Hey neckbeard, you missed the part it is mostly the gamergaters whining about it, not the mythical "SJWs" that live under your bed.
Funny thought that you think if it was a sexbot, that would make it OK to worry about gender. No, actually, just buy whatever gender(s) of sexbot you want, and don't worry about it.
Do you have any idea how giant your whine was there? Waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaaa. There are people who talk about moral issues, and not all of them agree with me, waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaa. They should be silent because I feel bothered by the existence of opinions I didn't endorse, waaaaaa, waaaaaaa, waaaaaaa.
The answer to speech you don't like isn't to insist that people stop talking; it is to either stop listening, or just give your own opinions. There is no need to advocate to silence other opinions. You're offended by people being offended? Who cares? Learn about what "freedom" means.
That's why we have to have female digital assistants. Otherwise the nerdiness might border on neckbeard; especially if it is reading the internet to you.
I'd also recommend mostly hiring female spokespeople. Otherwise you risk some closet gamergater destroying your entire message with one slip of what they really think, but lied to you about during the interview.
Notice the identity in "pushing hard to make [some law]?" The pushing is a thing, but the law isn't one. So it is just hand-waving to continue from there and analyze it as if it is a thing.
Another thing we have in my State: direct democracy. That law might not have much chance of surviving a vote of the People. And in my State, the legislature only does routine or finance-related things; controversial bills get referred directly to the ballot, because when laws have been repealed the lawmakers who voted for those laws get primaried. (100%; both parties. No lawmaker who voted "yes" on a law later repealed has stood in the general election as an incumbent. That goes back over 100 years now, since we established direct voting.)
Maybe while his magical tax fairy is tracking remittances, it can spare an extra wave of the wand to provide the information the IRS needs to finish auditing Trump. They've been auditing him for over a decade, because he won't stop playing games with "continuing transactions" that make it impossible for them to collect enough information to finish the audit.
Lots of people feel that way, that's why we have so much gun violence.
People even kill themselves to try to get attention to a cause.
Neither approach is effective at gaining interest in your cause, though it might indeed rally people to the opposing cause. But only if they already felt that way but didn't care very much.
No, it goes quite the other way; if they commit a felony alteration to my computer, then they have "unclean hands" regarding the whole matter, and they won't be able to sue me. Crimes heavily outweigh torts, and in this case it is related because the crime would be retaliation for a perceived tort that hadn't been adjudicated.
It goes way beyond "malware." In my State, it is a felony.
(3) Any person who knowingly and without authorization alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime. ... (5)(a) A violation of the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be a Class C felony....
There is no exception for, "I thought he committed a civil tort against me." Even if they sue you for copyright infringement and win, they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
It was so awesome in the 90s with a linux desktop, it was like having a 30k *nix workstation, but free. Well, and with less hardware to be sure, but for those of us targeting internet and database servers, it was the real thing.
The only shortcoming I've ever had with a linux workstation is in the past decade, with the "paradigm shifts." Get your toys away from my existing knowledge base, thank you. I'm back to XFCE and I'm no longer even willing to try new desktop-related things. Just show me lots of xterms.
I was still running it with the Win32s extensions until I switched to linux. Much better than 95, which was a disaster for power users.
I had an OS/2 partition at the time, but it didn't have any software. And, while there were nice things about it, it had at least as many problems as windows.
My first home computer was a Timex/Sinclair 1000 with Sinclair BASIC ROM and 2k RAM. No storage. Why? Because it was all I could afford with my neighborhood lawn mowing business. My family thought home computers were a "scam" to sell toys, that they were just for games and not useful for education. I quickly set to work programming "hang man," and I failed to succeed inside of 2k. The RAM had to hold both the working memory, and also the program source. When the RAM filled up, the thing simply locked up; reboot required. No storage device, so program lost. Worthless generally for beginners, but worth the yard sale price.
Luckily I had access to Apple ][ computers at school and the public library.
Looking back though, the kids who learned the most the fastest were the ones with a Commodore 64 at home.
This isn't news. Next week, when they unveil something? Then it will be "news." Currently it is "futures" not "news."
This is not an event we would be expected to be interested in attending in person, so there is no reason to treat the mere scheduling of the event as news.
Live in a better State. Fix your laws. There is no reason for a lawyer unless you have kids; if your state laws are reasonable.
In my State, everything is equally owned 50/50 unless you have evidence otherwise. Unless there are kids involved, the lawyers are mostly being paid to show up so you don't have to.
The reason you "need" a divorce lawyer is because most of the time the person controlling the money wants to try to cheat the other person, and so they hire a lawyer. But in that case, then the other person hires a lawyer too and the money comes from the same source in the end.
If your State has simple, no-fault divorce rules, you just divide things up, and hire a paralegal company to draft the paperwork. If there are kids, did you come to a mutual agreement, or not? It is not automatic that you can't agree on what system is going to be good for the kids. A lot of people can still work that out even during a divorce.
In my State there isn't that much you can do to mess with the other party without just looking like an ass and having the numbers rounded away from you. People hire a lawyer to try, of course. And lawyers are happy to tell you that is what they're doing, even when there isn't anything like that they can do.
You cannot get a criminal record out of a lawsuit. Impossible.
You sound like you should go out and buy some unicorn impalement insurance or something. I'm sure existing legal insurance companies would be happy to give you a policy covering removal of "criminal" records created accidentally during a civil process.
You're just ignoring what I said, and repeating what I responded to without even considering what I said. Why even say nothing? Do better.
You give no reason to believe what you say is true. Animals in nature who hide, often do not try to hide once seen. They only do that if they have a safe place nearby to run to, which we wouldn't have in that scenario. Why would we be able to see aliens with better tech than us before they see us, and then hide? That seems pretty silly. If you're against hiding, be against it for rational reasons, not illogical ones. If we're going to even try to hide, it would have be started before any contact.
I don't assume they're competent, so I'm not placing much value in the actual effect telling us anything about their motives. I'm assuming that they got involved to try to make the law "stronger" because of people like Jennifer Lawrence. I'm assuming they had some conversation with a celeb that went like, "Will you help us make statements against pirating?" "My pictures were pirated, and they were very personal and their release caused me harm, what are you doing about my problem? Why should I want to help you with your similar but merely financial problem?" "Yeah, we'll do some stuff on that for you!" "I'll believe it when I see it." And then they go off and hire some lawyers and lobbyists to go "make teh laws stronger," and out popped this effort.
That is the law's "intended meaning" in those cases. It doesn't have exceptions, or "only when so-and-so thinks it was bad." It is true that the prosecutor could defer prosecuting those cases, if he didn't think it would serve justice; but that is frowned upon, because of abuse of power. Abuses that we know very well, from English History.
It may simply be that the law is unpopular with some people. How many, who knows. But it was never the intent of the law to allow a person under 18 to engage in child porn legally. If that was a real exception, you'd see older pedos hiring younger pedos to do the photography, to limit their sentencing potential. It would potentially add another layer of abuse. And furthermore, a pedo at 17 can easily victimize a much younger child. It happens a lot, actually. Child molesters are that way from puberty; it doesn't start at 30 or something.
If you want to change some details of the law, you should advocate for it. You might find out a lot of people don't want to tinker with it that much. Or, as with the rape laws, you might be able to carve out exceptions where both parties are within 3 years of age.
Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer. You can just show up and speak normal words to the judge, and the case gets thrown out. You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.
If it is a patent case or something, you'd have to know what words to say. But a typical case of accusations between individuals? No.
For example, landlord rental disputes are handled by the courts, and typically neither side has a lawyer. A landlord can absolutely represent themselves as either plaintiff or defendant; especially if they have a basic understanding of the rules they're supposed to follow. You don't need to know all the details of the rules that the Judge will be following.
Great research. I'm thinking that the MPAA is using this to set up lawsuits for celebrity stalkers and paparazzi.
Not useful for paparazzi. A "reasonable person" would not know or understand that a picture they took at work, from a public place, that has a history of being legal, "was to remain private."
It might be useful for leaked or stolen sex tapes, though. But those already have a clear cause of action. But that probably is their PR motive; PR aimed at the actors themselves who feel violated.
That's the thing about hiding. Once you know it is useful, it is too late to do it. That's why some animals often try to stay hidden, and if they're not hidden and wish they were, they don't hide, they freeze.
Thermite is legal, but there are other aspects of the device that require licensing. Exploding projectiles are regulated by the ATF. Their full name actually includes the word "explosives," but it isn't in the acronym. (ATF or BATF)
Everybody pronounces the L in solder, but in American English it is not aspirated. Very similar to the glottal T in Estuary English. Colloquially, we "swallow" the L, but it is still pronounced.
Slashdot Mirror
They are clearly higher women who are less qualified.
I think clearly you're even higher than they are.
Hey neckbeard, you missed the part it is mostly the gamergaters whining about it, not the mythical "SJWs" that live under your bed.
Funny thought that you think if it was a sexbot, that would make it OK to worry about gender. No, actually, just buy whatever gender(s) of sexbot you want, and don't worry about it.
Do you have any idea how giant your whine was there? Waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaaa. There are people who talk about moral issues, and not all of them agree with me, waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaa. They should be silent because I feel bothered by the existence of opinions I didn't endorse, waaaaaa, waaaaaaa, waaaaaaa.
The answer to speech you don't like isn't to insist that people stop talking; it is to either stop listening, or just give your own opinions. There is no need to advocate to silence other opinions. You're offended by people being offended? Who cares? Learn about what "freedom" means.
That's why we have to have female digital assistants. Otherwise the nerdiness might border on neckbeard; especially if it is reading the internet to you.
I'd also recommend mostly hiring female spokespeople. Otherwise you risk some closet gamergater destroying your entire message with one slip of what they really think, but lied to you about during the interview.
Notice the identity in "pushing hard to make [some law]?" The pushing is a thing, but the law isn't one. So it is just hand-waving to continue from there and analyze it as if it is a thing.
Another thing we have in my State: direct democracy. That law might not have much chance of surviving a vote of the People. And in my State, the legislature only does routine or finance-related things; controversial bills get referred directly to the ballot, because when laws have been repealed the lawmakers who voted for those laws get primaried. (100%; both parties. No lawmaker who voted "yes" on a law later repealed has stood in the general election as an incumbent. That goes back over 100 years now, since we established direct voting.)
lol I didn't mean to blame you for him. ;)
Maybe while his magical tax fairy is tracking remittances, it can spare an extra wave of the wand to provide the information the IRS needs to finish auditing Trump. They've been auditing him for over a decade, because he won't stop playing games with "continuing transactions" that make it impossible for them to collect enough information to finish the audit.
Lots of people feel that way, that's why we have so much gun violence.
People even kill themselves to try to get attention to a cause.
Neither approach is effective at gaining interest in your cause, though it might indeed rally people to the opposing cause. But only if they already felt that way but didn't care very much.
No, it goes quite the other way; if they commit a felony alteration to my computer, then they have "unclean hands" regarding the whole matter, and they won't be able to sue me. Crimes heavily outweigh torts, and in this case it is related because the crime would be retaliation for a perceived tort that hadn't been adjudicated.
It goes way beyond "malware." In my State, it is a felony.
(3) Any person who knowingly and without authorization alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime.
... ...
(5)(a) A violation of the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be a Class C felony.
There is no exception for, "I thought he committed a civil tort against me." Even if they sue you for copyright infringement and win, they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
It takes a lot to get even dumber, but that does. At so many levels.
Linux was NEVER aimed at consumer desktop.
It was so awesome in the 90s with a linux desktop, it was like having a 30k *nix workstation, but free. Well, and with less hardware to be sure, but for those of us targeting internet and database servers, it was the real thing.
The only shortcoming I've ever had with a linux workstation is in the past decade, with the "paradigm shifts." Get your toys away from my existing knowledge base, thank you. I'm back to XFCE and I'm no longer even willing to try new desktop-related things. Just show me lots of xterms.
Win 3.x had exactly as much DOS as DOS did! lol
I was still running it with the Win32s extensions until I switched to linux. Much better than 95, which was a disaster for power users.
I had an OS/2 partition at the time, but it didn't have any software. And, while there were nice things about it, it had at least as many problems as windows.
My first home computer was a Timex/Sinclair 1000 with Sinclair BASIC ROM and 2k RAM. No storage. Why? Because it was all I could afford with my neighborhood lawn mowing business. My family thought home computers were a "scam" to sell toys, that they were just for games and not useful for education. I quickly set to work programming "hang man," and I failed to succeed inside of 2k. The RAM had to hold both the working memory, and also the program source. When the RAM filled up, the thing simply locked up; reboot required. No storage device, so program lost. Worthless generally for beginners, but worth the yard sale price.
Luckily I had access to Apple ][ computers at school and the public library.
Looking back though, the kids who learned the most the fastest were the ones with a Commodore 64 at home.
It was probably the best toy, too.
This isn't news. Next week, when they unveil something? Then it will be "news." Currently it is "futures" not "news."
This is not an event we would be expected to be interested in attending in person, so there is no reason to treat the mere scheduling of the event as news.
Live in a better State. Fix your laws. There is no reason for a lawyer unless you have kids; if your state laws are reasonable.
In my State, everything is equally owned 50/50 unless you have evidence otherwise. Unless there are kids involved, the lawyers are mostly being paid to show up so you don't have to.
The reason you "need" a divorce lawyer is because most of the time the person controlling the money wants to try to cheat the other person, and so they hire a lawyer. But in that case, then the other person hires a lawyer too and the money comes from the same source in the end.
If your State has simple, no-fault divorce rules, you just divide things up, and hire a paralegal company to draft the paperwork. If there are kids, did you come to a mutual agreement, or not? It is not automatic that you can't agree on what system is going to be good for the kids. A lot of people can still work that out even during a divorce.
In my State there isn't that much you can do to mess with the other party without just looking like an ass and having the numbers rounded away from you. People hire a lawyer to try, of course. And lawyers are happy to tell you that is what they're doing, even when there isn't anything like that they can do.
You cannot get a criminal record out of a lawsuit. Impossible.
You sound like you should go out and buy some unicorn impalement insurance or something. I'm sure existing legal insurance companies would be happy to give you a policy covering removal of "criminal" records created accidentally during a civil process.
You're just ignoring what I said, and repeating what I responded to without even considering what I said. Why even say nothing? Do better.
You give no reason to believe what you say is true. Animals in nature who hide, often do not try to hide once seen. They only do that if they have a safe place nearby to run to, which we wouldn't have in that scenario. Why would we be able to see aliens with better tech than us before they see us, and then hide? That seems pretty silly. If you're against hiding, be against it for rational reasons, not illogical ones. If we're going to even try to hide, it would have be started before any contact.
No, Mexico is going to build the Trump Wall. Remember?
I know Fox said "fuck no," but Trump still is saying "yes." That's still his answer to where the money will come from.
I assume it means he intends to invade Mexico first, and set up some sort of strong-arm dictator who doesn't let anybody leave.
As for the catapult, first one lands on a military base and they'll be anti-aircraft cannons on the border.
None of them are unique. There are other oranges, apples, and green pears in the world. You didn't identify any unique trait.
read the definition of the word before trying to split hairs . ;)
It doesn't say, "being unlike anything else on your kitchen table." The word "anything" in the definition is there for a reason.
I don't assume they're competent, so I'm not placing much value in the actual effect telling us anything about their motives. I'm assuming that they got involved to try to make the law "stronger" because of people like Jennifer Lawrence. I'm assuming they had some conversation with a celeb that went like, "Will you help us make statements against pirating?" "My pictures were pirated, and they were very personal and their release caused me harm, what are you doing about my problem? Why should I want to help you with your similar but merely financial problem?" "Yeah, we'll do some stuff on that for you!" "I'll believe it when I see it." And then they go off and hire some lawyers and lobbyists to go "make teh laws stronger," and out popped this effort.
That is the law's "intended meaning" in those cases. It doesn't have exceptions, or "only when so-and-so thinks it was bad." It is true that the prosecutor could defer prosecuting those cases, if he didn't think it would serve justice; but that is frowned upon, because of abuse of power. Abuses that we know very well, from English History.
It may simply be that the law is unpopular with some people. How many, who knows. But it was never the intent of the law to allow a person under 18 to engage in child porn legally. If that was a real exception, you'd see older pedos hiring younger pedos to do the photography, to limit their sentencing potential. It would potentially add another layer of abuse. And furthermore, a pedo at 17 can easily victimize a much younger child. It happens a lot, actually. Child molesters are that way from puberty; it doesn't start at 30 or something.
If you want to change some details of the law, you should advocate for it. You might find out a lot of people don't want to tinker with it that much. Or, as with the rape laws, you might be able to carve out exceptions where both parties are within 3 years of age.
Here in the US, if it a totally bogus case like "bikini pics of your wife" or "blah blah ... feet" then you don't actually need a lawyer. You can just show up and speak normal words to the judge, and the case gets thrown out. You might even get some money... paid by the other party's lawyer for bringing a case without cause.
If it is a patent case or something, you'd have to know what words to say. But a typical case of accusations between individuals? No.
For example, landlord rental disputes are handled by the courts, and typically neither side has a lawyer. A landlord can absolutely represent themselves as either plaintiff or defendant; especially if they have a basic understanding of the rules they're supposed to follow. You don't need to know all the details of the rules that the Judge will be following.
Great research. I'm thinking that the MPAA is using this to set up lawsuits for celebrity stalkers and paparazzi.
Not useful for paparazzi. A "reasonable person" would not know or understand that a picture they took at work, from a public place, that has a history of being legal, "was to remain private."
It might be useful for leaked or stolen sex tapes, though. But those already have a clear cause of action. But that probably is their PR motive; PR aimed at the actors themselves who feel violated.
That's the thing about hiding. Once you know it is useful, it is too late to do it. That's why some animals often try to stay hidden, and if they're not hidden and wish they were, they don't hide, they freeze.
Thermite is legal, but there are other aspects of the device that require licensing. Exploding projectiles are regulated by the ATF. Their full name actually includes the word "explosives," but it isn't in the acronym. (ATF or BATF)
Everybody pronounces the L in solder, but in American English it is not aspirated. Very similar to the glottal T in Estuary English. Colloquially, we "swallow" the L, but it is still pronounced.