Skyfuck Skyoff you Skyfucking Skybastards.
But I do like the sound if Skycunts.
417 posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Skyfuck Skyoff you Skyfucking Skybastards.
But I do like the sound if Skycunts.
Why is hosting a link to illegal material illegal? NB. Not only should the links not be illegal, the stuff they link to is at best copyrighted which should be a civil offence and is not actually illegal or copyrightable in every country.
If I have a directory of local fences* is that illegal even if I never buy or sell stolen goods? Are Yell (is that still a thing) breaking the law by listing gun stores?
When does knowledge, and the dissemination of it, become so dangerous that our betters have to make it illegal? When is it better for us to not know facts 'for our own good'? This is not about piracy, this is about the state's (and the State's) ability to stop their citizens from accessing knowledge. Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
* The people who buy and sell stolen goods, not the 'keep out my yard' type.
Ah Skyfall, the one where the villain has a preposterous plot that somehow comes off in spite of hundreds of unforeseeable events having to come off in the right order at the right time and he actually gets everything he wants yet viewers still see it as a win for Bond?
I think I see the problem here - you're mistaking a bulletin board with a news site run by journalists.
As long as the robot can tell black from white, and I don't mean morally, then surely the US police are redundant?
So a prospective Conservative leader wants to regulate what adults can see? Who'd've thunk it?
Whatever happened to small government?
Even if there were no breaches, I'd still be extremely concerned about the increasing amount of data they're holding.
It's all adult material.
Then all potentially subversive material.
Then all politically contentious material.
Then anything critical of plod or our betters in Parliament.
Then, wait - now! - anything politically incorrect.
Then anything contrary to the official party line.
For Joe Hart the only stat that matters is: Iceland 2
Is it true when you enter an Irish address into GPS it says, "Well, I wouldn't start from here."
Will our former colonists have to stop calling it a cell phone now?
So once again "won't someone think of the [pictures of] kiddies" outweighs the rights that the country was founded upon. How very British of you.
'They found that those “high performing companies” typically spent much less time fixing mistakes'
As I explain to customers why they shouldn't care about the bugs they raised because: look, shiny new features...
> “I am not approaching this from a one-sided idealistic libertarian standpoint..."
No one representing people or in power is. The question is why the hell not?
Gates said he'd met “many poor people” in Africa and discovered, “just about anyone who’s living in extreme poverty is better off if they have money”.
...undersea fibre optic taps.
Seems to me the cops and security services have infinitely more power, and incentive, to terrorise me than any group of religious or political nut jobs ever could.
@Lost all faith...
Have we reached the point yet where, absent personal details such as address, such threats are meaningless and can be treated as fiction by reasonable people?
What are the actual instances of people following through on such threats? When does it become as frightening as people putting a curse on you? Anyone got any stats? Am I being too cavalier about the threat posed by fat guys in their underpants sitting in their mom's basement?
A politician gets out in front of the NSA's blackmail threats in order to try to bring them to heel.
The only way to prove they were illegally spying on you is to illegally hack them, thus giving perfect justification for them spying on you as you are the type of person that will hack into secret government servers.
Is The Donald the mayor?
"apparently they still get read"
They're not read if they're just stored or automatically opened and scanned by a machine, it's only read if a person eyeballs it.
That's all well and good, but until people high up the food chain start going to jail for these blatant constitutional abuses then this is nothing more than a temporary reprieve on the road to the panopticon.
"Grassley on the other hand referred to recent atrocities including the Paris, Brussels and San Bernardino shootings and insisted that "the Intelligence Community have the tools to keep us safe.""
So the Intelligence Community's recent abject failures to keep "us" safe is given as evidence of why they have to be allowed to keep breaking the law? That is some level 10 spinning right there.
Contrary to your limited view of me through the medium of the internet I am neither angry nor especially persecuted. I have a much more nuanced view of copyright than either yourself or the pirate party and am open to persuasion from either side. However, what I see is governments pandering to corporations so that individual copyright is apparently optional but individuals breaking corporate copyright are to be hammered by the law.
Your view that only industrial infringers will be hit is naive in the extreme. I seem to recall people with different coloured ties telling us RIPA would only be used for terrorism and then another tie mob asking for people's internet access to be revoked should they download a few films or songs. I also recall the same corporations trying to ban cassette recorders and VHS recorders as they would completely ruin the music and film and TV industry and to make saving a TV show for your own personal viewing illegal. They have managed to ruin companies like Aereo and block various technology startups through legislation and regulation to preserve an oligopoly.
But sure, paint me as a freetard, ignore the points and attack the strawman. Ignore history and trust to the benevolence of courts, politicians, police and corporations.
But just for fun, could you please inform us what "industrial scale" means? I can find no definition and since the music biz seemed to go after uploaders with claims for damages in the hundreds of thousands, and if that ain't "industrial scale" what is, doesn't that actually put regular people who share copyrighted material in the crosshairs of a 10 year sentence? If not, why not?
Ain't that the truth. To the line or be rejected. All because I suggested that perhaps based on http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/22/ten_years_for_filesharing/ a persecution complex is not entirely unjustified.
Now, will I be rejected for having a link to a Reg article in a Reg comment?
"We also want to reassure everyone customer and employee data was not compromised."
Yes it was...
"to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize:"
Your google search history for symptoms matches your anonymous medical history in the same timeframe, but they'd never be able to put those two things together, would they?
Let alone the illegal, sorry, accidental, data slurp their street view cars were doing.
If that were true the stock would be a heck of a lot lower than $95.
Are they questioning Bananaman?
If I download it won't GCHQ have to analyse it to work out what it is? Won't that save lots of scientists a load of work and finally put the Orwellian Panopticon to some good use for once?
Of course, 300TB will be the proverbial needle in the pron haystack that is my download history. And not just any haystack, a Barn-sized haystack.
In the UK the government not having 'access to [un]encrypt' is enough to convict.
While some of my former teachers would probably agree with forgetting being a crime, it seems a bit much to me.
Why don't the FBI say to Ford that they need a way to remotely lock any vehicle and have it drive itself to the nearest police station? By their logic they can force any company to do anything, right?
Industry has convinced government that a potential economic detriment to them should be dealt with not by their lawyers and civil courts, but by criminal courts and state lawyers. That means you and I are paying through tax to pay for the state to investigate, prosecute and punish infringers (i.e. our fellow citizens) whereas in most other situations the supposedly wronged party has to pony up for their own lawyers, initially at least, court costs are paid by the loser and an economic redress is made if the party is found to have done wrong.
Of course, as with everything, there are two sides here - industry has also convinced government that our information should be free for their use, from Facebook's claims of ownership of everything you upload to Google scanning all books ever written with no recompense or permission.
I may be naive, but these seems to be two completely opposite views on copyright that the state seems happy to play along with and they both screw the little guy. If we had only one at least we'd know where we stood, but currently industry copyright is protected by the state and personal copyright isn't worth a damn.
If I rob her of a DVD using minimal violence I'll get 1-3 years. But if I upload that DVD I'll get up to 10 years.
Is she sure it's the upload part she wants to deter here?
You don't get it, do you? We're all of interest. The purpose of these things is not to see patterns and stop terrorism* it is to spot the patterns of people who do terrorism so they can use those patterns to target people who are not keen on the govt of the day or the security apparatus in place.
Everyone matches some part of the some terrorists' (or drug smugglers' or paedos' or whatever the bogeyman of the day is) profiles, so it's trivial to have people escorted away for several months and their equipment forensically analysed for any infringement then prosecuted for that.
As long as the people know the government/security services are spying on us then, as per the panopticon, we'll be too afraid of being caught to step out of line or criticise the status quo. We're not there yet, but it's only a matter of time before a comment like this gets me an interview with my local friendly plod for not being pro-establishment enough and possibly a bit subversive and maybe some re-education is in order.
* maybe it will do that sometimes, but that's just a nice PR story to keep people onside.
Secret courts, private rulings, no appeals, state interest overriding the public's rights, appointed judges...
Who could ever imagine anything would go wrong?
I carry around 20 KWh* of unused, unwanted energy. Why can't a wearable tap into that and stay charged forever as well as improving my health and looks? We could even incorporate a USB port and I could charge all my devices from my abundant energy reserves**.
* 2 kg fat * 35KJ/gram / 3600 (secs->hours)
** Should be careful how I phrase that or the US might invade me.
Assuming Quantum computers are thousands of times faster than the best supercomputer for problem X, how do you go about checking the machine got the right answer if it takes a several hours to run the program? It would take years on a regular supercomputer. Do we check the simple ones then take its word on anything that takes over a few minutes? Seems like a great way to sell a modern Mechanical Turk.
This is obvious bullshit.
If the system works as a quantum computer, and isn't just a regular machine heavily overclocked and set up to excel in quantum-type problems, then I'm sure it is orders of magnitudes better. But we'd have real numbers and not 100 million+ or the sniff test-failing seconds to hours magic number of 3,600.
Several points to be made here, let's start with your 'discovery' - it is in fact more than a decade old view that the left/right line of politics is more accurately a horseshoe where the further you traverse towards either end of the spectrum the more alike they become:
(But I'm sure it's actually much older than that. I recall making a similar observation 20 years ago thinking about the similarities between fascism and communism)
As for your multi-dimensional political view, there is already a much better political compass that separates out the economic freedom from personal/social freedom:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass
Now just because Uber don't want regulation in one particular market segment does not mean they don't want regulation in any segment, e.g. if cars are allowed on the road, untaxed and uninsured, with no traffic rules and regulations then people are less likely to use Uber (drivers and passengers) because the roads would be incredibly unsafe - this is NOT what Uber would want. They likely also quite like the regulation of the financial markets that enables them to get such large sums of money to
cripple the opposition continue growing their business.
As for "Somalia", what makes you think there is no regulation there? It is about as over-regulated as it gets. Men with guns come and ensure you are doing things they like and take your money, then other men with guns come to ensure you're doing something different and take your money. Just because there is no coordination between the groups with guns does not make you 'free' from regulation.
And all these western clowns who keep going on about how great government regulation is and how restaurants would poison you every chance they had without some bureaucrat with a clipboard form the local council coming down and taking bribes every other month, where the hell do you eat and stay when you're on holiday? The bloke with the clipboard doesn't go to Mexico or the Canaries ahead of you to check that restaurant or hotel in advance of your arrival, so it seems the world does actually manage to function without poisoning everyone without the bloke from your local council checking standards.
Speaking of which, when you're abroad how do you decide which restaurants/hotels are clean? You use tripadvisor or some non-government site that collates customer reviews. But that would never work here, right? We definitely need the bloke with the clipboard who earns bugger all and definitely can't be bribed, amirite?
Dear AC, let me state this once again, you clearly missed the title first time: over-governance.
Everyone wants somebody to be looking out for their interests (even paleo-libertarians believe a market in advice/recommendations would spring up to keep companies mostly honest) but there is a limit. Regulating kids' lemonade stands seems way, way over that limit.
Hey there Peanuts kids, got a lemonade stand? That's $91 for every year you've been running it. Thanks.
Hey Peanuts kids, nice legal business you got there. Now here's the health and safety certificates you need to obtain to sell food or drink to the public.
We're from the government and we're here to help.
Bloody close enough to be almost right, and as lies to children go, pretty damn good.
He'll be burned as a witch on his next visit to the US.
Living inside a giant fish, talking snakes, walking on water, rising from the dead, travelling on a magic flying horse.
Yep, he's got a point. No real religion would be based on a work of fiction.
"if I could prove my innocence"
Not my job. Cops have to prove non-innoncence otherwise they can fuck right off.
...he said with a really high pitched voice.
They tried the terrorist angle.
Now they're going for drug dealer/gang banger.
I guarantee the next one is an alleged paedophile's phone.
That's the big 3 they always try to scare you with to give up your freedoms meekly and unquestioningly.
$35k car, 5 year lifecycle, $7k pa. 7 year lifecyle $5k pa. You're not gonna fuck about with repairs and replacements on the hideously expensive battery pack - treat it as a hire purchase and accept the limitations.
The 14th Amendment applies as the government is using the All Writs Act (1789) to force, under penalty of law, the company, contrary to its commercial well-being, and its employees, against their will and conscience, to create new software.
The argument that code is speech would relate to the 1st Amendment argument, but the fact their labour is being forced against their will is what puts it at odds with the 14th. The government is effectively conscripting Apple employees, which is not really constitutional.
This time it's code, but what's next? Who can say, but as long as the government can claim it's somehow related to something it is concerned with then a sympathetic (bought) judge will sign off on it and if you have pockets less deep than Apple's you may not be able to go toe-to-toe with the FBI.