171–178 of 178 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how this is relevant to my comment. Please explain
Your comment appears to me to assume that if a jury knew someone was not guilt by law, that they would vote not guilt. My point is that a jury in the US can intentionally convict someone as guilty that they're aware is "legally" not guilty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the exact details spread, it could be a global catastrophe. I'm totally fine with this information being restricted And yet such criminalization won't stop someone actually determined to use it. If your security relies on preventing the spread of readily-available information, you've already lost. Your argument only seems practical for this situation because the only entities in possession of said information ar…
Well, that was interesting. I certainly can't call you inconsistent. Now I'm just curious: Is there any scenario in which you think possession of a physical or digital asset should result in imprisonment? That is: Is possession of a fuel-air bomb OK? My mere possessing it doesn't harm anyone, only my use of it would. What about possession of a nuclear weapon, or some device that could exterminate all life on earth? I…
The only time intent can be proven is once the act, presumably a harmful one for the sake of my argument, is committed; but then there is no justice to be had anyway because entropy is lost, thus only revenge and/or correction is left. But back to my counter argument, the possibility for harm is a flimsy definition of a crime and runs against the principle of reasonable doubt; cars are pretty harmful, I myself drive past children I could deliberately run over and probably kill on my way to class (college) everyday (I'm not going to do this; but then again you only have my word...) and thousands of people die in them and by them every year; my point is that guns/cars have other legitimate uses and the same could be said of things everyone already has possession of.
Also, your previous arguments that owned hardware which is at least somewhat controlled by the owner (otherwise, who controls it "owns" it), thereby implants guilt onto the owner is also, well, incorrect. While true that the individual or organisation are generally responsible for the operation or neglect of their hardware, in the case of hardware whose explicit purpose is to service requests to uncontrollable and external parties and is thus to a certain extent designed to be deliberately neglected, can't be held responsible for crimes for which they had no participation in: I am not responsible for the crimes of someone who stole my car beforehand (the involvement of theft makes this example a bit shaky, I'll admit, but my point is to convey the separation of responsibility between owner and controller, in that as the owner I didn't encourage the controller, the thief etc, to steal my car). That said, imparting a bit of responsibility onto owners is still a Good Thing (see workers comp.), because it incentivizes safer workplaces/hardware: the difference is that in the aforementioned case, barring proof of intent or neglect, it's not a proper crime, it's just monetary damages (ie civil).
Just to be clear, we agree that something like smallpox should stay locked up. But then every sane and rational person should agree with that: they would have to live (note sane and rational) in the same world with smallpox on the loose. But then if it did get out, due to it's infectious and self-replicating nature, the result would be disastrous. In any case, such eventuality would either be the work of an insane or troubled person (whose actions aren't rational anyway, thus can't be called 'our' fault, presuming attempts to prevent the release were made) or an accident. In all cases, punishment isn't the answer (except in the accidental case, the answer is instead institutionalization). Nonetheless, the solution to prevention of eventuality in this case is access limiting. Thus it is an acceptable solution. (I consider this to be a satisfactory rationale). But even quarantined diseases are still studied!
One last thing: brandishing a weapon is a crime by way of implied speech: it is threat. Thus brandishing a weapon is an action, and is thus not just possession. Which means it doesn't count.
TL/DR: The condition (possession -> guilt) is false. Punishment for such possession is unwarranted. Control is implicitly limited by sane and rational owners in the case of dangerous Things (perhaps with the help of others).
This is how democracies die. We must eliminate the secret court systems and reintroduce the use of warrants from the publicly accessible courts. There is no other alternative.
Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? It's time to go. You can still access us-east-1 from the civilized bits of Europe, you know. It has now been between 2 and 10 years since the time where it became totally unreasonable to continue living there while other options are available to you. Don't wait until the trumped-up federal charges.…
To where? What government on the planet doesn't have this kind of power over its country's citizens? Of the governments you can list, how many of those countries actually have civilization where a non-native wouldn't have to fear for their lives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hahaha. I think most people would take those problems any day. Sorry your buddy had his feelings hurt.
Wow, have you ever been fired? In this day and age when we see successful people in the tech industry dealing with suicide and depression on a regular basis due to work-related issues, that's a pretty insensitive attitude to have. For the record, my friend was a C-level executive but not CEO, did not get a multi-million dollar severance (less than a million), and for someone who based his entire identity on his job a…
If that happened to me, I would be starting at least one new business (or help a friend start one financially), buying my first house, buying the tacos with steak instead of beef, starting at least one long awaited personal project. The idea that somebody could have so much more than me and do so little with it is depressing.
Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? It's time to go. You can still access us-east-1 from the civilized bits of Europe, you know. It has now been between 2 and 10 years since the time where it became totally unreasonable to continue living there while other options are available to you. Don't wait until the trumped-up federal charges.…
> Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? My family. I have a dream of moving to Iceland, Norway, or Sweden and becoming an expatriate. My wife and children do not share that.
Educate them about the risks.
Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? It's time to go. You can still access us-east-1 from the civilized bits of Europe, you know. It has now been between 2 and 10 years since the time where it became totally unreasonable to continue living there while other options are available to you. Don't wait until the trumped-up federal charges.…
You think permanent resident visas are easy to acquire ?
What's really not-easy is being thrown in federal for running a website, or publishing, or pissing off the wrong inner party member.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think permanent resident visas are easy to acquire ?
Straw man argument. Just because the process can be difficult does not mean you should not undertake it. I never claimed it was easy. What's really not-easy is being thrown in federal for running a website, or publishing, or pissing off the wrong inner party member.