Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: Bricking or Tracking? (Score 1) 290

, doesn't make their assumed definition of a word correct. Its still wrong.

For a proscriptive language, you are right. For a descriptive language, like English, you are wrong. The collective wrong definition is the correct one, and the two hold-outs to the "pure" or "original" definition are wrong. That's how language works.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 144

by AK Marc (#47725505) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

Someone who thinks it's okay that we violate people's fundamental liberties and the highest law of the land in exchange for safety (dubious safety, at that). In other words, morons. I would think freedom-minded individuals would agree that they are nothing more than poison to a free society.

Then I saw nobody post anything in the chain that indicated there were any such people. People who explain the law, as enforced, to you aren't "defending" it or asserting they think it's ok.

You should learn to make such distinctions, or you'll come off looking like the moron.

Comment: Re:Wow (Score 1) 147

by AK Marc (#47718941) Attached to: China Pulls Plug On Genetically Modified Rice and Corn

Oddly, the permits that are being denied are for Bt rice and phytase corn, but they continue to support Bt corn, so environment or food safety doesn't seem like it would be an actual reason,

That's an assertion, but is it true? Bt [grain] produces poison. Perhaps the poison is still present in the edible rice, but not the edible corn? I don't know, but there may be other reasons, perhaps it's because corn is so low in production, and not a traditional crop with widespread domestic use, so it's not a "health issue"? Just because one is banned and the other not doesn't mean that safety must not be a reason.

Comment: Re:I am tin foil, fine. (Score 2) 290

More realistically, based on government bad acts, this would get the most use when someone needs to be "taken out" by the government. The government would plant child porn on their phone and arrest them. Political crimes are prosecuted in the US, we just say they aren't, and use one of the three felonies a day to prosecute political criminals. Get someone in prison, even for a day, and they will be ruined for life (discredited, unable to get any more jobs, etc.), and you can always blame them for an inmate death, and keep them there indefinitely, even if they went in for a non-violent felony, they can spend their whole lives there, if the government wanted.

Comment: Re:This is ridiculous. (Score 1) 144

by AK Marc (#47717949) Attached to: Researchers Find Security Flaws In Backscatter X-ray Scanners

General warrants are unconstitutional, and yet somehow, magically, it's okay to molest everyone at airports without even so much as a warrant or suspicion? Yeah, right.

They aren't searching people for criminal reasons. You aren't under suspicion of a crime, and nothing found will be used to investigate that crime. Theoretically, if they found evidence of smuggling, they are required to pass you through security unmolested (provided you meet all the other requirements). It's for that reason that they are "legal".

I'm talking about people 'consenting' to the search. TSA apologists sometimes make the argument that you implicitly consent to waiving your constitutional rights by trying to get on a plane when you know the TSA is going to try to search you.

You aren't implicitly consenting by getting in a plane I've flown a number of times with no search at all. You are explicitly complying when you walk past the "you will be searched if you pass this sign" sign. That isn't implicitly waiving a constitutional right. That's explicitly doing it.

The best way to avoid responsibility is to say, "I've got responsibilities."