Trump is dangerous because of what he doesn't know. HRC is dangerous because of the kind of person she is. And you can't fix that.
If the kind of person a candidate is is an issue(and I'm certainly not arguing that it isn't) Trump doesn't exactly strike me as any better. Petty, vindictive and spiteful aren't exactly character traits you want in a person with any power if you can avoid it, and he seems to have plenty of all three.
This election truly is the perfect example of 'Left leg vs Right Leg' voting, where no matter which you pick you're still getting shot in the leg.
Given the rest of his rambling, and how downright enthusiastic he is when it comes to crushing people that say mean things about him I honestly have no idea if that's an actual quote or a poe(which I suppose makes it a superb poe if the latter).
Does it really count as 'abusing the law' if they're using it exactly as it was intended to be used? This was never about 'cybercrime', they wrote it in order to crack down on people saying mean things about them and/or exposing their actions, they just claimed otherwise as blatantly admitting to their real motives would have required more honesty than they're capable of.
They weren't being prosecuted, but they were threatening deportation for refusal to pay their extortion-masquerading-as-copyright demands, and something like this is likely to take that tactic and make it ten times more popular among the parasites, because now they actually have a case they can point to and say 'See, you absolutely can be deported for copyright infringement, now pay up or ship out'.
As a result of the backlash, Capcom rolled back the DRM via another update pretty quickly,
And of course Capcom realized their mistake, apologized, and will never do something that stupid and anti-paying customer again, meaning that people can totally trust the next update Capcom throws out not to trash their systems, right?
Meanwhile in the land of eye-patches and parrots the cracked versions of the game continued to run without a hitch, interspersed with chuckles as the poor sods who paid learned the hard way that in the eternal game of 'whack-a-pirate' some companies insist on playing the pirates are pretty much the only group not affected, quite unlike the paying customers.
Probably because you never get past the 'the public is the problem' and move on to 'and here's what the public can and should do', not to mention ignores several problems of the system that make 'just vote better next time' a wee bit difficult.
Say you're in a group of ten people, and 9 of them vote to kick you in the shins, with you the only objection. Do you 'deserve' to get kicked in the shins? (Majority rule/Winner-takes-all)
Does the result change at all if the only reason 8 of those people voted against you is because the alternative was worse for them, with only one person who really just wants to kick you in the shins? (Defensive voting)
Or perhaps 4 other people vote against kicking you in the shins, making it appear to be a split vote, except the pro-shin kicker was the one who got to decide how the votes were counted, such that you still got kicked in the shins. (Gerrymandering)
Or perhaps you convince 5 people to vote against kicking you in the shins, giving you a majority, but it turns out that your vote doesn't mean squat if the one who 'represents' your group decides different, and they do, leaving you getting kicked in the shins. (Electoral collage)
If the minority that do pay attention and realize that there's a problem 'deserve' the government that the majority foists upon them then you're saying that in all the examples above you would have 'deserved' to get kicked in the shins, something I doubt is the case.
Yeah, when there's very real incentive for police to know as little as possible any attempt at educating them in a fashion that would lessen what they can do is going to be an uphill battle to say the least.
As for regulatory burden - trump has listed a few problems he has with regulation. Like Farm Health and safety standards, the lack of which lead to several major health crisis in his restraunts. Or Food Preperation standards like not serving meat 6 months after its prime - again something trump restraunts have a problem with. Or not contaminating streams that feed into larger water sources with toxic chemicals? He has a problem with that, i guess thinking that small streams are independent from bigger sources.
Perfectly good logic there, I mean the biggest indicator that a regulation is bad is when it impacts the profits of a company, and if those regulations have done so it's obvious they need to go.
No need to worry, after all the violation of the regulations and the resulting health issues stem entirely from the regulations themselves, I've no doubt whatsoever that without the regulations to get in the way companies that were violating them before will immediately step up and demonstrate even more care for public health and safety... so long as doing so doesn't negatively impact their profits of course.
Well obviously DDOS attacks are just another kind of piracy, where you steal the right of someone to use their system without being under digital-war. So, our statement still stands, and if anything we underestimated the numbers.
See? How is anyone supposed to parody that? They're already a walking definition of parody, claiming to be concerned about 'protecting all constitutional freedoms and enforcing the law impartially' while cracking down on those freedoms and abusing their power and authority for personal reasons.
They don't get a choice in the matter, the ruling is against the author and NOT the website in question.
Like hell it isn't. It may not technically be against the site, but for all intents and purposes they are being held accountable for the actions of one of their users. They're being told 'take down this comment posted by a user of your site or face legal consequences', something that wouldn't fly if they were sued directly which is why the one who filed the lawsuit didn't name them as a defendant and tried to bypass the law granting them protections against that very thing.
If the ruling really isn't against them then they could ignore it entirely without consequence, just like I could safely ignore a ruling made against someone else because I wasn't involved, yet I rather doubt that's the case here.
If the ruling is against the author and not the website then go after the author, not the website. Can't get ahold of them? Then look harder. They refuse to show? Have the judge issue a bench warrant and/or contempt of court against them.
At no point do you get to say 'well, finding the actual author and making them take down their post is too difficult, so we'll just skip that step'.
You don't get to bypass the protections in the law just because you're too lazy to do it right, and if at the end of the day you still can't get ahold of the person? Tough luck, you're welcome to try your case against the site directly, have fun getting around the law when the site actually has a chance to defend themselves.
Hopefully the CA supreme court reverses or nullifies the earlier ruling, as otherwise they might as well toss out 230 entirely, at least as far as CA is concerned. If you can bypass the protections services have against being held accountable for the posts of their users simply by only involving them at the very end, after any chances for them to object have passed then those protections become completely meaningless and trivial to bypass, to the point that they may as well not exist for all the good they do.
While I'm sure there would be many a lawyer and prosecutor just salivating at the massive opportunities that would open up for them the massive chilling effects such a ruling would have on speech far outweighs their interests in personal gain.
The Police: Join because you want to play god over the lives of those around you, stay because those that want to hold you accountable don't have the power to do so, and those that have the power to hold you accountable don't want to.
1. Studios unfairly discriminate against 'old' actors. 2. Site lists age of actor. 3. Actor complains that having their age listed cost them one or more roles in films. 4. Idiot politicians make it a crime to list the age of the actor, completely ignoring the actual problem.
'Something has been done' without actually addressing the core problem, politics wins again!
Suing the studio that turned her down has a good chance to cause others to avoid her entirely to limit legal problems, whereas suing the site allows her to feel like she's accomplished something without burning any bridges by those that might (be stupid enough to) hire her.