Perhaps it would be easier to stop all scams if they weren't being forced to let through Republicans scam emails?
This sounds like a conversation that might've happened at a Dungeons and Dragons table: Player: Hey, just because he can't take any actions, doesn't mean he was incapacitated. GM: technically speaking what you said is correct, but he was stunned. The stunned condition applies the incapacitated condition. Conclusion: he's a bad rules lawyer.
Does this mean the FOP is willing to put backdoors in bodycams in case the FBI needs some footage? ;)
Congresspeople should know better, but perhaps they don't, so I'm willing to give them a little of the benefit of the doubt, but blocking someone who says "it's illegal for you to block people", puts them in the clear realm of no longer being able to claim ignorance? Is that clear grounds for a 1st amendment suit?
(It also affects NBC Comcast through Universal Studios)
Is it just me, or when Amazon bought MGM this week just after the governor signed, did anyone else think about how MGM helped with a theme park in Florida until about 13 years ago?
"I believe my perception was altered due to the high stress of the incident"
So, despite not being attacked, you were under stress, so your recollection can't be trusted?
There you have it. Police can't be trusted with the remembering the truth, even when not being attacked? We shouldn't trust their word of events?
Sure. It's got first amendment problems. But I think this I'll has 8th amendment problems.
Hey, you've decided to track your users? okay now you're liable for copyright infringement (and death threats, libel, and ...) of your users!
That seems like a cruel and unusual punishment to me.
At the end of the second paragraph, it looks like there's supposed to be a link with the text "build better ai", but the target attribute of the anchor tag isn't properly closed. It's also repeated, which makes me think it's something in your article software that's causing the problem.
Where police have non-constitutional immunity, and press don't have constitutional immunity.
IMO, the purpose of encrypted DNS is that the ISPs like Comcast can't get your DNS data. Well, if Comcast is in on it, then they'll be building their own server, and we're back where we started. Sadly, Comcast getting in on it will make all the other dumb ISPs realize they can do the same thing. We can still choose another DNS server, but there'll be a lot of people who just leave it at default through DHCP.
Is take out billboards by police stations that are divided on two:
It should a Cap shield logo on one side that says something like "Captain America represents the good cops. He stands up for what is right."
Then on the other side have the Punisher log with something like, "Punisher represents the rioters, punishing those who they think have been doing evil."
This would possibly shame them into dropping the logo.
(I hereby relinquish whatever rights I have in this idea to Marvel so they can use it without recompense. Although I wouldn't mind a recompense.)
Sure worry about people who are good at encryption, but that doesn't mean we should abolish it.
I'm similarly worried about people who are good at:
I'm also much more worried about people who are really good at sniper shooting.
And we pay citizens to learn this one.
If you're wearing a space suit, your face can be seen, and so should be in compliance with the 19th century law, and if that transparent face covering prevents the spread of disease, you should be good. Everyone has a space suit right?
My kids like plants vs zombies, but all of their new games all state that they require an Internet connection. But heat they really mean is a connection to EA's servers that aren't going to be up forever. I'm not going to rent these games for $60. Or even $20.
If I have freedom of speech, that means I should have the right to jack hammer a message into the garage at the police station? I didn't take anything. I just destroyed something. But speech is a public good, right?
It seems to me like a reasonable position for a company to hold is, “you can say whatever you want on your own streams, and out in public, and in tournaments we don’t support. But on our streams, or at our tournaments, nothing political.” Anything more lenient than this pobably brings problems. Maybe I'm missing something, but allowing all speech on Blizzard's channels doesn't seem mandatory.
"How do you ... actually maintain lawful access to the information ... need[ed]?"
Can't be done. Not possible.
Any developer worth their salt, can make an "unbreakable" communication app in a few hours. If the government makes big players make backdoors (er, bedroom windows?), then the bad guys will start using apps that are less common, and less familiar to law enforcement, which will make law enforcement's job even harder.
Well, it looks like Blizzard just retracted, and gave the money back.
If we follow their reasoning to its logical conclusion, paper shredders should keep a log of everything they shred, in case law enforcement needs to get a record of what was shredded. Microwaves will also need to keep a record of CDs and hard drives they destroy.
He fixed it
His robots txt has changed, and he's relisted on Google. I wonder if he has the integrity to apologize. Or if he's capable of being wrong.