Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:$3,500... really?? (Score 2) 276

by Obfuscant (#48216755) Attached to: Tech Firm Fined For Paying Imported Workers $1.21 Per Hour

Want to teach employers not to break the law like this, the employees should have been paid 3x their original earnings.

They were paid more than 3 times their original earnings. They were paid at $1.21 an hour originally and then at $8/hour as backpay. They also got a bonus for travel, and almost certainly got money for room and board.

Comment: Re:A bit???? (Score 1) 165

by Obfuscant (#48215813) Attached to: Austin Airport Tracks Cell Phones To Measure Security Line Wait

My airline knows I'm there. TSA knows I'm there.

Your airline doesn't know you are standing in the security line, and it may not even know you are at the airport. The TSA doesn't know you are there until you hit the boarding pass/id check.

It's not like the other people in line with you have any real way of knowing and transmitting your identity.

Your MAC address isn't your identity any more than your IP address is. But yes, they can easily snap a photo of you and send it off to the web.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48214621) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words like "entrapment" change meanings all the time. The specific word "entrapment" already has, by your own admission, at least three meanings, one of which includes the example of someone being entrapped by their emotions. If you think the law should simply use "the dictionary", then you really must think that the law should prohibit people being entrapped by their emotions just as it prohibits the government entrapping them in criminal activity.

Entrapment is a very simple term without much room for negotiating intricate meanings.

In the law, entrapment should be a simple term without room for negotiating intricate meanings, and it can only achieve that by leaving the Webster's or OED behind and defining it in simple terms to mean exactly what is intended.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

That's nonsense. "Everyone else" cannot be guilty of entrapment because entrapment can only apply to a government agent because that is how it is defined by law. If I convince you to go rob a bank, you can't point at me and say I'm guilty of entrapment, you can only claim I'm a co-conspirator and should go to jail too. Were I to "entrap" you to rob that bank by appealing to your emotions, I may have "entrapped" you according to one dictionary definition, but you aren't going to avoid jail by arguing that there was "entrapment".

Were I a government agent doing that, neither of us would go to jail. Since entrapment is still an affirmative defense, why you think the government can do it without repercussions is a mystery. Entrapment is a concept that applies ONLY to the government, and is prohibited to them, so how you can say that they can do it while others cannot is, well, I don't really care why you think such an obviously silly thing.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48214467) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

You are arguing everything except the point. (see next)

No, I am arguing exactly the point I am trying to make, and which is based on a statement you made in response to someone who pointed out that legal terms often have a very specific meaning. It was the first sentence of your first paragraph (which is called the "topic sentence"), which was:

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

You, yourself, pointed out that "entrapment" already has multiple meanings, only one of which should be used in a legal context, and which is why the legal use needs to have a specific limited definition.

So yes, they should have different definitions, because to simply use the dictionary would create laws that are too broad and too open to change as the language changes. That's the point. It's not "two forms of justice", it's one form, well defined.

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 687

by Obfuscant (#48209051) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.
Except Dish didn't brick just pirate hardware. They bricked my personally owned Dish network box about fifteen minutes after I called up to cancel service. My personal property, which I should have been able to sell to someone else so they could get Dish service if they wanted it, useless. It would be exactly like Comcast bricking your personally owned cable modem scant minutes after you cancel their service, preventing you from selling it to someone else to use with their cable provider.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48208965) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Words like "entrapment" do not change definitions,

Words change meaning all the time, and you cannot predict which ones will or will not in advance, dude. See what I did there? I used a word which has changed meaning.

But it doesn't matter if "entrapment" WILL change meanings, you've already shown that it has multiple meanings, only one of which should be covered by a law against entrapment. I thought that would have been clear when I used your own list of definitions to show you that.

The court ruling dictated that a certain segment of society (The "State") does not have to abide by the same rules as everyone else in society.

This is a completely different issue than what I replied to, which was your claim that the law should not define the words it uses, it should use common usage definitions. But in any case, no, that's not what the court said. It is not illegal for the police to entrap you, but it is an affirmative defense against the charge they have entrapped you into.

If you can not comprehend why two forms of justice are not possible in a "Free" society shame on you.

Since I wasn't talking about this mythical "two forms of justice", just the part where you claimed that legal definitions should be based on the standard dictionary, you're just resorting to ad hominem when you got caught with your pants down. Yep, I called you a nutter, but that wasn't part of my argument why you were wrong. I went ahead and said explicitly why you are wrong. I'm sorry you didn't comprehend that.

and yes we have had brief conversations previously where you demonstrate an adolescent level of dialogue.

You're projecting, now.

Comment: Re:The good news (Score 1) 687

by Obfuscant (#48208779) Attached to: FTDI Reportedly Bricking Devices Using Competitors' Chips.

You can buy FTDI-branded serial converters from mainstream vendors, there's no need to buy Chinese copycat crap.

And you can buy Chinese copycat crap from mainstream vendors, too. So what does the customer do? He walks into Fry's, sees a USB to serial adapter on the rack, and asks a Fry's droid "is this Chinese copycat crap?" The Fry's droid is going to know? I've asked such people what the chip in such devices is (so I can avoid Prolific) and most of them have zero clue. They wouldn't know how to spell FTDI if it was written on the box. So what do they say? "Why no, sir, we don't sell Chinese copycat crap here." And you get a bricked adapter when you plug it in.

I've done this same thing with other devices, notably firewire cards where I want only Agere and never VIA or whatever. I've asked, and then had to open the box and sometimes pull the firmware version sticker off the chip to see ... because the sales people have no clue what's inside the magic boxes, they just know the magic boxes are great and good and you should buy many of them.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48199887) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Are you saying a hidden patrol car is a better deterrent than a visible patrol car?

A combination of the two is a better deterrent than either alone.

The latter gets you used to seeing that there is enforcement of the laws. The former gets you used to never knowing where that enforcement may take place. If all that was allowed was visible patrols, then you'd simply obey the law when you saw, or you got notice by any of the existing phone apps that report sightings, a police car. If all that took place were hidden patrols, you'd not realize the extent that the laws were being enforced. With both, you know they will ticket you but you don't know when they'll catch you. Thus you may, or a reasonable person may, obey the law more often.

Now, when I'm driving down the road, exceeding the speed limit (as I regularly do), a visible patrol car will cause me to decrease my speed to remain within the posted speed limit.

Thus you obey the law only when a car is in sight. A very small amount of the time.

The only way hidden patrol cars would cause me to moderate my speed is if they were truly ubiquitous.

You may have such a daredevil attitude towards points on your license and insurance rates, but I think most people wouldn't need the hidden patrols to be ubiquitous for them to be wary that they might get caught and thus should obey the law. The fact that they know they are a good possibility would deter them, at a level well below ubiquitous, but the level needs to be above zero.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48199635) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

That they do have a different definition does not encompass whether or not they "should" have different definitions.

Oh my God. What a nutter. Of COURSE a word that has multiple common usage definitions should have one clear definition when it comes to the law, simply because common usage changes over time and the law shouldn't, and the law should not cover the unintended common use cases for the word just because they are in the same entry in the dictionary.

The perfect example is the last definition listed which talks about being "entrapped by expectations". Why should it be illegal for someone to be entrapped by their own expectations just because you want the real action of entrapment by police to be illegal? The only definition that should even be considered in law is definition 3 which deals with action by the police.

Using the definition of Justice and it's purpose in a Republic as defined by Socrates there is supposed to be no separation.

Uhhh, ok. Whatever. Laws should always use every possible definition of a word instead of being as precise as possible because Socrates said so. The next time you put out a mouse trap, expect a visit from the police because you were engaging in entrapment of the mouse.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 239

by Obfuscant (#48196195) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

As an example, if you're at a red light, and a traffic cop waves you forward through the intersection, and you proceed, only to be ticketed for running a red light, that's entrapment by estoppel (i.e. you were instructed by a law enforcement officer, who you knew to be one, to break the law, and then prosecuted anyway).

Bad example. The traffic laws I am familiar with all put the instructions of a uniformed police officer above an automated traffic signal. It is assumed the officer is acting in an official capacity to correct a malfunctioning signal, or to manage traffic that the signal is not dealing with.

That means it is actually against the law to ignore the police officer in this situation, and not a violation of law to ignore the signal. A better example would be if the meter maid tells you that it is ok to park in that handicapped space (without a handicapped permit) for just a few minutes so you can run in to buy a six-pack. Another meter maid comes along and tickets you ... because the first one didn't have the authority to override the parking laws.

Comment: Re:Would have loved this in 2005 in London (Score 1) 130

I left Kings Cross station in 1987 six minutes before the stairwell I had just ascended went up in flames. I was glad of the phone box on the corner, my mother could barely hear me over the sirens though.

In 1987 you were probably back home in the basement before the Beeb had covered the event, so you could shout up the stairs to your mother that "I was there, look, I'm ok, can you bring down some meatloaf" when the news came over the telly.

Comment: Re:yeah, going with not creepy. (Score 1) 130

Neither RFC 1149 - IP over Avian Carriers nor RFC 2549 - IP over Avian Carriers with QoS protocol are implemented by my local carrier pigeon, you ignorant clod!

ISPs throttling traffic takes on a whole new dimension with these protocols. They can roast the pigeons after throttling them and feed people who are homeless because of the disaster! Throttling network traffic is a Good Thing! And imagine the visual imagery as they demonstrate what "bottleneck" means as they run the roast pigeon through the meat grinder to make pigeon sausage. Youse can only puts so many pigeons through the grinder at the same time ...

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...