Yes, but remember, in those days "Cookie Monster" was a typical virus. And internet communities were relatively homogenous.

There are, there must be, limits to free speech. Shouting down someone else doesn't count as free speech. At most it's a reasonable reaction to their stifling of your own speech.

In this case it appears (as an outside observer) that this is the silencing of an honest, truthful, and respected voice. If she is an employee of Rededit, then I suppose that is their right, but the proper response is to refuse to deal with or support Rededit in any way. Which is what this protest appears to be doing.

IIUC, Amen is properly interpreted as meaning "So let it be" (traditionally "so be it", but subjunctive I is rarely used anymore).

As such, Amen is not the proper resoponse to an accurate portrayal of a historical fact. "yay verily" would be more accurate.

Thank you. If this is a part of that same complex of events, that puts things in better perspective. But why would Rededit choose to associate itself with the bigots? If it did, then ceasing to support it is the only reasonable first step.

What you say is clearly reasonable, but I've got to believe that you are mischaracterizing this event. Censorship is always questionable, even when done for the highest of motives. So are you asserting that the folk on Rededit were inciting to violence? Taken literally it appears that this is what you are saying. I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with the events that this could even be a true and accurate characterization. But I think I'd need to have seen some proof before I believed it.

Given the way that people often behave, I have to admit that defending incitements to violence isn't something I have a hard time believing. What I have a hard time believing is a massive outcry in support of defending incitements to violence (without considerable prior propaganda).

It's important. The times that it's critical are rare. So... add if's it's in the middle of the road you prefer to stop rather than run over it. If it's up-right it's proper to dodge dangerously rather than to hit it. The number of crawling kids in the middle of the road is quite small, but it's larger than the number of infants, so add in something that smoothly increases the probability of human as it's (estimated) weight approaches 90 pounds and decreases it as it exceeds 300 pounds. Or 400. So you have a flattened bell curve with a smooth top.

But really, all this fiddling is just to handle corner cases. Usually you just stop or avoid the thing on the road without wondering much what it is. Only if you can't do either of those do you need the fancy figuring, which is a pain, because that's when you need the fast decision, so you "corner case handler" need to be something simple.
Rule 1: If it's standing up, it's a human. Don't hit, even if you must take damage. (This yields several false positives, but too bad. We need a quick decision.)
Rule 2: Estimate it's weight. (Ouch! That looks like a slow process...so while you're doing it, slow and start dodging.) If it's above 25 pounds, avoid even if you must take damage. (Note that hitting something heavy at a fast speed will damage you no matter what.) Continue slowing and preparing to dodge. If it's following a ball, dodge even if you must take damage.

Sorry, time's up.

This isn't a perfect approach, but it's simple, and doable. The hard step is estimating weight. There is a problem with false positives. A paper mache statue would count as human. But it should handle all common cases. And there should also be a distinction between streets where the traffic is slow and rare and streets where the traffic is fast and common. Freeways are much less likely to have humans walking in the road.

Additionally, there should be a rule about not overdriving your reaction time, especially on slow streets, but nothing can stop a kid from running out right in front of you from between two parked cars. And nobody, neither automaton nor human, can reliably deal with that. Which is why that first rule about "upright" is made to yield a lot of false positives. If you have time, then you can refigure things and perhaps decide that "that's a paper mache statute", so you may start to dodge in a way that will damage yourself, and then refigure to avoid damaging yourself when you, more slowly, decide that such action isn't needed.

Alice posts a video using music that Bob owns the copyright to. Carol posts a video that uses music Bob falsely claims to also hold the copyright for. Unfortunately Bob's false claim against Carol doesn't change the fact that he actually does have a legitimate legal claim against Alice's video. So kicking him off the system means he's going to issue a takedown against Alice. The whole point of bringing him into the system was to give him an incentive to leave Alice alone.

The problem here isn't Bob and Alice -- that part of the scenario is working fine. The problem is Bob and Carol. There's no incentive for Bob not to make false claims against Carol. That's the bit that has to be fixed.

That sounds suspiciously like my patent on aural telepathy. Expect to hear from my lawyers.

But won't he be violating your patent again when he "hears" from your lawyers?

Yup, reading through that forum, it sounds as if the person who posted it up has admitted that it's a custom fake design. Plus, there's the fact that we know roughly what the actual device originally looked like, and it was quite a bit different. The original device was an add-on to the SNES, not a single-product hybrid console like this fake.

On a method and process for conveying meaning or emotion via modulation of ambient air pressure (using a computer, of course).

I would give this +1 if I could. Very good discussion of the subject.

Laws should mean what they say. If they mean something other than what they say, they should be repealed or rewritten. If the police can arrest you, not because of what the law is, but what that cop thinks the laws should be (the spirit), then you are living in a police state.

Try this:
1. Show your mom of photo of yourself.
2. See if she can distinguish between you and the photo.
3. Ask her how she did it.
What she will say, is that the photo is 2D and you are 3D. As your mom shifts her head left and right, she sees you from a slightly different perspective.

A cell phone can do the same. It has a 3-Axis motion detector, so it can detect its own movement, and see if the perspective of your head corresponds to that movement. It would be impossible to duplicate that with a photo, and nearly impossible to do it with a video.

No human with a beating heart can hold a phone that steady.

That option will be available if you prefer it.

Bad idea, since people will write them down. 4 digits is good enough. Brute force guessing of PINs is a non-problem.

I doubt that. I doubt that a facial recognition software can differentiate reliably humans and photos (or videos), as a person could be standing still and then you get a false negative (nobody wants that). I also doubt that it is not possible to feed it recorded information which is from the software's point of view also only a video stream.

Personally, I find a chip + PIN save enough. The your third option is the standard these days (at least in Europe). Maybe they should extend the PIN to 5 or 6 digits. And to prevent future IR scans of the pad, it should be heated to, e.g, 28C.

But also problematic, from a usability standpoint. As people that actually work with their hands know, the ability to take a reliable fingerprint can be impeded by blisters, etc. For example, a (long) while ago I had to delay getting my fingerprints taken at NASA because my finger tips were beaten up from recently working around the house and on my car.

Second this, but don't know why, at least, they can't all be displayed?

BTW, I solved this, and the video stories by adding this rule to my Proxomitron config file for "slashdot.org":

And killed auto audio play using:
Matching Expression: <audio \1 autoplay="*" \2>
Replacement Text: <audio \1 \2>