>Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do.
Go on?
Suppose I create an SSH tunnel or use a VPN to a machine that I run TOR on - you're going to enforce a ban on that and it's "quite easy". Pray tell how?
Suppose you're going to be super-naive about it and just block TOR traffic at the ISP user level - it's encrypted and can be passed on common ports like 443 - how do you stop that traffic?
>reporting vulnerabilities doesn't get you put in Jail, however manipulating sites without permission to look for them does.
Except that in this case the report is evidence of having "manipulated" the site "without permission" *.
* web accessible documents have an assumed permission IMO; the removal of permission is performed by making the page only accessible with a password or similar auth.
If the law sees it that way then you need to start selling to businesses and include small print that says "by accepting these goods you sign over all property, goods, chattels and monies under your or the accepting company's ownership, stewardship or control to us without let or hindrance from the date and time noted".
The court then to remain consistent would need to ensure that this small print is held to be equally valid
>I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure.
People dying through poverty brought on by the actions of super-rich isn't a failure in your model of capitalism?
>But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month.
And still found it profitable to harass people by phone? Usually such fines are miniscule compared to the companies operating funds and so just get absorbed in to the costs of doing business rather than altering the company's behaviour.
If there was really a prohibition against "creating visual depictions of figures" then there would be no TV or photography in use by muslims. Writing certain languages would be right out too, anything with characters based on pictograms of [human] figures.
But there isn't, it's a very new thing. IMO it's been brought in as an excuse to justify violence that would be otherwise so abhorrent to most people who call themselves muslims that they'd probably risk death in favour of apostasy. If however those who want to control the muslim population feign offense and cry that they're only trying to protect Islam then they can win over "cultural" muslims.
>*all of which were surrounded by religious fervour.*
That's absolute crap. The IRA weren't battling to spread Christianity in any way shape or form; some of them may have been Christians however. The Provisional IRA are probably the group most associated with terrorist activity (at least in my lifetime), the Manchester Bombings are probably the event that I most remember from "the troubles". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
If you can find any reference to them considering they were waging a war to promote Christianity I'd be very interested; they're mostly associated with Marxism from what I can tell. Here's the Papal view on what you're calling Catholic terrorism (if it contradicts the pope it ain't [Roman] Catholic):
>'9. Secondly, peace cannot be established by violence, peace can never flourish in a climate of terror, intimidation and death. It is Jesus himself who said : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Mt 26
>'I join my voice today to the voice of Paul VI and my other predecessors, to the voices of your religious leaders, to the voices of all men and women of reason, and I proclaim, with the conviction of my faith in Christ and with an awareness of my mission, that violence is evil, that violence is unacceptable as a solution to problems, that violence is unworthy of man. Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society. I pray with you that the moral sense and Christian conviction of Irish men and women may never become obscured and blunted by the lie of violence, that nobody may ever call murder by any other name than murder, that the spiral of violence may never be given the distinction of unavoidable logic or necessary retaliation. Let us remember that the word remains for ever : "All who take the sword will perish by the sword". '
(Pope John Paul II, 1979 visit to Ireland, http://www.vatican.va/holy_fat...)
He quotes Romans 1 though
The New Living Translation at Romans 1:32 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A24-32&version=NIV;NASB;MSG;NLT) says "They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." which is quite different to your quote. The NLT is a non-direct translation, one of the looser ones, written in more modern language. You should always use several translations if you're not going to study in depth the original texts.
You also break at 1:32, in the original there was no break there the following point is key, Paul writes that we shouldn't be so quick to judge those we perceive as offending God as we too are really amongst that number - nonetheless God will judge all mercifully and according to the good they have done. See Romans 2, https://www.biblegateway.com/p....
However you do get to the heart of Jesus message here - his message is that whilst we all have sinned, we all have done things that offend God's order and all are worthy to die and so cease to be INSTEAD Jesus has sacrificed himself and paid the price that we all can turn from sin and be saved through him, restoring our relationship with God, and ultimately being with God for eternity in heaven.
Presumably your intention was to show that Christianity allows killing, yet none of your citations relate bar one and that one goes quite contrary to your apparent position.
Whilst I know the Sale of Goods Act 1979 says that for a bricks-and-mortar store the invitation to treat doesn't need to be honoured until the money has been accepted for the goods, I'm wondering for online transactions at what point the implicit contract is "signed". Does the retailer sign the "contract" when they take payment, when they deliver, what?
>"someone who appears in media (any form, but particularly film/video) has the right to object if their performance is distorted"
I suspect you're misunderstanding. If a film portrays a real person falsely then the person has a libel claim (under eg UK law). If an actor plays a role and that role demonstrates that the character is a pathological beacon of hatred, a sadistic coward or whatever, then the actor isn't being misrepresented as they are merely playing a role, no natural person is being unfairly treated only a [fictional/historic] character is being [unfairly] libelled. There is nothing to be done about that, you can't injure/libel a fiction.
An actor has as much say in the final form of the film as they put in their contract.
>" as if she had spoken them"
The actress seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of her vocation. An actress speaking lines is playing a part, it is not her that speaks, it is her character. If the characters comments are altered by playwrights/directors/whoever then over-dubbing can be required.
This all seems to be a construction to avoid idiot Islamic adherents, who make the same misunderstanding, causing people [physical] harm. It's definitely nothing to do with copyright; nor is it defamation of the actresses own character as she is not in the movie, she plays the part of someone who is in it.
The problem with sales taxes - which we do have in the UK, VAT @20% - is that they're highly regressive. i.e. the people earning the least (pensioners, low wage workers) end up paying a much bigger share of their income than those at the top of the pile - the richest pay very little sales tax as a proportion of their income. As a result, the poor stay poor, and the rich get ever richer. And assuming we don't want the poorest to literally starve, we end up subsidising their costs with welfare benefits, social housing, etc etc - which have to be paid for somehow, and the middle classes don't have fancy tax accountants to move their money out of the reach of the taxman, as the wealthy and corporations do.
So you keep the poor poor, hollow out the middle classes, and the wealthy get ever more wealthy at a faster rate than anyone else. They then buy media companies, news companies et al to promote their views and systems, such as those that channel ever more amounts of money via companies into their own pockets via government subsidy (check out much money Walmart, and by extension the Walton family make from social assistance costs for their workers for just one example, or similarly amazon). They even end up becoming politicians and sponsoring politicians to sponsor laws that benefit them directly.
The correct answers are:
a) make companies pay a living wage, instead of making up the difference with subsidies
b) make companies and the wealthy pay their share of taxes instead of letting them continuously decrease it, because they benefit from a functional and well ordered society (educated and healthy workers, good transport, reliable infrastructure etc etc) more than anyone, they just don't want to pay for it
c) stop the vast amount of 'soft' money going into politics and media ownership as in any other circumstance it would be called bribery and corruption.
'Flat' sales taxes benefit the wealthiest the most. They are not the answer.
But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true
Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.
However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page. By maintaining this association, Google are basically stating "this is one of the most relevant thing about person X", and if what it points to is irrelevant/out of date (even if true) then the result is false.
The right to be forgotten is not about making the world a better place. It is about permitting people to behave badly without consequences.
No, it's about requiring search engines to stop returning irrelevant items about a person when asked for relevant items, and as a result causing harm. Without this law, search engines could report results which are false and do harm with impunity.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy
