Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:You're all wrong... (Score 1) 149

by CanHasDIY (#48215127) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.

Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.

"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.

Comment: Re:Don't do the crime (Score 1) 149

by CanHasDIY (#48215097) Attached to: Proposed Penalty For UK Hackers Who "Damage National Security": Life

If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."

In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).

Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?

Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?

Comment: Re:Not inherently unreasonable (Score 1) 149

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) 149

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) 266

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) 266

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) 266

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.

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..." -- Hunter S. Thompson

Working...