Nothing is censored here. It just gets modded up or down. Brett Buck just cannot handle anyone who doesn't totally agree with him, and lables anyone who disagrees with him as a leftist.
Modding up and down is sort of a "soft" censorship. It does run the risk of promoting groupthink and it does hide positions contrary to majority opinion. Both of these are things slashdot has a problem with.
But it also hides the spam. Yay for hiding spam.
"defending your brand" does not typically mean preventing any of your copyrighted words and names from being uttered in public.
Wrong. And betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of IP.
It's not about copyright. It's about trademarks.
Defending your trademarks certainly does mean limiting their use in public. If you don't, your billion-dollar brand can turn into a word that takes on a generic meaning, like band-aid or xerox. Google runs this risk, for example.
If Lucasfilm wants to maintain a trademark in the Light Saber, for example, a trademark they sell many millions of dollars of toys based on, then they need to be sending out these cease-and-desist letters. They're not saying the people can't have their festival--they just can't use the term light saber in their official communications.
And what was the probable cause for the kiddie porn?
From the warrant, some pretty disgusting stuff posted on 4chan. Which is totally a legit basis for a warrant, standing on its own.
The only question is whether the cops knew about the TOR exit node and decided that raiding the house still made sense (which would be a very strange judgment call), or failed to disclose it to the judge (which would be really stupid and could open them up to a lawsuit).
Computer using this IP address assigned to this physical address leased by this couple posted kiddie porn at this time. That is probable cause. Running an exit node doesn't remove suspicion, any more than does your 40 being in a paper bag. What it does give is reasonable doubt to the jury. Very different.
Maybe. But that's a call for a judge. (And before that, a call for an officer to decide whether it makes sense to spend the resources on this, or whether he just wants to knock on the door.)
No, this was handled properly. Suspected illegal activity was investigated and they were quickly found to not be part of it with minimal inconvenience. I'm not sure why this is even a story. Guess what, if you are around a store that gets robbed or some other crimes the cops will investigate also.
Also, "Minimal Inconvenience" compared to what? The guy had six cops show up at his home at 6:15, barge in, intimidate him, watch as he got dressed, etc...
Yes, it's a minimal inconvenience compared to them arresting him or sending him to federal prison. And it's GREAT that somebody on-scene had the good sense to say they don't even have to seize any assets. But it's still a MASSIVE intrusion into his life, one that the Constitution exists to protect him from.
Most cops are trying to go a good job, so when an officer and a judge sign off on this kind of intrusion without better cause, it makes them all look bad, because it means they wind up hurting the community, hurting the trust between the community and the police, and wasting resources that could be spent going after actual criminals.
There is no evidence of a lack of probable cause though. The problem is that there was still an illegal post made from that ip address which was assigned to a physical address and specific people. You still have probable cause to look for evidence that it was made from a computer at the physical address or through the TOR node. Nothing about the node changes that other than possibly clearing the person when the evidence doesn't exist.
The Node highly changes the likelihood that there is evidence of the crime there. Tor exit nodes are designed not to know anything about the sender. This was about posts made from that node. While it is hypothetically possible for a research institution or government agency to modify an exit node, add sniffers, etc..., there is no reason to expect a civilian running an exit node to be doing that. While it is also possible for someone who owns a machine at that address to be the guilty party, the fact that an exit node is present makes it much, much, much less likely. It has a direct impact on the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis someone should use in determining whether PC exists.
Evidence tending to show a lack of probable cause must be included in making a determination of whether PC exists. It's a "totality of the circumstances" test. The TOR exit node tends to show a lack of PC--it is much less likely that there will be evidence there of any kind.
This is pretty much standard operating procedure. They can't outlaw anonymizing services, but they can make running them so much hassle that very, VERY few people want to get involved.
Things that backfire include pissing off judges. If they knew about the Tor exit node then they almost certainly lacked probable cause. Probable cause requires considering all of the facts, not *just* the ones favoring guilt. If, in fact, they knew about the exit node but failed to include it in the warrant application, they are going to have (1) pissed off a judge who finds out about it, and (2) they have probably opened up their department to a lawsuit for violating the constitutional rights of the people whose home they invaded. While they obtained a warrant, they did it by withholding information they knew to be relevant to the PC determination.
If they did not know, of course, that analysis changes.
There are some better arguments for allowing discrimination here than in most other cases, but ultimately those arguments will fail. While there is danger in taking an Uber, there is danger in *walking*, and the danger of taking an Uber is not very high. They are a "common carrier" and make themselves available to the public; they will not be permitted to discriminate in either employment (sex of drivers) or in who they are willing to transport.
You have no clue. The entire procedure is open records. The whole process is documented. NO ONE helped Watson once the game started. The entire team that created and set up Watson were in the audience. Watson had the ability to buzz in on its own - no help. This is a matter of public record. There is zero evidence that anything remotely shady was done for Watson to win. Educate yourself.
I'm sorry, you misinterpreted my comment. I indicated "Others knew the answers" but followed this phrase with a colon (indicating a connection to the next phrase) and then "Watson was just set up to buzz in faster than the other contestants."
This was not a statement that Watson did not produce the answers; it is a statement that he was engineered with an advantage (and the questions were too easy) such that the outcome of the game dependent not on scope of knowledge, but on the speed of buzz-in. The humans were all clicking in frustration as the machine was given the first chance to answer almost every question. It was an obviously faulty experimental design.
Let me know when it picks the winning lottery numbers. Then I'll be interested in purchasing.
It did not "Win" the jeopardy game. Others knew the answers; Watson was just set up to buzz in faster than the other contestants.
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996). The Supreme Court held that a law (specifically, a state constitutional amendment) preventing protected status from being granted based on homosexuality or bisexuality was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
While of course you can attempt to distinguish the case, there's no way this survives the appeals process.
Some friendly advice. Stop believing that people care about the world the same way you do. The ultra wealthy didn't become ultra wealthy because of their high moral standards. They became ultra wealthy at the expense of everyone else in society. Trying to threaten the 200 or so people that hold 99% of the worlds wealth with bankruptcy is a laughable tactic.
That's what big tobacco said until they started losing lawsuits.
Six of the ten biggest companies in the world are in the Oil & Gas Industries. The costs of global warming--literally, one planet--would bankrupt them if they ever actually had to pay for the damage in a lawsuit or under a new law.
It turns out that the dregs of those trillions of dollars buys not only protection from lawmakers, but that the lawmakers and related armies of talking heads will espouse the theories your pet "scientists" prepare as talking points, until even they no longer remember that you started those rumors. The stories about how good you are or how natural global warming is or about how government regulation of environmental protection is bad make it into the press (and your perspective jury pool) free of your fingerprints.
As a result, plenty of good people--even intelligent people who share the political beliefs of your army of lobbied lawmakers--come to believe that it's not your fault.
Poof, the anthropogenic nature of global warming and the needs for action and environmental regulation start going up in smoke. And you can keep burning your oil.
You do realize that most of the South is going to pass these laws, right? And having locations in the South is much cheaper. So you're going to find that most corporations will just move from one state to another. Sorry, but that's corporations for you. Fine taking a stand until they have to lose money and explain it to the stockholders.
No they're not--or at least if they do, the laws won't last long. The laws are blatantly unconstitutional and there's a 90%+ chance they won't survive a challenge at the appellate level in a federal court anywhere in the country.
What this country needs is a good five cent microcomputer.
