ImJamal
ImJamal on Hacker News
They should be thrown in prison for knowingly violating a law. Trying to play a semantics game (prediction market vs gambling) to get out of it is just scummy. Everybody knows it is gambling.
I know a guy with down syndrome (kid of my parents' friends) and I would have to say he is the happiest person I know. Anytime I see him, he gets a huge smile on his face. He walks over to me and asks me how I am doing. He is such a friendly and cheerful guy. I saw his mom scold him for being disruptive and he got a frown for like 10 seconds and then he returned to being the happiest guy around. To be able to always be that happy is a goal so many of us fail to achieve.
For non proton to proton messages, they can view the entire message that is sent and can store it or whatever. You cannot rely on some transparency report since there are gag orders and what not.
There are a few issues with your argument.
1. If murdering the victim would help a pedo avoid prison then why wouldn't they just murder all of their victims today? The guy in this case already got 15 years in prison, surely he would have wanted to avoid that? I don't think a child rapist is doing some sort of calculation today saying I am not going to kill the kid because 15 years in prison is acceptable, but if I might be in jail for my entire life then I will kill the kid.
2. I don't think a 5 year old knows the difference between 15 years in prison and life in prison so I don't think it would make a difference with the current situation and what I am advocating for.
3. If some family member is trying to avoid life in prison for the uncle, then why wouldn't they also do that for 15 years?
I do not think he should ever be let out of prison. Pedophilia is a crime that I wouldn't want to risk letting prisoners out of jail if they committed such a crime.
If somebody is stupid enough to let a pedo out out of jail, I don't want him to have access to the same tools he used previously to interact with these children. This is no different than when a drunk driver loses their drivers license.
I am completely willing to accept that some people might be rehabilitated in prison, but I am not willing to take the chance with pedophilia. Certain crimes I would be more lenient with, but one of the most heinous crimes is not something I feel comfortable releasing.
I would much rather pay to keep a pedo in jail then risk any child is hurt.
Seems like the better solution is don't give a pedophila such a low sentence. Throw them in jail for decades. If you are going to release them, which I would not be in favor of, you ban them from all electronic devices. Any device that had "numerous sexually explicit messages and images" of children should be destroyed.
Problem solved.
Isn't that the purpose of CAA? You can choose which CAs can sign a cert for your domain?
Let's Encrypt had their own security snafu. They issue certificates for longer than they were supposed to (1 extra second). It wasn't as big of an issue as this, but let's not act like they are some silver bullet
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1715455
They are innocent under the law, not necessarily innocent.
They have hosted instances as well though. Not sure their market share though.
Are you saying it is sad that American courts do not enforce foreign laws if they violate the US constitution? If so, then are you in favor of Russian, Chinese, various Muslim countries' laws being enforced in the US?
My high school blocked websites with a proxy set in IE. To bypass this we would install Firefox on a flash drive and run Firefox from it. When Chrome came out everybody switched instantly because it worked so much better for our use case. Maybe a regularly installed Firefox could have been competitive, but my first use of Chrome was a night and day difference compared with Firefox.
It is not based on race, but nationality. If you are an Indian but are a citizen of Singapore your quota will be based on Singapore quotas, not based on you being ethnically an Indian.
You can be grandfathered in, but since this was about somebody returning to Europe, it likely doesn't apply to them
Well they do depending on which country they are citizen of and where they are working.
The UK is considered non-EU so there would need to be a visa for a Brit working in the EU.
The majority of the voters was on his side. 52.24% voted yes and there was a 79.42% voter turn out. A huge number of Californians agreed with him at the time. This is quite a bit different than segregation today since acceptance of gay marriage was quite a bit lower and it was a newer issue than segregation.
I don't think you are listening to yourself. You are literally saying that standing on the side of the road quietly and not impeding anybody is harassment.
If you think that is harassment then this is hopeless. Have a good day.
The conversation was clearly about more modern electronics since I was talking about rare earth minerals which were not used in the devices you are talking about.
You are able to drill and burn oil along with transmit the electricity without technology that requires rare earth minerals which are the electronics I was referring to.
If Apple did not sell iPhones to Chinese consumers the Chinese government wouldn't make Apple provide a different icloud. They made that choice, not by manufacturing in China, but by selling there.
I don't care if it is against the law. The conversation was about free speech. I'll even give you that she was protesting. All that does is proves my point. If you are not allowed to protest quietly while not impeding anybody then you do not have free speech.
Second, it clearly wasn't against the law because they dropped the charges and gave her a settlement.
Third, just because something is against the law doesn't mean that you shouldn't have the right to say it. The law does not dictate morality.
If the parliament passed a law saying you cannot criticize them, would you say well it is the law and as such it isn't a violation of free speech? Would you call somebody doing that a criminal?
Fourth, the police literally said "You’ve said you’ve been engaging in prayer, which is the offense.". Meaning the offense was literally her thinking. If you are not allowed to have wrong think then there is clearly thought crimes.
You are only focusing on one person not the others because you think it is the strongest case. Second, you support thought crimes and I am opposed to them. She was not yelling or holding a sign. Literally just thinking. That is the very definition of a thought crime.
We have such a fundamental difference of an opinion on the thought crime issue that focusing on this specific case isn't going to go anywhere so continuing this conversation is just going to be a waste.
I hope your thoughts don't get you arrested.
They could manufacture them in China, but not sell the phones there?
First, she was not, at the time of arrest, holding a prayer vigil. She was by herself.
Second, if it was a legitimate arrest why was she was paid out by the government for a settlement?
Also, this has happened to multiple people who haven't organized prayer vigils in the past, not that it would matter if they had.
> Don't whitewash this shit. You know full well what we're talking about is specifically going to a place that you know you're not allowed to be in, doing a protest you're not allowed to do. Playing with the line is still taking the piss and the UK believe in the spirit of the law to avoid all this mucking about with the specification. Otherwise I can block traffic all day and make up some bullshit excuse as to how I'm somehow innocent. These are feeble excuses that Palestine in Action would be proud of.
I don't think you know what happened. At least one case was a person standing quietly outside on a public sidewalk while not impeding traffic or people walking.
At best you can say it is loitering.
It is not like their HQ is in China. They chose to enter the Chinese market.
I'm not saying they are currently sovereign, only that they could be if necessary.
We had electricity from coal and oil prior to electronics... Or do you think we had electronics in 1900?
Why do you people argue so incessantly when you clearly don't know what you're talking about?
The US, Canada, Russia and many other countries could be sovereign with oil and coal.
China, Brazil, Russia and other countries have a lot of rare earth minerals to build electronics for turbines and other sources of power.
Australia, Canada, Russia and other countries have a decent amount of uranium.
So, yes, some countries meet the definition of energy sovereignty.
> Your existing drills and pumps might work long enough for you to stand up a domestic drill manufacturing industry.
> Same for solar, except that panels and batteries operate for way longer than drills and pumps.
This is not about factories, but raw material as I said in a previous comment that you responded to. Most countries don't have uranium. A lot of countries do not have rare earth minerals for electronic chips.
> If no one is sovereign then sovereignty is meaningless. Who cares
The person I was originally responding to did and was claiming that you could achieve sovereignty with renewables.