Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 127

by CanHasDIY (#48215053) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.

Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 127

by CanHasDIY (#48214997) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.

And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.

True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?

Comment: Re:Finally, some sanity (Score 1) 259

by CanHasDIY (#48214937) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

the view of the gateway arch is much better across the river at certain spots in east st. louis than it is right at the base of the monument...

I'm not sure the risk of being mugged, raped, and/or murdered is really worth the view. There is never any reason to intentionally enter East STL... unless you're in the market for a 14-year-old prostitute.

Comment: Re:Red flags (Score 1) 259

by CanHasDIY (#48214697) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

Back in that day, the state of Alabama (I think) enacted a law that required automobile drivers to stop prior to an intersection, get out, take a lantern to the intersection, and verbally announce that an automobile is about to cross the intersection before actually doing so.

^ Remembered from an old book of stupid laws I had as a kid.

Comment: Re:How hard is it to recognize a stoplight? (Score 1) 259

by CanHasDIY (#48214633) Attached to: Will the Google Car Turn Out To Be the Apple Newton of Automobiles?

> What we need is better geo-mapping from cities themselves

For driver less cars to work, the whole city should be wired so the google car doesn't have to recognize the red light, it would just get the information through some type of wireless transmission thus knowing it has to stop.

Translation: Won't work without taxpayer subsidized infrastructure.

Comment: Re:There are limits to freedom of speach (Score 1) 484

by CanHasDIY (#48200377) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

I'd like to see some examples of colonial judges enacting new laws.

Also, I'd like to point out that your response is non sequitur to the point - Constitutionally, only the legislative branch can legally create laws; the only legitimate argument would be to point out somewhere in the Constitution that says otherwise.

Comment: Re:Much as I despise trolls (Score 1) 484

by CanHasDIY (#48196941) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

its not about "some punk ass talking shit", its about anonymous rape and death threats against a person and/or their family. I couldn't give a shit about trolls talking shit because i don't know and therefore i don;t care about their opinion, but physically threatening my family is a different thing altogether

Then call the police and have them arrested, rather than take the law into your own hands and commit a crime yourself by physically assaulting someone.

A point which, BTW, I clearly pointed out in my last post. Apparently what i said made you too mad to actually bother reading it... Please don't hit me.

Comment: Re:There are limits to freedom of speach (Score 1) 484

by CanHasDIY (#48184129) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).

Actually, per the Constitution only the legislature can enact laws; the judiciary and executive branches merely interpret and enforce the laws, respectively.

Thus, as the legislature is forbidden from creating laws that limit speech, by natural course the judiciary is barred from interpreting them, and the executive is unable to enforce them.

Comment: Re:The law comes to Deadwood. (Score 3, Insightful) 484

by CanHasDIY (#48184099) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

I think it qualifies as free speech. But a threat that seems likely to be acted upon may require an investigation to see if it's going to be acted upon.

Hence the difference between online and offline speech - "I'm going to rape your pets to death" is far more actionable when you're standing in front of the person's house as opposed to some maternal basement half a world away.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...