Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Only for root users (Score 1) 100

by bill_mcgonigle (#48203915) Attached to: Windows 0-Day Exploited In Ongoing Attacks

If it's in-house software then it can be fixed - no excuses. If people don't fix problems they know about and can fix then they get what they deserve.

Show me somebody who has a huge investment into a physical machine controlled by some proprietary software where the vendor has gone out of business and there's no source available and then I'll have a bit of sympathy, but even then put it on a VM on its own VLAN - these are not extremely difficult problems.

Comment: Re: Nah, this is just stage 1 (Score 1) 291

by bill_mcgonigle (#48203267) Attached to: Hungary To Tax Internet Traffic

Solvent? There is nothing but IOU's in the "trust fund" - future taxation is the plan for paying out SS. Between that and Medicare for the boomers, each non-retiree (man , woman, and child) is on the hook for $900K in additional taxation over the boomers' retirement. Gene therapy will be banned and age wars seem possible. Arithmetic is inflexible that way.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/06/...

Comment: Re:No one is saying that (Score 1) 462

by fyngyrz (#48201731) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

No one should have a "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a collective, or a group, or a society, or a community; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (collective, society, community) may not offend another; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons in order to anticipate whether a specific expression or perception will cause offense in the mind of another. And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not. Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. Law that bans something based upon the idea that some group simply finds expression objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence. It is, in the end, something that encourages weak-mindedness.

Conversely, when people are truly harmed (not just offended) without their informed consent (and legitimate defense is not the cause), then the matter is one that should arguably be considered for law. Otherwise, no.

Your story depicts consequences of concerted psychological warfare upon an incompetent individual. Harm is possible. informed consent is not. Special care that does not apply in general society is called for. This is why your example completely fails to make your point. What applies to competent individuals is not particularly relevant to what applies to those not competent, whether that be because they are biologically deficient, or simply too immature to attain that level of sophistication.

What you want, in the end, is that no one can be offended by expression or perception within the context of normal society. If you allow society to pursue this course, you will end up being unable to express yourself, for I guarantee you that almost anything you can say or do will offend someone, and likely grievously so.

Either you take the attitude that others must deal with the ideas expressed to them or within their ken, or you begin to muzzle yourself -- and everyone else. Benefits would definitely accrue to those who wish to be coddled, but everyone else will suffer. Free expression is important. It is definitely more important than the possibility that someone, or many someones, might be offended. If that's not how you see it, then we have no common ground where a meeting of minds could take place on this issue.

Comment: Re:Government Dictionary (Score 1) 226

by bill_mcgonigle (#48194665) Attached to: Facebook To DEA: Stop Using Phony Profiles To Nab Criminals

Nope. It's identity eminent domain

haha, only they might actually argue along those lines (no shame). They're also appropriating Facebook's computer resources to make these profiles operate - it's no different than seizing property or money on a small scale, and the 5th Amendment has something to say about that (n.b. I'm playing the game that the Constitution is still in effect, rather than used to paper over "trouble").

Federated systems like Tonika can provide authentication of friends - Facebook makes authentication nearly impossible.

Comment: Re:The incredible shrinking nucleus (Score 1) 47

If the nucleus really had been 50km in diameter (original estimated maximum), and if it had hit Mars, it would've significantly increased Mars' atmosphere with one blow.

Some folks have recommended nabbing some passing asteroids and detonating them in the Martian atmosphere, just to create more atmosphere as they burn up. I still don't know how they deal with the lack of gravity, though.

Comment: Re: Moral Imperialism (Score 1) 462

by fyngyrz (#48193225) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

You might as well say the constitution is based on words, so we can do whatever we want.

Here's the legit deal: The judges get judicial power. Guilty or innocent, sentencing.

The feds, congress get enumerated powers.

The states get anything else that isn't outright forbidden to them (ex post facto laws, for instance.)

Anything left after that goes to the people.

See how those powers slide in a very particular direction? See why it's downright silly to claim that they magically slide UPHILL to the judiciary, when there's no such indication, anywhere, that such is the case? AND, to hammer it home, the thing explicitly says that if it's not in here, it belongs to the states or the people. There is NO authority for SCOTUS to do most of what it does. None whatsoever. And hell, even if there were, there they go rubber stamping the inversion of the commerce clause, ex post facto laws, rights violations left, right and sideways... you're looking right at them, and you don't see what they've done to you, and the rest of us. Pity.

This is all about direct usurpation of power that belonged to the people, frankly. Although we still have just the barest sliver of it left, which we can apply via jury nullification. Although, as you probably know, we're not even allowed to talk about that in court because judges(!) don't like it. Funny thing, that. Judges. They seem to be doing a lot of unauthorized things, don't they?

Comment: That dysfunctional line in the sand (Score 1) 462

by fyngyrz (#48193185) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

There's no such thing as a "well designed lawful age metric." Though I'm not sure you were even implying there was. But in any case:

It's about comprehension, consent, and physical development. Age cannot serve to draw such a multidimensional line effectively. There are obvious cases of young teens who know exactly what they are doing, are doing it carefully, and not in any way coming to harm. There are obvious cases of "adults" who are so unready for sex by the "comprehension" and "informed" metrics that it is painful to even consider it. And everything you can think of in between.

Comment: lol verizon (Score 1) 462

by fyngyrz (#48193149) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Verizon, as a telephone company, doesn't censor "illegal" voice traffic, does it? They do not, last I checked. That's because Verizon is a common-carrier and is not held liable for telephone content over its wires.

No, it's because they make sure every word you say is parsed by the government. The government decides if it doesn't like what you said if and when it becomes convenient for them to do so. Not only is your speech free, it's on deposit in special government accounts with your name right on them. You had just better hope it doesn't start earning "interest."

Comment: No one is saying that (Score 1) 462

by fyngyrz (#48193133) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

You're being disingenuous here.

We know loud sound and loss of sleep can cause direct physical harm. That's the basis for not yelling, bullhorns, and so on.

There is no sane basis for banning words, drawings, sculptures, renderings, woodcarvings and so on. None whatsoever.

The only sane basis for banning *anything* is it either causes such immediate harm to purse or person, or it is so likely to do so (ex, massively drunk driving) that the activity must be interfered with to lessen the odds of that potential becoming reality.

When speech gets loud or amplified, the legit question is not what was said. Ever. The question is what were you thinking putting people's hearing and/or sleep cycles at risk?

There is no reasonable argument that can justify a "right not to be offended", and there never, ever should be such a thing encoded in law. It should be painfully obvious as to why. If it isn't... oy.

Comment: Re: Moral Imperialism (Score 2) 462

by fyngyrz (#48193073) Attached to: Manga Images Depicting Children Lead to Conviction in UK

Yes, but it's the Supreme Court's job to decide if the law about it is Constitutional.

Only because they said so (Marbury v. Madson, ca 1802 -- they made it up out of thin air.) The constitution says they have judicial power. That's guilty or not, assign punishment if so. Not "the law is whatever I think it is today."

The constitution is crystal clear about many things that the judges, in explicit violation of their oaths, have made mean something else entirely. Previous poster is quite correct. The experiment failed.

This is a corporate oligarchy. Not a constitutional republic. It's been that way for a while, but it's right out in the open now. Corporations are people. Money is speech. Those two ideas, taken together, directly disenfranchise the people. You think you can outspend a corporation? If you can, you probably own one. Or more. And you're part of the problem. The rest of us are just along for the ride now... a brave new world, indeed.

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

by bill_mcgonigle (#48186731) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

Then you're not exactly a rational being; you're just a barbarian.

Right!

Hopefully you get thrown in jail/fined, and hopefully you learn your lesson.

And then it goes off the rails, calling for vengeance.

Statists are just one ladder rung up from barbarians, painting a thin veneer of excuses over group-backed violence. Take the next few steps and learn about peace-based alternatives! It's the means, not the ends, that determine whether an act is just - this can be easily proven with reason.

"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - MK Gandhi

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...