Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Rent a Tesla for $1 (Score 2, Insightful) 331

by Kijori (#48013377) Attached to: State of Iowa Tells Tesla To Cancel Its Scheduled Test Drives

I agree, claims of voter suppression and racism are bullshit. Is it suppression for all the other things that require ID in the modern world? I hope you never have to fly, buy alcohol, medicine, cash a check, or do anything else either.

I think that the point is that:
1. Black, hispanic and asian voters are significantly less likely to possess ID that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the laws. They are also less likely already to be registered to vote.
2. Election fraud is rare, and in-person fraud (the only type that could be prevented by these laws) is vanishingly rare.
3. These laws are being passed by Republican legislatures. Statistically, reducing the number of black, asian and hispanic voters is likely to improve their results in elections.

So what you have is a measure that claims to prevent a problem that doesn't exist, and, coincidentally, will make it harder for the party's opponents to vote.

I don't actually believe that that is a coincidence. I don't know whether it is racist or not, but I do think that elections should be fought by trying to convince the electorate that you are the best candidate, not by changing the procedure to make it harder for your opponents to vote.

Comment: Re:The headline is misleading. . . (Score 1) 383

by Kijori (#47991473) Attached to: Seattle Passes Laws To Keep Residents From Wasting Food

No, it isn't. Nobody, other than a few people on Slashdot, think that "food waste" means "food that is being discarded anyway but has been put in the general trash bin rather than the composting bin". If anything, that would be wasted compost, since the stuff in question is not going to be eaten anyway by the time it goes in the wrong bin.

Amazingly it turns out the EPA actually has a definition of food waste, which agrees with the GP. They say it is "uneaten food and food preparation waste [from various sources". By that definition food that goes into the compost can be "food waste" - so a rule to make you put it in a different bin doesn't change the amount of "food waste" at all.

Comment: Re:Fuck the people (Score 1) 383

by Kijori (#47991449) Attached to: Seattle Passes Laws To Keep Residents From Wasting Food

You can't have a public hearing about every regulation proposed by Government, it would be a huge waste of time and money. There has to be some sort of minimum threshold - and surely a $1 fine designed to raise awareness of sorting your garbage falls on the "not worth a consultation" side?

In other words, do you actually think the council should have run a public consultation about this, or did you just see an opportunity to spout a "Government is bad!" soundbite?

Comment: Re:Spurious Claim (Score 1) 231

by Kijori (#47907157) Attached to: School Installs Biometric Fingerprint System For Cafeteria

I'm not sure it's a spurious claim when you consider the circumstances that they're using it in.

The users are children, meaning that they are much more likely to lose or forget their money than adults. The system is (presumably) closed, so that the only thing you can do with the funds is buy school lunches (and maybe ask for a cheque payable to the kid's parents), so it's not a very tempting target for attack.

So while it's true that "merely moving from physical currency to electronic currency does not make it more secure", it's a bit silly to suggest that it never makes it more secure (or more reliable), and this sounds a perfect case for it being both.

Comment: Re:Yep. (Score 1) 150

by Kijori (#47833483) Attached to: Hackers Break Into

The difference is people voluntarily give data to these companies where as you are forced to give information to


Consumer choice makes a difference where the consumer could have avoided the problem if they had had a choice. But that's not the case here. How secure the back-office systems of a company are is almost completely opaque to a consumer, so they cannot make an informed choice, and the institutions being hacked are banks, credit checking agencies, health insurance companies, security companies - you can't realistically avoid doing business with them.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

by Kijori (#47833143) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

I see you've chosen not to engage with any actual argument, and chose instead to make a vague claim of superiority with no explanation. An excellent strategy for when you have no arguments to make but don't want to admit it, such as if you made up a disparaging claim, but got called on it.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

by Kijori (#47814995) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

I think that those are perfectly reasonable questions. It's not something that you think about a lot as a lawyer - at least not explicitly - because you get so used to this pattern.

Thinking about it, it might be easier to explain this by taking the two steps in the opposite order.


I don't agree that reasonableness is the bane of all our laws. It's an important safeguard - the point is that we are dealing with subjective judgments or subjective feelings, but we want a safeguard so that someone can't be liable because someone completely overreacted to an innocent remark, or a police officer completely overreacted to very minor evidence.

The question that this is asking is "could a reasonable person, in the position of the victim, have been put in sustained fear" (or in your police example, could a reasonable police officer put in the position of the officer in question have suspected X). The reasonable person is assumed to be of reasonable firmness and resolve, to take sensible logical decisions etc. Note that the question is could a reasonable person, not would they - the person does not have to act in the way that the court thinks a reasonable person would probably act, they just have to act in a way that falls within the spectrum of actions that the reasonable person might take.

In practice, where the person is an expert the court will be slow to find that they have acted unreasonably, especially if they act within the bounds of normal practice in their profession. In principle I think that is sensible - the court is meant to check excesses, not ensure that every officer meets absolute best practice. However it does seem like the pendulum has swung too far at present, particularly in the United States, and I wonder if the fact that US judges are highly politicized means that you are likely to get judges who are more likely to side with the police (I don't mean that they are being swayed by thoughts of rewards for siding with the police, just that the executive is likely to appoint judges who they know take a more pro-executive view).

The subjective limb

This is a straightforward evidential point - straightforward conceptually, that is, not necessarily easy to prove. Subject to the applicable rules of evidence, anything that is relevant can be used to prove that the person was fearful - I'm not aware of CAT scans having been used, but expert evidence from psychiatrists, therapists, police support officers and so on are all used.

Proving that someone was fearful is obviously difficult since it requires the court to try to establish what was in their mind. There are three points though that I think tend to mitigate that problem:
1. This is not an isolated difficulty - the courts are frequently required to establish what was in someone's mind (did she intend to stab him?) and have a lot of practice at it.
2. The criminal standard of proof applies - so the prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person was fearful.
3. They aren't looking at this as an isolated question - they can look at all the circumstances. If, in answer to the other limb of the test, the court has concluded that the defendant's behaviour would have put a reasonable person in sustained fear, they are going to find it rather easier to conclude that this victim was, in fact, in sustained fear. For example, if you make repeated and plausible death threats that the court thinks would have terrorized a reasonable person, and the victim claims that he was left fearful by them, you are likely to find that the court is not very receptive to the argument that the victim is faking it.

As a final point, I don't think it can all be quantified objectively. That, however, is true of an awful lot of criminal laws, even the seemingly straightforward ones. My view is that it's an inevitable product of the fact that we live in a confusing and complicated world.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

by Kijori (#47814895) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

So where's the bit where she calls testosterone "deeply harmful and limiting"? It's certainly not in the bit you quoted.

I read that quote as saying that they should get rid of the stereotypically girly-girl "ladyfig" series and get rid of the stereotypically male, testosterone-charged macho combat, and make "products that foster creativity and imagination that children of all genders will adore". I.e. she's talking about the lego playsets not men. I think that's obvious from the transcript, but you can also tell that because when she talks about the "macho testosterone" she puts up a picture of a lego figure in combat, not a picture of a human male.

She's pretty outspoken and not afraid to make a point. If she was really saying that testosterone was a negative trait in males don't you think she would have said it, rather than leaving it as an inference that, reading the replies to your comments, nobody except you is picking up on?

And if you're still sure that she meant to denigrate all men, if the most egregious example you've been able to find is an, at most, ambiguous and oblique reference to testosterone, don't you think you might be blowing this out of proportion?

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

by Kijori (#47809367) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

This point has been made further down the comment thread, but just to point out: this claim is untrue.

Belial6 has said that the video in which the comment is made is the second part of the video on Lego. You can watch the video at You can also review a full transcript at

From both you will see that the statements that Belial6 is relying on are never made. This claim is just not true.

Comment: Re: Her work (Score 1) 1262

by Kijori (#47809247) Attached to: Anita Sarkeesian, Creator of "Tropes vs. Women," Driven From Home By Trolls

No - there's an objective element to this test as well. Where is says "reasonably to be in sustained fear", that creates a test with two limbs:
1. Was the victim actually in sustained fear?
2. Could the statements have put a reasonable person in the position of the victim in sustained fear?

A threat that obviously wasn't serious would fail the second limb.

(Source: I am a lawyer (although not in this jurisdiction) and this is a common way to formulate criminal laws.)

Comment: Re:What privacy concern? (Score 1) 261

by Kijori (#47809143) Attached to: DoT Proposes Mandating Vehicle-To-Vehicle Communications

First, it's pretty obvious that jeffmeden was talking about privacy in terms of the car's location, not "everything that happens in and outside your car".

I see. That's even *worse*. The government absolutely does not have permission to track you.

Second, everything you do involves a tradeoff of privacy, safety, freedom and a dozen other things.

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Going out voluntarily != giving the government permission to track you.

The idea that you can be some sort of privacy and freedom absolutist who never trades either of them for anything is just nonsense.

You're spewing forth straw men. The main point was that the government should not be tracking people and violating their right to privacy. You have privacy and constitutional rights even on public roads.

This is incoherent.

Your first point is that it is worse if the car's location is not private than if "everything that happens in and outside your car" is not private. That's just obvious rubbish.

The remainder of your comment is just saying repeatedly that "the government should not be tracking people". First, this is a strawman - there is a difference between vehicle-to-vehicle communication and centralised tracking. Second, it's not an argument, it's just a soundbite. You aren't engaging with the issue: how much erosion of your privacy would be a reasonable price to pay to make safe, driverless cars a reality?

Comment: Re:Property rights (Score 1) 215

by Kijori (#47809003) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Delivery Drones

That transit conduit has a value and it is only because of government that I cannot get some value out of it.

Government is the source of your land rights - you have rights to control what happens with your land because of the laws enacted by society, through the Government. Your whole point here is incredibly wrong-headed.

And - really? Assuming you can get around the whole rights-without-Government issue, you don't think there are any other obstacles to monetizing that airspace? Or do you just prefer to blame "government" for every perceived ill, because you don't really understand?

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.