I auto-report ALL his comments now (ar;dr) *because* of all his many, many PREVIOUS trollish comments.
This is bad behaviour and in some ways supports antidirts position.
Each and every comment should either be: 1) read; 2) ignored.
And only in the case of 1 should a determination be made whether to 'report' the comment or not.
While most of antidirts comments are trollish personal attacks, a few, a very few, are valid, insightful comments.
A good, insightful post is still a good, insightful post even if made by a crack-pot reactionary loon who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire on the footpath in front of me while I had a full bladder and was desperately trying to find a toilet to take a piss in.
Just to be devil's advocate here, and not saying this is likely, BUT could it be a case of not corruption, but one of the many methods Intelligence Agencies use to hide intelligence-related expenses for (legitimate) clandestine funding?
For example, maybe these are actually fronts for NSA/CIA operations and ways of funneling payments to agents/spies/operations?
Sure, these people may not be that far removed from the NSA, but it could just be the start of a long chain to hide US Government funding of clandestine operations.
If I want to make a startup and sell it to Google or Microsoft or Apple or whoever, I'll do whatever's necessary (and within the law) to make it an attractive purchase for one of those giants. If it means lock-in, then you bet your ass I'll implement lock-in.
Once that company's sold (if it does) and the non-compete has expired, and I'm rich enough to not care about 'making' any more money, I'll contribute anything I can to the open standards open-source equivalent.
But I also think some of it may be due to the oft-promoted confusion vis'a'vis plagiarism and copyright.
In my university days it was often cited that if you copied more than 10% of a work into an assignment then it was plagiarism.
This then became twisted to mean that any copying of more than 10% was ALSO copyright infringement, and ANY copying less than 10% WASN'T copyright infringement.
The confusion still frequently persists today. Therefore the judge may not even have been aware of why they chose the arbitrary 10%, but it probably 'felt' right to them and their subconscious because that's the benchmark for plagiarism.
The appeals court overturned some of the reasoning used by the district court judge. It made no decision on whether or not the materials (or any specific material) was or was not in breach of copyright. It merely overturned the district court judges ruling and told them to try again. It did not say the district court judge couldn't reach the same conclusion again, just that they had to use different reasoning.
And if the parents can provide evidence that THEY TRIED and were rebuffed by Facebook, then they'd be golden.
They can produce said evidence, yes? You know, maybe even a single email to Facebook support outlining the situation and asking for the removal, with Facebook's reply to go get knotted?
Or perhaps even better, they can produce evidence they instructed their child (the owner of the account) to go and delete the account, but he refused? That would also probably help them out. Because at least they tried.
But from the sounds of things, they didn't even try to do any of these things.
Yes, there is only so much one can do, but it sounds like they didn't exhaust (or even come close to) taking all reasonable steps.
Sure, if you at home put up a filtering proxy so the kid can't access facebook, or prevent him entirely from using a computer, he could still go to the library or use a school computer or go to his mates house. But at least they would have tried reasonable steps.
This is why I don't auto-anything to a cloud service.
If I upload something to a cloud storage locker, it is explicitly and knowingly done every single time.
I try to avoid online cloud backup/storage as much as possible.
If I need synchronisation/file sharing services, if its some random file I don't care about sure I'll use dropbox or whatever to share it out. If it's something I care about, I have a USB hard-drive attached to my router that I have secured (as far as is practical) that I can access from anywhere I can get a HTTPS connection.
To revoke US membership would require a UN security council resolution. The US (along with China, Russia, UK and France) has veto power over any UN resolution. Therefore any resolution raised to eject the US could be vetoed by the US.
Well yes, they'd be very surprised as the Boston PD doesn't have any jurisdiction in NY.
England isn't a series of states and counties and cities that have their own police forces. There is no London Police force who only have jurisdiction in London. There is just the British Police force. When people talk about the Met or City of London Police, these are NOT police raised from and 'citizens' of London or the City of London or whoever. Each of these forces really are just precincts. Any NY Police officer has jurisdiction in all of NYCs 5 boroughs, however they are assigned to precincts who usually just deal with crime in those precincts, however if their suspect is in another precinct, they can still go and arrest them, as they are still within their jurisdiction.
So this isn't the equivalent of Boston PD coming to NY, it's the equivalent of the officers from the 9th Precinct (Manhattan South) going and arresting someone in 77th Precinct (Brooklyn North)
Though, they could argue that Satoshi was a public figure... But still...
To me this doesn't make sense.
The AUTHOR of Bitcoin MAY be a public figure, but Satoshi is saying he's not the author. If HE's not the author, then HE isn't a public figure. Wouldn't Newsweek have to prove that Satoshi is a public figure, and to do that wouldn't they have to prove (at least to a standard of on the balance of probabilities test) that he is the author?
It seems nonsensical to me to have a party claim that a second party is a public figure, and it then being up to said 2nd party to prove they aren't. How do you prove a negative? Surely the claiming party would have to prove that the 2nd party is a public figure?
LaTex was released in 1984. Therefore if you were in grade school before 1984, that sorta proves the argument doesn't it that using 2 periods after a space is an indicator of someone not being young, say 40+?
While I agree with this article stating that using/knowing about using 2 spaces after a period isn't a good indication of age, your comment has basically reinforced the argument that it is a good indicator of age ;)
Also, 2 spaces are still sorta used after a period. With proportional fonts, the size of the space between the period and next letter is automatically set by the font, the actual measurement may be in fact equivalent to 2 spaces (even tho as it's only registered as 1 space). If you enter 2 spaces into a WYSIWYG editor (word and whatever other word processors are around today), or 1 space, or 5 spaces, it'll automatically adjust the distance between the period and the letter to what is defined in the font definition. Therefore you don't have to manually add any spaces at all if you don't want to. If you use a mono-spaced font (or a plain text editor like notepad or what have you) tho then you might have to enter the number of spaces you want.