181–190 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But removing fed funding would mean they have to remove their honeypot backdoors.
Do you have anything to back these claims up?
https://fossbytes.com/tor-honeypot-how-to-hack-the-true-iden...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That precedent was comprehensively reversed by the 1950s.
The case that was reversed was not about shouting fire in a crowded theater, the fire quote was just a rhetorical device. If a judge uses 2+2=4 as a rhetorical device in a decision, then the decision is later overturned, that doesn't mean 2+2!=4. So the fire quote could still remain true.
Yes, the "fire" quote is just a rhetorical device from Schenck. No, the "fire" quote is likely not true today.
The supreme court has very narrowly defined exceptions to the first amendment since the time of Schenck (just "fighting words," which is vague and narrow enough it may not really exist either). You can yell fire in a crowded theater; it's not fighting words. It just makes you a dick.
P.S., the historical context for the "fire" rhetorical device was that there had been a series of horrific theater fire mass-deaths in the early 20th century due to doors that were either locked, or opened inwards — before the era of fire safety regulation. Some deaths were due to crushing at the doors, rather than actual fire or smoke inhalation. Modern theater doors open outward and don't lock from the inside, so we don't have this particular flavor of horrific incidents in our social consciousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The case that was reversed was not about shouting fire in a crowded theater, the fire quote was just a rhetorical device. If a judge uses 2+2=4 as a rhetorical device in a decision, then the decision is later overturned, that doesn't mean 2+2!=4. So the fire quote could still remain true.
I think a charitable reading of kragen's short comment is that Schenck was reversed by the 50s, which is absolutely true. The idea of "sedition" is a restriction on constitutional first amendment speech. Yes, the "fire" quote is just a rhetorical device from Schenck. No, the "fire" quote is likely not true today. The supreme court has very narrowly defined exceptions to the first amendment since the time of Schenck (…
The podcast you linked to in your other comment seems to think the quote is true today (although not useful in most discussion due to being too obviously true):
> It’s a rhetorical device to say the First Amendment is not absolute, which is true, but that’s not in dispute. [...]
> It’s as if we were looking at an animal on the side of the road trying to decide what it is and I said not all animals are cats. Your reaction would be yes, thank you, I am aware, but the question is, what is that animal? We have the tools we need to decide what that animal is on the side of the road. With free speech those tools are a 100 years of Supreme Court cases.
There are people still being crushed to death at events today, maybe not theaters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_stampedes_and_cr...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Craiglist was innovative when it started.
It seems to me that Craigslist must have made some monumental misjudgment when they didn't expand internationally. I for one, for example, only know of them from hearsay as some kind of obscure US-only classified ads site.
Also a large portion of craigslist here was just the personals section - once that was shut down there is basically no good reason to use it anymore, as it simply doesn't have the network effect / critical mass of users to sustain itself. The remaining users all seem to be work-related scams of some kind (probably automated) and drug dealers (probably cops).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a charitable reading of kragen's short comment is that Schenck was reversed by the 50s, which is absolutely true. The idea of "sedition" is a restriction on constitutional first amendment speech. Yes, the "fire" quote is just a rhetorical device from Schenck. No, the "fire" quote is likely not true today. The supreme court has very narrowly defined exceptions to the first amendment since the time of Schenck (…
Yeah, but I don't think projektfu was talking about sedition, so bringing up sedition didn't seem relevant to me. projektfu was just using the quote as a reference to an example type of forbidden speech. The podcast you linked to in your other comment seems to think the quote is true today (although not useful in most discussion due to being too obviously true): > It’s a rhetorical device to say the First Amendment i…
Moreover, I think this is true of most rhetorical devices in general, and that is part of what the podcast is criticizing. They are not attempts to collaboratively consider the evidence in order to arrive at shared conclusions informed by the knowledge of all parties; they are attempts to influence whatever conclusions may arise, by hook or by crook, to benefit the interests of the utterer, and whether either the utterances or the conclusions happen to be objectively true or false is none of the utterer's concern.
I consider this contemptible, and I try to engage in it as little as I can manage.
† Incidentally, this page explains that Schenck was not specifically overturned until Brandenburg in 1969 (although the Brandenburg decision doesn't mention Schenck), but the Supreme Court's progressively broader reading of the First Amendment was already protecting antiwar and anticapitalist activism by the 1950s, for example in Gibson (1946), Estep (1946), Dickinson (1953), and Yates (1957).
It is pretty tough to find a new job after this pandemic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assume you are aware Apache does not pay for any kind of software development. They only spend money on some minor infrastructure to have JIRA and the mailing lists and build servers running; plus administrative / legal personnel. All the new "Apache" software is written by volunteers, the mirror system is provided free by 3rd parties, code hosting is almost all on GitHub. So, what would they need the extra money f…
I'm responding to the person who cited it above. Please try reading the whole thread instead of just the last post.
So, the answer is that nothing exist.
Out of the given options a few also don't qualify (like I mentioned, Apache for sure, opensource.org most likely) because they don't spend money on software development at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This wasn't embedded provocateurs or out-of-control extremists. I never said it was. And that completely misses the point on why it's important. (surprise: you don't have to defend Charlottesville to defend the ACLU) You're basically providing anyone an easy tool to kill any protest before it gets off the ground. Any protest where antifa plays a role would be DOA (and having attending my fair share that's at least…
I've said multiple times now that I think the ACLU did the right thing in the Skokie case. I don't know why you keep thinking I want a "political-driven legal group" (nor why you imply the defense of civil rights isn't "political").
I followed their work for years and supported them for a long time. I'm saddened to see them shift in this direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel bad for the spiral here. We're now seeing the second-order of the depression spiral. * First step was laying off people without jobs which could be done remotely. * Second step is laying off people who could still be productive from home, but where there's less demand. Unless we act with boldness and resoluteness, this will just continue to feed in on itself as the nation collapses.
Do you have any sort of science or statistics to back that up are you making fatalistic statements based on emotion?
That's anecdotal data among companies and colleagues I interact with, but there's enough of it that it's compelling to me.
If you lived in North Korea, and in six months, you had a few friends die of COVID, while the government told you things were under control, you'd have no data or statistics, but you'd know there's something up.
That said, we do have data, but not broken out in that way. Best we have for data are unemployment claims.
And not all of the behavior is rational. Investing during downturns is much cheaper than during upturns. A year ago, top ML people cost north of a megabuck a year. Inflation reduces labor costs further. Companies who up investment now are likely to come out of the crisis stronger than ones who cut back, assuming money is available (either as loans or savings). But it seems to be a reality.
They are too dependent on government sponsorship. 80% of their funding comes from the US government in some shape. I would imagine that a project of that importance deserves to be able to be self-sufficient. A US$2M budget/year is not that much, (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project. Better yet, having grass-root sponsorship is even more important. Maybe they need mark…
> (m|b)illionaires making their money from the Internet could easily sponsor the project. The thing is: When you're the kind of person that is able to amass m-/billions, you're unlikely to be very altruistic. Most of these people had to, excuse my language, fuck over people (workers, customers, investors, the larger public) along the way in various ways. You simply can't be a billionaire without some kind of severe e…
I'd argue that Bill Gates is regretting his previous actions and trying to fix his "karma" in his retirement. He was just as bad as the rest of them.