Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So what qualifies? (Score 1) 427

by Triklyn (#48186155) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

:) please let me know if it somehow works differently in your country.

If only the judiciary couldn't be politicized, and if only the judiciary weren't terribly backward on technology, and if only the UK weren't trying to penalize their youths for being young.

do they really think they'll catch anything beside adolescent boys? when did we decide that we should penalize the young for being young?

Comment: Re:F the UK (Score 1) 427

by Triklyn (#48186089) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

yes, my phone number is a lot less visible than my username... to a specific set. Each of those represents a different level of obscurity. Threaten me by cell, worried, threaten me by email, less so, threaten me by User name... whatever, not a concern. threaten me by snail mail... very worried. that's serious dedication there, and you know more about me than i'm comfortable with. :)

Comment: Re:F the UK (Score 1) 427

by Triklyn (#48186053) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

In the US we have an incitement to imminent lawless action bit for free speech. how imminent/credible a threat is, that is only present online, and is not an incitement to violence for others, is a consideration.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means freedom of speech for everyone. And the fact that it is on the internet is entirely relevant because how threatened someone feels by the speech is a direct consideration, and if they know nothing about you but the user-name, you don't feel very threatened. Our freedom of speech protections are also directly applicable in this situation, our first amendment is specifically designed just for this, government overreach. This politician would get laughed out of the house so quickly in the US.

Remember, we let neo-nazis and racists rally, and we let fundamentalists protest funerals and abortion clinics. This is freedom.

User Journal

Journal: On posting anonymously 1

Journal by squiggleslash

...as opposed to pseudonymously.

I'm finding it easier to post 100% honestly when I post AC on at least one subject at the moment. Why? Well, because if I post pseudonymously then I risk inflaming the wrath of an extremely nutty group, and I really don't have the time or patience or stomach for the kind of harassment I'd expect if I piss that group off.

Comment: Re:It Remains a Journalism Scandal. Deal With It. (Score 1) 159

by squiggleslash (#48185759) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

The journalist did mention her game. It wasn't a review but was definite positive exposure for a game that would not have gotten if they were not close friends.

According to Wikipedia, with a bunch of cites so I assume it's verified:

While Grayson had written an article about the failed GAME_JAM web reality show that Quinn participated in[23] and Kotaku had also mentioned her game,[24] both occurred before the relationship began.[20][8]

References are:

So it does appear to be demonstrably exposure for a game unrelated to the relationship between Grayson and Quinn.

Comment: Re: Gamergate is NOT about defining "gamer" (Score 1) 159

by squiggleslash (#48185635) Attached to: For Game Developers, It's About the Labor of Love

Yes, we are giving you examples. Your head is so far up your SJW ass that you're just claiming they're all "debunked" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I'm not going to bother reiterating them since there are a ton of examples already posted.

1. Strike One: claiming you're giving examples while not actually giving examples.

2. Strike Two: pejorative attack on SJWs. Again: if this was about journalism, you'd be criticizing journalists, not people who believe sexism is wrong.

The simple reality is that corruption is happening in the gaming media and GamerGate is fighting to expose that. Not surprisingly, the media being exposed is fighting back by trying to control the story and paint GamerGate as being "sexist."

How do you expose something if you're unwilling, after being asked directly, to give an example? If I asked you "Oh really, Wikileaks is about exposing government malfeasance huh? Give me one example!", you'd hit back with "That video of the helicopter gunship attacking first responders", not "We've given you plenty of examples you're just being mislead by the Mexicans!"

The whole "sexist" thing is just journalists trying desperately to change the subject.

So attack the journalists then. Go on, start now. If it's not about sexism, you'll never need to use the term "SJW" again.

You are a shining example of why GamerGate looks a bunch of sexist nerds hating on women. You attack SJWs, do not attack journalists, claim you're attacking journalists, but given a straightforward opportunity to give an example of something they've done refuse to answer.

Those you're up against? They're actually giving examples of GamerGate attacking female game writers and non-corrupt female commentators. That's why they're more believable.

Comment: Re:Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score 1) 427

by TubeSteak (#48183497) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Despite it's flaws, the near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech by the US Supreme Court is a godsend and makes me proud to be an American.

Your response demonstrates that you failed to read and understand my points. There will always be limits to freedom of speech, but those limits are much more restrained in the US than the UK, just to go down the list:

I'm not going to even bother than the rest, because you clearly missed the point. No right is absolute, but the US Supreme Court guards the freedom of expression in the US much more fiercely than European Courts do.

It sounds a lot like you're walking back from "near absolute"

And just for the sake of pedantry, it's worth mentioning that no one has a Constitutional right to free of speech.
Our right to free speech is natural and the Constitution limits how the Government can infringe on it.

/I'd also be interested in seeing your citations on the fighting words doctrine being overturned, the Supreme Court doesn't really agree with you.

Comment: Re:Trolls are the lowest form of life. . . (Score 3, Interesting) 427

by TubeSteak (#48182941) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Despite it's flaws, the near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech by the US Supreme Court is a godsend and makes me proud to be an American.

I can't help but think that anyone who believes this is anything less that wildly ignorant about the Constitution and Supreme Court jurisprudence.

Here are some broad exceptions to the constitutional right to the freedom of speech:
1. Libel, slander, and various forms of misleading statements
2. Inciting others to violence
3. Fighting words
4. Disturbing the peace (offensive words can be considered a breach of the peace)
5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
6. Copyrights & trademarks
7. Obscenity
8. Commercial speech

I may have forgotten one or three, but I think that suffices to make my point that there is nothing remotely like a "near absolute interpretation of the constitutional right to the freedom of speech."

Equally important to the point I'm trying to make is that at least 5/8 of those exceptions were well established as law when the Constitution was written.

Comment: It's finally happening (Score 1) 49

by TubeSteak (#48182347) Attached to: Gigabit Cellular Networks Could Happen, With 24GHz Spectrum

The FCCâ(TM)s notice talks about frequencies as high as 90GHz. Anything over 30GHz is classified as âoemillimeter wave frequencies,â which are blocked by walls. Indoor coverage is going to be tough.

âoe[W]hatever licensing regimes we adopt should take into account the fact that signals from carriersâ(TM) outdoor base stations will rarely be able to penetrate into the interiors of buildings, where around 75 percent of cellular data usage occurs today,â the FCC wrote. âoeReaching such spaces will almost certainly require the deployment of indoor base stations.â

The original concept for the cellular network was a series of big outdoor towers which talked to indoor base stations.
Of course, building owners didn't want the expense of (retro)fitting small indoor cells, which led to a lot more outdoor towers than envisioned.

It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome

Working...