at someone in the US...is the guy in the UK liable to the US? That is where it gets messy.
If he is criminally liable depends on the details of the case, but he's a legit military target if they need to take it that far.
For somebody claiming to be worried about legal details like jurisdiction you seem exceptionally ignorant of those details.
And yes, Saudi Arabia is free to make whatever laws they want, including if they wanted to make it illegal for any person to visit who ever walked in the middle of LA without a head scarf. It has nothing to do with anything, though.
In this case, the crime he's accused of committing happened in the United States, and he was also arrested in the United States, so it is a lot more like if Saudi Arabia made it illegal to possess alcohol in Saudi Arabia, and then somebody gets arrested for smuggling it in. And they complain, "Golly, I was outside the country by the time it was delivered, how can your laws touch me?" Easily, is how.
It reminds me of the Scottish village council member who was pretending to be especially violated by a CIA airplane having once flown overhead, waving his fist at every airplane, shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
7-11 is just as popular with bank robbers as with accountants. It has nothing to do with anything, though.
The reason it sounds like "clueless hysterical fear-mongering" is that when you read about some black hat malware author being arrested, you respond without having any details, and you wave your hands in the air and claim it is scary. Since you don't know anything about the story, your response swamps your data about the story, leaving your response to wank itself.
Nope. When you're supplying the government there is a reasonable presumption that they already have checks and balances, there is no duty for the supplier to ask about that. Furthermore, the government is allowed to retain tools that have potential illegal uses. Even something at the extreme end, like a missile, which can be used for both legal or illegal targets. It also is known to be able to land in the intended place, or even in an UNAUTHORIZED place. And yet, it is still legal for the government to have missiles.
If you're going to substitute the word "allow" for the word "intend," you should probably just close any browser window whenever you see the word "law" on the page. But even if you had that part right, the government is allowed to possess tools whose intended purpose is "unauthorized."
Intent has to be provable. If a security researcher arranges for their code to end up in the hands of people who will use it to commit a crime, the question is, can the prosecutor prove that he intended to? No rabbit hole, that is the same situation as every time an accomplice is arrested.
In your examples, you don't say anything that demonstrates intent, so they answer is that those are all fine, and you should know it when you propose them because you're not even talking about intent.
Intent is all that matters. Having random ideas doesn't instruct you in law. Stop trying to think up an answer, and just look it up.
News flash, intent matters in law. Fucking "duh." Is that really that new? Where have you been the past 800 years?
If you do something that is normally legal, but you do it to help somebody commit a crime, you're an accomplice. For example, driving a car is legal. Driving a getaway car at a robbery is not legal. Pointing at your drivers license doesn't help.
Well, actually, it is usually not more than 50% of braking. Varies by speed, but for 2wd cars it stays pretty low because the car is designed to brake in a balanced way to maximize control of the vehicle.
In the future, of course, it might be that all cars have a small auxiliary generator for braking. If they're actually worried about tire dust, that would happen, but of course they're actually just saying stupid shit like that as a way to try to justify continuing to use IC engines.
I don't know anybody that crashed doing it, but I do know somebody that got pulled over for reading-while-driving. She got a warning.
When I was a young teen I could often be seen walking down the sidewalk, reading a book. I never did walk into traffic, but I often crossed streets without ever looking up. Somehow I managed to subconsciously stop and go when it was safe.
The one time I tried to read while riding a bike I quickly dropped the book and swore it off.
People keep talking about attention spans, but I'm not really convinced they'll go down; they might simply become more practiced at hyper-focusing. They seem to me to be paying attention only to what they are doing, not dividing their attention. If you watch somebody walking down the sidewalk with a smart phone, are they more focused, or less focused? They seem more focused to me, they completely ignore everything else and wander around like zombies. If they were actually "multitasking," they'd be a lot easier to distract from their phones, but that just isn't how it works.
This is exactly what I meant. Your comment is factually incorrect, and also blatantly stupid, and easily refuted by internet searches on the companies and people involved. But you can't see any of that; your readers will know to agree with you simply by the inclusion of the words Hillary and "Clinton Corruption," whatever that means.
Usually when people talk about "Clinton Corruption" it means they think it is corrupt for the government to encourage donation to grade A+ charities. Which is not only horse shit, it is evil horse shit.
No, I'm upset that some people were dishonest and manipulated the market to get a different price than what was intended. And that there were already regulations on this industry to prevent this stuff, due to past misbehavior.
Personally, I consider the customers getting ripped off to be getting their just desserts, however even an unsympathetic fraud victim deserves Justice. I say throw everybody involved with Uber in prison for organized crime, and if they already spent the money so there is no restitution, that's just icing.
Net neutrality is the opposite of wanting to fix the problem of new bandwidth being consumed by new and less efficient apps.
Net neutrality guarantees that apps can be however inefficient they want, and the user can't be penalized for that with slower speeds.
Net neutrality is only good because the ISPs are evil. Theoretical non-evil ISPs would allocate bandwidth equitably between users and prioritize more important information. Perhaps a streaming video would be high priority for enough bandwidth for regular resolution, and lowest priority for HD data volume. Maybe HTML and CSS files should be prioritized. Perhaps hosted jpgs should have higher priority than third party linked ones. But we can't trust the Powers That Be with any of those decisions.
Eventually somebody will offer good service, and the whole stinking house will fall down, and we'll quickly forget what we used to tolerate.
Slashdot Mirror
Spoiler: contracts don't have to be ruled valid to be valid. They're valid when they're agreed, and the only legal review they're going to get is a ruling that they're NOT valid. If it is valid, you know it by nobody having gotten it declared invalid. If it didn't happen, it is valid. The only other thing they would be looking at is what some of the words mean if it is ambiguous.
The whole thing is just old FUD from the Microsoft anti-linux days, trying to raise a question that causes concern and won't ever be answered because it isn't a real question that will ever get addressed. It was only ever a lie to deceive people. I guess you fell for it, because MS stopped paying people to shill that shit decades ago.
This situation though is at the other end; the prosecutor says they can prove intent. So he's going to need a pretty good story. Imagine, you're live-streaming from your car while speeding, and the prosecutor has the video. You won't be able to claim that the car was malfunctioning and driving fast on its own.
A more applicable car-related situation would be of a person accused of reckless driving whose defense is they were avoiding a squirrel in the road. If everybody agrees there was really a squirrel, then the defense works. If the jury doesn't believe you that there even was a squirrel, you're guilty. So in this case, does the researcher have some excuse? (spoiler: no)
The question was, "Dude, like, are smart phones bad? Are the padawans turning into jeejahs?"
That's great, for the cars that are targeted at the right people, or DIY ones, you can configure it. Prius is pretty good at giving control. But not everything even asks. There are lots of control ICs that use a built-in brake table.
If you build a knife in the UK, and advertise it in the US as being better at murder than a regular knife, and Americans send you money to buy it, and you ship it to them, and they commit murders with it, you in fact you committed numerous crimes in the United States.
Being a foreign national isn't some sort of diplomatic immunity! lol
When you sell an item to a person in another country, it is up to you to know if it is legal to sell the thing in that country. If you only want to deal with your own country's laws, have that foreigner come and visit your country, and sell it to them there! And make sure they don't involve you in any planning of whatever they're doing in the other country. It is actually very simple. If you sell products to people who will receive them in another country, you need to be following the laws of both countries.
If I build a rocket in UK, sell it to a guy in Canada, who launches it at someone in the US...is the guy in the UK liable to the US? That is where it gets messy.
If he is criminally liable depends on the details of the case, but he's a legit military target if they need to take it that far.
For somebody claiming to be worried about legal details like jurisdiction you seem exceptionally ignorant of those details.
And yes, Saudi Arabia is free to make whatever laws they want, including if they wanted to make it illegal for any person to visit who ever walked in the middle of LA without a head scarf. It has nothing to do with anything, though.
In this case, the crime he's accused of committing happened in the United States, and he was also arrested in the United States, so it is a lot more like if Saudi Arabia made it illegal to possess alcohol in Saudi Arabia, and then somebody gets arrested for smuggling it in. And they complain, "Golly, I was outside the country by the time it was delivered, how can your laws touch me?" Easily, is how.
It reminds me of the Scottish village council member who was pretending to be especially violated by a CIA airplane having once flown overhead, waving his fist at every airplane, shouting, "Nemo me impune lacessit!"
7-11 is just as popular with bank robbers as with accountants. It has nothing to do with anything, though.
The reason it sounds like "clueless hysterical fear-mongering" is that when you read about some black hat malware author being arrested, you respond without having any details, and you wave your hands in the air and claim it is scary. Since you don't know anything about the story, your response swamps your data about the story, leaving your response to wank itself.
Right, the answer is "no" but only because the title lacks some form of the word "intent."
Don't expect that the technical answer to a poorly phrased question being "no" will end discussion, though.
Is it a crime to create and sell malware? No.
Is it a crime to create and sell software whose intent is malicious? Yes.
The obvious conclusion is that being called a pejorative prefixed with mal- does not make you a criminal. Duh.
Nope. When you're supplying the government there is a reasonable presumption that they already have checks and balances, there is no duty for the supplier to ask about that. Furthermore, the government is allowed to retain tools that have potential illegal uses. Even something at the extreme end, like a missile, which can be used for both legal or illegal targets. It also is known to be able to land in the intended place, or even in an UNAUTHORIZED place. And yet, it is still legal for the government to have missiles.
If you're going to substitute the word "allow" for the word "intend," you should probably just close any browser window whenever you see the word "law" on the page. But even if you had that part right, the government is allowed to possess tools whose intended purpose is "unauthorized."
That has nothing to do with anything.
7-11 benefits when a bank robber buys Cheesypoofs. It means nothing.
There is no rabbit hole.
Intent has to be provable. If a security researcher arranges for their code to end up in the hands of people who will use it to commit a crime, the question is, can the prosecutor prove that he intended to? No rabbit hole, that is the same situation as every time an accomplice is arrested.
In your examples, you don't say anything that demonstrates intent, so they answer is that those are all fine, and you should know it when you propose them because you're not even talking about intent.
Intent is all that matters. Having random ideas doesn't instruct you in law. Stop trying to think up an answer, and just look it up.
News flash, intent matters in law. Fucking "duh." Is that really that new? Where have you been the past 800 years?
If you do something that is normally legal, but you do it to help somebody commit a crime, you're an accomplice. For example, driving a car is legal. Driving a getaway car at a robbery is not legal. Pointing at your drivers license doesn't help.
Well, actually, it is usually not more than 50% of braking. Varies by speed, but for 2wd cars it stays pretty low because the car is designed to brake in a balanced way to maximize control of the vehicle.
In the future, of course, it might be that all cars have a small auxiliary generator for braking. If they're actually worried about tire dust, that would happen, but of course they're actually just saying stupid shit like that as a way to try to justify continuing to use IC engines.
This is the future; I've got Madonna music videos on my tablet. Satan owns me. I even have The Beatles on that thing.
I don't know anybody that crashed doing it, but I do know somebody that got pulled over for reading-while-driving. She got a warning.
When I was a young teen I could often be seen walking down the sidewalk, reading a book. I never did walk into traffic, but I often crossed streets without ever looking up. Somehow I managed to subconsciously stop and go when it was safe.
The one time I tried to read while riding a bike I quickly dropped the book and swore it off.
People keep talking about attention spans, but I'm not really convinced they'll go down; they might simply become more practiced at hyper-focusing. They seem to me to be paying attention only to what they are doing, not dividing their attention. If you watch somebody walking down the sidewalk with a smart phone, are they more focused, or less focused? They seem more focused to me, they completely ignore everything else and wander around like zombies. If they were actually "multitasking," they'd be a lot easier to distract from their phones, but that just isn't how it works.
Sounds expensive. These are private contractors.
This is exactly what I meant. Your comment is factually incorrect, and also blatantly stupid, and easily refuted by internet searches on the companies and people involved. But you can't see any of that; your readers will know to agree with you simply by the inclusion of the words Hillary and "Clinton Corruption," whatever that means.
Usually when people talk about "Clinton Corruption" it means they think it is corrupt for the government to encourage donation to grade A+ charities. Which is not only horse shit, it is evil horse shit.
If you can see where people have been in their lives by your agreement with the words they right, you're either an idiot or Wesley Crusher.
Don't narrow their options needlessly, they don't really need to be younger.
I finally figured out who you are. You're Angry Computer Guy, trying the rest of your life to get somebody else as angry as you are.
Thanks for all the good times, I've been laughing at your dumb ass since I first saw you on the local BBS in the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I still have Duke Nukem Theme by Megadeath on my playlist, I've been listening to it regularly for 17 years so I have way more VR experience than you.
No, I'm upset that some people were dishonest and manipulated the market to get a different price than what was intended. And that there were already regulations on this industry to prevent this stuff, due to past misbehavior.
Personally, I consider the customers getting ripped off to be getting their just desserts, however even an unsympathetic fraud victim deserves Justice. I say throw everybody involved with Uber in prison for organized crime, and if they already spent the money so there is no restitution, that's just icing.
Net neutrality is the opposite of wanting to fix the problem of new bandwidth being consumed by new and less efficient apps.
Net neutrality guarantees that apps can be however inefficient they want, and the user can't be penalized for that with slower speeds.
Net neutrality is only good because the ISPs are evil. Theoretical non-evil ISPs would allocate bandwidth equitably between users and prioritize more important information. Perhaps a streaming video would be high priority for enough bandwidth for regular resolution, and lowest priority for HD data volume. Maybe HTML and CSS files should be prioritized. Perhaps hosted jpgs should have higher priority than third party linked ones. But we can't trust the Powers That Be with any of those decisions.
Eventually somebody will offer good service, and the whole stinking house will fall down, and we'll quickly forget what we used to tolerate.