Re: Not when you immerse them in violent video games, Timmy.
What a complete and utter bullshit. Violent video games, you say? News flash: basically, ALL games that young boys play starting at age of 5 are violent. They (boys) don't need video hardware to turn stick into sword, magic staff or rifle. But - lo and behold: they can tell exactly where the game ends and real fighting starts. So when I tell my son "no, you can't beat other children" he completely understand that I don't mean "don't play with toy sword".
Now, there's kernel of truth in "video games are bad". It is generally accepted fact that children (age 5-10) should play video games little as possible. Not that it's some kind of "harmful influence", but it bring nothing for child development. And no, "educational games" are useless too: there's plenty of research about it.
This kind of BS articles comes out when author confuses battle with "court battle". In a "good old days", when country invited another country's company to mine something, company build a mine and THEN being thrown out: that's was real casus belli. Which means, that very real battle (one with dead people) will take place. Probably more than one. Now: some docs are exchanged, money change hands in worst case. Maybe next time Costa Rica's government will act more responsively when issuing mining permits? Maybe more detailed contracts will get written? Who knows? What we do know - is that _war_ is not expected here. It's a good thing.
Let's say we'll have it your way: company can't sue country in whatever-court. What are alternatives? Hire private army? When some Costa Rica decides to screw a megacorp, and my retirement money depends on stock/profits of said megacorp - I don't like it. Do you suggest that if Canadian company wants to extract settlement from Costa Rica's government, the only "legitimate" option is for Canada to invade Costa Rica? You didn't like an idea of "court battle", so I guess you probably prefer a real one? Or should Canadian citizens just cover the losses?
You seems to forget, that suing is preferable, civilized form of conflict resolution; as opposed to plain old shooting each other.
So, both of you seriously proud of the fact that you're unable to comprehend why you need a license to operate potentially dangerous machine?
It's also mind boggling how some US folks confuse "freedom" and "I have no ID card". Allow me to educate both of you. In (former) USSR you didn't have to carry your ID with you. And no, police did not routinely stopped random people on streets and asked "papers". What purpose would that serve?
Now, here's another "revealing" piece: DUI is bloody dangerous. Not for driver, mind you. But for every single car and pedestrian around him. That's not "nothing to fear - nothing to hide" case. Don't agree - don't drive.
Basically, what the judge said is correct: "just because you-all have set up a system ..., that doesn't in any way lessen the government's right to receive that information".
In other words, US have laws which explicitly allow wiretapping. Nothing extraordinary about it. Remember, this government official gave sword testimony, and judge have no reason to think he's lying. If this official says "we're not looking", what do you thing judge will do, say: "nah, don't believe you"?
>> ...and this kind of attitude is exactly why these attacks on due process and rights are so dangerous
You are confused about what due process is. Since this is different in every country, let me tell you what it is NOT. It is NOT blind application of pre-coded (in laws) rules. That's what computer does. What a judge does, is another thing entirely.
Let me bring you an example. You drop a hammer from your window and someone is killed. Only human can decide whether you killed someone in cold blood or just was careless. If you're already convicted in murder felon, you will have _very_ hard time arguing "just careless".
That's why in almost _any_ trial intent and character matter. So, yes, it is important whether I "like that guy".
>> Turning a doorknob is not making a request -- it's physically opening
So, by this logic, if I have a door operated by button it will be different, because pressing the button is "a request"? That's not how criminal justice (supposed to) work.
>> A "mere" URL *as presented by the server* and then ...
I think you have no idea how SQL-injection works. You _also_ take "URL as presented by server" and modify it to your needs. Yes, it's quite different from discussed case, but that's not what is argued. The argument is "just because it's URL it doesn't mean it's harmless"; as one can see slightly modified URL can bring a lot of action.
>> They're comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing apples and oranges is OK if all you need to estimate mass of cargo, for example.
I don't mean that guy did "41-months-in-jail-serious-crime". But, I do mean that DOJ's logic is not "insane".
>> Not contacting AT&T doesn't matter
Wrong, it does. It shows intent. You saying that "this wasn't done maliciously", and DOJ arguing otherwise. That's a core of an argument, the rest is technical explanation about what's happened.
Now, going public _can_ be seen as malicious (attack on reputation, for example).
Basically, that's why courts are ruled by judges (or juries) and not by machines - to decide about such fuzzy thing as "intent".
>> Furthermore, they didn't need to "ask permission" because they sent a request to the server and the server answered.
That's irrelevant. If I failed to lock the door, this doesn't mean that it's OK to enter. It doesn't matter that you made a "request" (turned the knob) and door-lock "answered". It's still trespassing.
>> It does this by arguing that because SQL injection attacks can happen via a URL, therefore any "hack" via a URL can be a malicious hack.
Argument here is presented incorrectly. What DOJ tries to tell, is that "mere URL" can be quite dangerous thing, depends on content, like in SQL-injection.
So, like in many other cases it's matter of intent. If this guy is known to be "world-class jerk", he will (probably) have hard time trying to prove that his intentions were harmless.
>>> Remember, guns don't kill people. Desperate people kill people.
So, what do you think guns do? Make funny noises? Guess what - guns kill people, that's what they made for. Sorry, correction: guns _only_ made to kill.
And while I agree that videogames have nothing to do with murder, guns (the real ones) are very related. And yes, military training is also related.
Re: Techdirt exception to "get offa my lawn" for juveniles, eh?
>> I regard guns as a fundamental right, as stated literally in the Constitution.
Do you know how fucking insane this stuff sounds is for any non-US person? WTF do you need a gun for? Really? Is that some form of entertainment? If you love shooting - why not join the military (I heard US spend on military more than rest of the world combined).
In Israel, there are have real terrorists and war-crazy neighbors you can't have a gun "just because". Even if soldiers carry their M16 with them all_the_time, even at homes.
So maybe it IS time to change culture and realize, like rest of the world did, that guns belong to army/police. It's not a "fundamental right", in no shape of form
Re: Re: Ooh, me! "who is really ready to say they're sure"
What is to discuss here? Article is kind of "duh!" moment - cocktails have no copyright, therefore there's lots of them. Now, since there's lots of new movies, that's must be because them have no copyright too. No, wait a minute, movies DO have copyright.
So, "What The Continuous Flourishing Of New Cocktails Can Teach Us ..." - nothing really, except as ootb pointed out, mixing drinks is somewhat different than making movies.
Sometimes copyright makes sense, other times it doesn't. Like any other concept humans invented.
If I were US citizen, I would be enraged on this kind of waste. Even if I don't care about legality of all this crap: it's still wasted money. There's no that many terrorists in US to justify this kind of spending.
It's not even that good for "dissident control" - if you want to harass them, you still have to arrest them, drag through courts etc. You don't have to _find_ those people: they will march for protest on main street.
Re: Mike, Google has already fully indexed your email!
Ah, It's you again. Let's say for argument sake that Mike, indeed, is Google employee. Now what?
Yes, he won't tell bad things about them. Never ever. Now, unless YOU want to employ him - can you shut the fuck up, please.
Since I don't live in US, I don't really care about this NSA scandal. And yes, Google scanning all emails for commercial purposes. Don't care either.
When I have something to hide - I don't post in on Facebook and don't send it over email.
Re: Re: Is Mike naive, or hopelessly naive? Discuss.
While you definitely right about guy being obsessed, his point is correct: Mike is naive or hopelessly naive.
Your administration is corrupt. Corrupt as a whole group. You want to see changes - march to the Washington and demand them out.
No, don't ask to "rebuild the trust". Demand them all fired.