Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Due to Fire Phone Flop? (Score 1) 77

by AvitarX (#47877447) Attached to: Amazon Instant Video Now Available On Android

I thought their ad was pretty compelling, surprised it flopped.

Now that on think of it, I probably saw the ad on Hulu, so maybe nobody saw it but me.

But they maid the announcement it was coming in mid june, so I think they just rushed the planned release while still testing many devices.

Comment: Re: Doesn't this pretty much kill 4chan? (Score 1) 134

by AvitarX (#47829139) Attached to: After Celebrity Photo Leaks, 4chan Introduces DMCA Policy

I was not, and did not mean to imply it was their policy.

I was trying to say that the legal risk was not there, not speak to what the policies were.

The law is (from wikipedia, I'm too lazy to read the actual statutes right now):

The PROTECT Act also amended 18 U.S.C. 2252A, which was part of the original CPPA. The amendment added paragraph (a)(3), which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct". The law draws a distinction between obscene depiction of any minor, and mere depiction of an actual minor.

As long as it's not sexually explicit it's legal, though also:

In 1994, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that the federal statute contains no requirement that genitals be visible or discernible. The court ruled that non-nude visual depictions can qualify as lascivious exhibitions and that this construction does not render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad.[19]

So genitals are a help in determining, but are not a requirement, and if it's not sexually explicit, it's not pornography, and therefore not child pornagraphy. I have not looked at the pictures in question, because, I have better things to do.

Comment: Re: Stagnant electric car sales (Score 1) 157

by AvitarX (#47827387) Attached to: Tesla's Next Auto-Dealer Battleground State: Georgia

I agree, I just wanted to point out it wasn't only Tesla taking it seriously. I think Tesla is smart in marketing to the only segment where you can build a truly compelling car as you put it. The issue with a Leaf vs a hybrid is that if you drive enough for the fuel savings to be relevant, the Leaf's range is going to be very limiting.

I'd still contemplate the Leaf in it's cheaper years (it's price fluctuates a good deal) for a primary car, allowing myself to have a big guzzler too, for long trips, and hauling stuff.

Even so though, second insurance would probably make it more expensive payments aside.

If it smells it's chemistry, if it crawls it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics.

Working...