Re: I wonder if the Supreme Court understood the issue?
Of course not. They're judges. They haven't visited reality in a very long time.
1300 posts • joined 10 Apr 2012
Of course not. They're judges. They haven't visited reality in a very long time.
You're quite correct. With the prevalence of roadside tax collectors dressed up as police officers, people need to watch their speedo constantly so which is safer? A HUD or a control panel?
We all know watching the road without distractions is the safest but it's not an option anymore when the government is addicted to the fine revenue.
Politicians might suck as making trade deals but they excel at selling out the people they are suppose to represent.......
"Your ISP will only see the MAC address of your router."
Exactly thus they cannot prove who did it therefore any case will fail as they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt
"I assume you mean IP addresses"
No I mean MAC addresses. My router assigns IP addresses so I can't tell who was using the IP address at the time. I need to be given some unique identifier so the offending party can be identified.
Giving me the IP address of my router is not good enough.
Basically it boils down to them providing definitive proof of the offender which they cannot do. It's no different to getting a prank call down to a phone number but that still doesn't prove who made the call.
If it comes to court, all I need prove is reasonable doubt and I can claim my wireless access was hacked. Unless they can show the mac address, they cannot prove it was my computer and as such their case will fail. Plenty of precedence where they sued old people who didn't even know what a torrent was.
At the end of the day they will bluster a lot but they won't fight anyone that questions their methods because in court their methods might be shown to faulty which would stop them from scamming others. Short of someone admitting it, they really don't have a leg to stand on. They can only scare people with the cost of fighting them in court.
That you couldn't ask them for the mac address of the offending downloader as there is multiple people using the connection so you can forward the letter onto the correct party?
Of course if they cannot identify the offender clearly, I really don't know where that leaves their case....
There is no point to banning in the global marketplace.
The Australian government can ban whatever they like and anybody can bypass the ban in seconds flat thus makes the ban worthless.
Southpark had to remove the anal probing scene from their game to bypass the ban in Australia and replaced it with a picture of a crying koala. Now I can go straight onto the net via my VPN and download the banned US version.
Banning is a total waste of time.
The whole point of a R18+ level is so nothing should be banned. All banning does it create a black market for the game. It's not like anyone with a VPN couldn't buy it as a digital download from overseas anyway so what's the point?
Your wifi was publically broadcasting
There is a difference between privacy and anonymity. Google is an advertising company and simply can't function with total privacy. They make the best search engine and do a lot of other stuff. Yes they collect a lot of personal data but people don't look at that data, only robots.
Yes they might get your thermostat data and usage patterns but what will they do with it? Only logical things I can think of is to make the thermostat more efficient, perhaps generate load demands for energy companies.
Privacy went out the window as soon as the NSA slurped everyone's phone records and metadata. Anonymity is all we have left (short of living off the grid in a cave)
"What's a "vine video"?"
"Isn't this how families are started?"
Only in a few. Some are likely to get you arrested
"Yeah, but anyone else in the room is still likely to vomit over you!"
Well they will be when they walk in on you wearing nothing but the Oculus Rift and a smile......
It's a stupid move. It was porn that won the war for VHS against BETA.
Porn would sell more units and more units sold means more applications.
The best way to get new technology into the market is porn
Sexist? He's the minister for women.......
"At last a sensible government policy"
Sorry but I can't put my faith in any policy indorsed by a fluffy bunny (Or Tony Rabbit either)
We like to not vote for these morons but like with every election it's a case of picking the least useless moron
I'd of said the weakness was the managers.......
Don't forget mauled by drop bears.......
"Just as long as they have keys for the US sold phones and none for international versions, Then just watch how many phones are bought online and shipped into the US."
But with the Australia Tax we buy US phones and ship them here............
All the US tech companies would move out of the US. It is that or die a slow death. No company can afford to hand over the keys to the government.
Scientists are now switching from rats to lawyers because they won't form any emotional bonds to lawyers and there are some things that a rat won't do........
"If insurance companies are allowed to provide discounts to drivers with these, there would be an incentive to install them. Eventually they might require them for any cars someone under 18 would drive, since they are traditionally the most expensive to insure and some carriers already refuse to write policies on cars that include a teenage driver."
It's a total waste of time. By the time this gets to a usable state self drive vehicles will be available. Tech like this will only be a problem. People will try and bypass it so it will become more sensitive and then more false positives stopping sober people from driving.
Yes I can see a drunk driver wearing a snorkel and mask driving at two am......
Cause what could radicalise you faster than the police turning up and taking your iPhone.......
Because potential terrorists couldn't buy a cheap laptop from cash convertors and use free wifi at Maccas......
"Not really, no. Now ISIS can flood social media with "selfies" labelled C&C taken outside of places or buildings they would like to be destroyed."
I hear the new ISIS command has an oval office.......
The rebranding has successfully achieved a very important task.
It has taken your mind off the dog of a system the Liberals are installing.......
Those who live by the spear, die by the sword.....
"I was almost lynched in a comparative religion class making this same suggestion. Someone blurted, "are you saying God is a forger?" I replied, "only if you believe in a 'Young Earth'". People started o shout. Turned out most of the class was fundies expecting to get their confirmation bias stroked."
The best argument against them is the Thursday club. The argument stands as everything was made last Thursday. All your memories was implanted by god when he made everything last Thursday. All scientific evidence that the world is older than a week was faked by god to test our faith and so on.
You can reuse all their arguments and they have to argue that you are wrong and in doing so shoot down all their own arguments.
"It broke several federal laws. You're obviously implying selling illegal drugs is not wrong or unethical. But that's just your opinion. There are plenty of people who disagree with you. But regardless, it is illegal, and Ulbricht knew full well the gravity of the crime, as he even panicked after telling two confidants that he was DPR. His journal entries make it clear he knew just how serious a crime he was committing."
But he wasn't selling drugs. He was managing a website that allowed others to sell drugs. That's the difference.
The problem is the people he tried to have killed, not the Silkroad website.
"But what do I know? I am still waiting to hear valid arguments from people who think making drugs illegal is a GOOD idea.
Please come forth. Remember, that if you argue on morality or health grounds, the evidence will defeat you."
I quote the Cartman argument "Drugs are bad, because if you do drugs, you're a hippie and hippies suck!"
Thorne : 1
"Err, no you cannot have free unlimited storage as you've contradicted yourself in the space of two sentences."
Yes you can. If Google can compact the files as they want, the photo doesn't count towards your quota. If you demand to store full res images, it does count.
What you don't have is unlimited storage for full res images.
"Absolute security and cloud, really?"
Well yes. You can set up a system to encrypt the files locally and store in a cloud based server. The keys never leave the local machine.
How much more secure do you want? Sure you could do your own backup and store in a pulse hardened fireproof safe built into a cold war bunker but it's just photos.
Sorry but if Google doesn't have it then how can it work? The whole point is that it compresses it and sorts it but if it can't read it then it can't do it.
It's a free service, you don't have to use it. If you want absolute security then you need a paid cloud service.
Personally I'd use it as I have a stack of photos sitting on my computer that I'd hate to lose due to a crash or crypto locker or such. Yes I could do a backup and give the copy to someone else but I haven't and it doesn't seem too bad and there isn't anything I want to hide.
I'd use it.
There is no limit to how stupid some people can be.......
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”--Richard Dawkins.
Sounds like my ex........
"He also claimed that BT is getting – present tense – 500 Mbps through its copper infrastructure"
While I'm getting 100mb right now, should the hardware at each end get upgraded, I could get 1gb or more.
Getting 500mb through copper is good but they don't say how they get it. Odds are it's right next to the node and only has a tiny distance of brand new copper to use. Considered Australia has massive distances of poor quality copper, the number of people that could get 500mb you could count on one hand.
Fibre is the only way to go due to the laws of diminishing returns.
Well actually if they had recorded data from said amusement park, that could be tracked also.
But really who would bother?
The effort of tracking someone that way is too much effort and there is a million ways to do it far easier.
"And tell all your friends"
Don't tell your friends. The more people use it the sooner it will be picked up.
If you don't tell anyone you can dine for free for life........
"Who was it who said "You will prise my steering wheel from my cold dead hands!"?"
The insurance companies will...........
"old cars will not be removed from the road due to compatibility issues for a very long time as the onus will be on the incoming models to conform to what is already in place. It will take the better part of a human lifetime before that happens."
No it won't. A lot of countries don't allow vehicles more than 5 years old on the road already. Each year there will be a standard to meet and any vehicle incapable of meeting that standard won't be registered.
"You may also, however, attract people off buses and trains, leading to more road congestion."
Yes but robocars will be able to drive faster and closer together, in formation meaning more cars can use the same roads.
No more old guys in hats holding up the flow of traffic.
"Lawyers will love it. What happens when one of these vehicles is in an accident? The passengers (especialy in the USA) will look for someone to sue, and without a formal driver that will fall on (a) the owner, and/or (b) the manufacturer."
Lawyers won't love it. The vehicles will be fitted with 360 degree cameras and in all likelihood the video footage will show their stupid client causing the accident.
Robocars will result in less accidents meaning lawyers won't be able to chase ambulances as easily and will have to turn to an easier source of income like patent trolling......
But there could be more cars as people who cannot drive will be able to own one.
The elderly, school kids and the disabled.
In all likelihood driverless cars will be electric and require less maintance than current cars. The requirement for safety will no be as bad so will cheaper and quite possibly made of printed plastic and carbon fibre.
The real requirement for replacement will be the electronics. Newer systems will be faster and safer and old cars won't be compatible and as such old cars will be removed from the roads.
"I'm not going to cry a river - that's how business works"
You hire a lawyer and make enough mud stick to gain traction in court. You drag it out in court until it is costing the company massive amounts and you offer to settle for an amount cheaper than running the court battle. The company pays up and the lawyer buys a new BMW
That's how lawyers work.......
"verdict is a victory for the creative arts"
So this whole thing was just an act?
As Alexei Sayle once said when asked by Australian Customs if he had a criminal history upon entering "Oh I didn't know you still needed one to come here...."
That would be releasing police operations matters and would land you in jail quick smart cause nobody likes a dobber.