This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Turkey
Pages: 1 ... 848586 8788 ... 270
2551
« on: May 08, 2016, 10:17:53 AM »
"Experts recommend"
k
Your email provider will inform you when you need to change your password due to a security breach, and you should be changing them regularly anyway.
2552
« on: May 08, 2016, 09:50:08 AM »
For the covenants that pair you with others (watchdogs, faithfuls, sentinels, etc) I really wish it would be more aggressive. I have never been summoned for any of these despite wearing the covenants for hours in the right areas, and using a red eye orb defaults you to Rosaria's Fingers.
2553
« on: May 08, 2016, 08:51:09 AM »
Mound Making 202
-Invade as mad spirit
-If it's a fight club, behave normally
-When one participant is at low health, spam throwing knives and steal the kill
-Or, if your objective is to kill the host or 3 phantoms, wait for another mad bro and then gangbang the host together
2554
« on: May 07, 2016, 08:52:05 PM »
This basically confirms that Roman's life is just a series of comedy sketches dreamed up by Seth Rogan after a killer bong rip.
2555
« on: May 07, 2016, 08:40:24 PM »
Even at peak physical strength, it's still pretty fucking hard to break steel. Fighting should be doing neutral at best. What should happen is that Electric should be made super effective against Steel (for obvious reasons), and Fighting should be made neutral.
Why would Electric be effective against Steel? It's exactly the opposite.
It's the opposite with water too, but not according to Pokemon.
Good point.
2556
« on: May 07, 2016, 07:26:10 PM »
Even at peak physical strength, it's still pretty fucking hard to break steel. Fighting should be doing neutral at best. What should happen is that Electric should be made super effective against Steel (for obvious reasons), and Fighting should be made neutral.
Why would Electric be effective against Steel? It's exactly the opposite.
2557
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:59:22 PM »
Most people think an earthquake along the San Andreas Fault would result in California splitting away from the rest of the continent. Actually, the San Andreas Fault is a slip-strike fault, meaning the two plates are sliding laterally against each other, meaning they would both sink into the fiery pits of hell where Satan himself would punish every Californian for their flamboyant homosexuality and usage of wind turbines.
Only The Rock can save them now.
2558
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:55:08 PM »
Verb, because then I'd be right about everything.
2559
« on: May 07, 2016, 03:18:34 PM »
2.40
Liberal airhead
mkay
2560
« on: May 07, 2016, 02:46:58 PM »
Only on opposite day.
God's not real.
Probably.
2561
« on: May 07, 2016, 02:43:24 PM »
Only on opposite day.
2562
« on: May 07, 2016, 02:08:19 PM »
Mordo, what exactly has she stolen? Are you talking about specific clips of games that others have uploaded and she uses in her videos?
I believe so. I haven't kept up with this at all but I do remember seeing complaints from people that she was using their footage without consent way back when. They put the videos side by side to show that she just downloaded someone else's video and cut out parts to use in her own videos without giving credit. And seeing how she clearly does it for commercial purposes and makes money from it, claiming fair use isn't evident.
People that record clips of their gameplay don't actually retain any rights to those, do they?
2563
« on: May 07, 2016, 11:40:28 AM »
It sickens me to my stomach how trusting people like Turkey are of the government.
Jesus, I always get this. Articles like this come out and people take the tinfoil-hat clickbait title at face value and think the government's gonna track their cell phone because they use a VPN to pirate Game of Thrones. That's not what is hapening. If you want to distrust the police and claim they abuse search warrants, that's an entirely different discussion. All this says is that VPN-protected information can be subject to a search warrant (which is exactly comparable to a search warrant allowing police to open a safe or a locked door in a house). I've advocated against governmental powers, corruption, and abuse of the constitution on here ad nauseam, but apparently I'm a government shill because I try to clarify when people grossly mistake what articles like these say.
2564
« on: May 06, 2016, 11:31:30 PM »
Mordo, what exactly has she stolen? Are you talking about specific clips of games that others have uploaded and she uses in her videos?
2565
« on: May 06, 2016, 09:11:25 PM »
tbh I'm not sure where all the confusion is coming from. The first paragraph: An update to the innocuous-sounding Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure could soon grant powers to judges across the US to issue search warrants for law enforcement to remotely access devices that are using privacy tools. seems pretty clear that the warrant would allow LEOs to search VPN-protected devices, not that they could get a search warrant just because you use a VPN.
2566
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:28:51 PM »
The broad social consequences cease to matter when they're derived from the reasonable exercise of a human right.
Oh, yeah, "reasonable". That's a well-defined moral term, right there. So explain to me why I can't fuck my wife in public, then? Sex is natural, and celebrated in some cultures. My rights trump social climate, according to you. This is going in circles. You're wrong, I'm right, 1mg/L of fluoride is safe, jet fuel can compromise the structure of steel beams, Bush didn't do 9/11, lizardmen are fake and the moon isn't cheese. I think that covers everything.
2567
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:22:46 PM »
"probable cause" is an extremely loose term these days that's pretty open to fairly open to interpretation
suspicion alone can be used as probable cause in quite a few cases
A warrant has to be issued with enough cause, or else it could be argued against in court and the evidence from that search wouldn't be applicable to the case. You're basically asserting that law enforcement abuses the power of a search warrant without any evidence. The ability to access VPN-protected information would have nothing to do with your argument against the search warrant process.
2568
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:18:12 PM »
What interests me most currently is under what conditions a warrant can be requested, to which I found this
(3) Requesting a Warrant by Telephonic or Other Reliable Electronic Means. In accordance with Rule 4.1, a magistrate judge may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means. What on earth does "other reliable means" even mean? It's no news-flash to me that calls are monitored, but I have yet to know the extent to which monitoring already occurs online. Is anyone particularly knowledgeable in this topic to clarify what "other reliable means" actually means? Perhaps to the extent which online content is already monitored?
It sounds like they're saying law enforcement officers can tell a judge information pertinent to a warrant over the phone or email, text, fax, etc. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with how information is gathered; a warrant wouldn't be issued after a phone has been tapped. you're much too trusting of big brother
That's a pretty lazy response. Can't explain why something the government does is bad? Just call 'em a shill.
2569
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:15:17 PM »
Everyone is directly burdened by flourinated tap water because they are unknowingly forced to consume it (it's not labeled). Only smokers are directly burdened by cigarettes, because only they are consuming them. Are you beginning to see the difference?
It's common knowledge that water is fluoridated. And no, all of society is burdened by cigarettes.
2570
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:13:17 PM »
as long as it's under a search warrant
the government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on though
You're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.
Who says they'd be taking things to court?
Why would a search warrant be obtained if not to collect evidence to charge somebody with a crime?
Suspicion of possible criminal activity. There's no prosecution necessarily.
It's just an excuse to legally track people who don't want to be tracked.
Suspicion isn't enough; warrants require probable cause. This has nothing to do with tracking people.
2571
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:09:52 PM »
People don't consent to flourinated water, and the government adds it without the say of every person who uses tap water. And non-smokers don't consent to being burdened by those who do smoke. Are you starting to see how the actions of individuals in a society can affect the others as a whole, and why certain things should be regulated? That's why it's wrong. And yes, external fluoride is bad for you. Again, for anyone reading: it isn't.
2572
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:05:37 PM »
as long as it's under a search warrant
the government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on though
You're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant.
Who says they'd be taking things to court?
Why would a search warrant be obtained if not to collect evidence to charge somebody with a crime?
2573
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:02:47 PM »
as long as it's under a search warrant
the government/law enforement has been using warrants less and less as time goes on though
You're implying that the government illegally searches private property and uses that evidence against them in court; I'd love to see any shred of evidence supporting this. The fact is that this is no different the a cop's right to search your home with a warrant. So because nobody needs to know exactly where the fuck I am at all time the police now have reasonable suspicion enough that I'm engaging in criminal activity to get a warrant to search my electronics.
Where is this stated, though? All it's saying is that law enforcement would have the right to access devices under a search warrant that would otherwise be protected by a VPN.
2574
« on: May 06, 2016, 08:00:59 PM »
You demonstrated they hurt society in a broad sense, I'm talking about immediate effects that an individual smoker creates while he's smoking a cigarette. If healthcare is effected because of that private execution of his right, that's a problem with healthcare.
You claim it's wrong for the government to allow water companies to fluoridate public water because it hurts society in a broad sense (disclaimer for all: it doesn't, and no research supports that it does). Then that must be a problem with healthcare, too.
2575
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:58:11 PM »
I've got no issue with this as long as it's under a search warrant, and not just a general right to access peoples' computers.
2576
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:26:51 PM »
With that in mind, to answer your question, the same thing would happen if someone broke the regulation you mentioned as would happen to someone who broke the regulation I just mentioned. It would be a broken law, same as any other.
Well I've already demonstrated that smoking cigarettes actually does hurt others, so should they all be punished? I didn't ask about a regulation; I'm asking what should happen, in your moral framework, when someone harms someone else in the execution of their right to do whatever they want to their body. And there seems to be a pretty huge distinction between banning the production or import of cigarettes, and banning the use of cigarettes. Maybe you have the right to do whatever you want, but companies certainly don't have the right to sell whatever they want; this isn't a completely free market, after all.
2577
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:15:02 PM »
Wouldn't you consider having sex a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in public? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
Wouldn't you consider doing whatever the fuck you want to yourself a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in a way that tangibly, physically harms other people? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
You have an obligation to exercise that right in a way that only immediately affects yourself.
I keep answering your questions, and you don't answer mine. Very telling.
Those were the first two questions you've asked me, and they were rhetorical. What should be done if somebody doesn't exercise their rights in a way that only immediately affects themselves?
2578
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:08:32 PM »
Wouldn't you consider having sex a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in public? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
Wouldn't you consider doing whatever the fuck you want to yourself a human right? Are you going to say you also have a right to do it in a way that tangibly, physically harms other people? Of course not, that's a completely other issue.
2579
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:04:28 PM »
If I choose to fuck up my health, that's my choice. The government has zero rights to dictate what you can and can't ingest.
Smoking = bad health Bad health = inflated cost of healthcare + less healthy workforce Inflated cost of healthcare = some people cannot afford coverage and are denied critical care (it doesn't matter if you think insurance is done; this is reality) Less healthy workforce = more taxes are required to support those individuals via welfare It's demonstrable that the aggregate effect of smoking basically takes money out of peoples' pocket and endangers lives and livelihoods. Hell, I'd even go so far to say that smoking directly contributes to political corruption. So again, where does my right to do whatever the fuck I want with my body end in regards to others' same right?
2580
« on: May 06, 2016, 07:00:16 PM »
You can't just equate doing something in the public sphere with doing something in the private sphere. I don't even think people should be able to drink on park benches. Why shouldn't someone be able to do whatever the fuck to their own body on a park bench?
Same reason you're not allowed to fuck someone on a park bench. You're doing something unpleasant in the direct public eye.
um Doesn't matter. Human rights trump social climate.
Pages: 1 ... 848586 8788 ... 270
|
Show Posts