"Allies, we encourage you to take a quick tally. Over the past 3 months, count the number of co-workers you’ve hung out with outside of the office. Meals. Coffees. Drinks. Baseball games. Rounds of golf. Poker nights. Then count the number of women and underrepresented minorities from your company at these gatherings.
If you’re not happy with your ratio, we’re counting on you to improve it."
Obviously, with any free hosting service, there is junk on it... However, if you check wikipedia or wherever, and find out what soundcloud is, you will understand. Soundcloud is a place for dj's, musicians, bands to upload their music. Many smaller bands, soundcloud is the only place many of their songs are stored. In fact many mainstream artists started there, whose 'garage band' recordings, and sets recorded before they went big. There is an abundance of original music, that might be otherwise lost.
Lol. Have no worries. They are high up on the list. Trump knows the extent of the issues with google and facebook. He will strike when the time is right; when enough of the population is well aware, and supportive of him, and when he's gathered enough evidence to prove they are criminal(and evil.)
Who would make such potential products/technologies irrelevant if they have no competitor? If you were generations ahead of the closer competitor, with no threat in sight, seems like you would do exactly as suggested, release new generation processors, with very minor upgrades, taking advantage of those who upgrade every time. Sell everyone three extra i7's before you sell them an i9. Without competition, they control the rate.
I think their taking advantage of the lack of competition is also supported by the fact that intel sliced the price in half on several of their mainstream processors in response to the Ryzens release.
In firefox developer edition (probably regular firefox dev tools as well) one of the dozen or so settings is to disable caching while dev tools is open...
What would happen if he lobotomized(carefully and mildly) himself, and legitimately could not remember his encryption keys/pw nor the reason he performed lobotomy?
Ok, I know nothing about law, but if that is the case, and we agree that an overseas ten year old kid could successfully distribute the images referenced in this case, to thousands of epileptics with a handful of fake social network accounts targeting online communities for epileptics on websites that auto-play gif's, with intentions to kill them, and zero chance of ever getting caught through investigation, than the only logical solution would be to temporarily shut down the internet until we find a solution; I can only imagine the fallout as soon as these terrorist organizations get word of these articles. Clearly this is many times more dangerous than firearms are, and there is zero regulation and virtually limitless access for everyone on earth. I'm not going to try and find statistics, but I'm willing to bet that posting an image to maybe hurt people you can't and have never seen, people that are hardly tangible, especially to a child, who have never exhibited any sort of actual tangible human actions in response to other, less drastic attacks (such as name calling) has got to be hundreds of times easier to rationalize and commit to for a child, or anyone, than it is for a child to choose to use a firearm on another human. When a child touches a gun without permission, all humans exhibit immediate terror, most young kids are probably afraid of guns, yet we have extreme regulations on those, however, children start using the internet on tablets and phones often before their first birthday. Companies that auto-play gif's and have had multiple reports of such images, should be held accountable, along with many others.
Every response is karma suicide, however, I am obviously referring to this exact specific case.. One would traditionally assume that posting a gif is not a crime, no matter the gif (with a few exceptions in the law such as certain types of pornography), in THIS case, the person I am responding to claims it is a crime because of the intent. And the precedent I am discussing is apparently whether or not posting a 'gif' image is assault, regardless of intent, which you are implying this case would claim. Please see my other comment, the one(and the paragraph) talking about 'kittens'. Explain to me the difference between this specific case and that one? How about those gifs which tell you to stare at the optical illusion, and after an arbitrary amount of time, show a terrifying skeleton. Is it a crime to post that without sufficient warning?(assuming it hurts someone psychologically - please apply this assumption to all of the following hypotheticals) Those would never 'go viral' if they contained warnings, obviously, and could be extremely and permanently damaging to certain people with relevant psychological conditions. If it isn't a crime to share those images, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit? If not, is it a crime to post them on an anxiety subreddit, with intention to trigger panic attacks, or similar, in their users? Is it a crime to email those to a person who enjoys optical illusions, has severe panic disorder and ptsd, and several heart conditions? how about with the intent to kill them? Does intent dictate criminality here? If not, what makes it criminal? Number of people affected by a given condition?
Please continue down-voting each of my replies(so I am discouraged from proving my argument) and assume whatever titles are associated with that sort of behavior.
Edit: Also worth noting that getting convicted is mostly irrelevant to my argument. I am trying to bring attention to the burden this sort of thing could put on a legal system, especially if it was 'weaponized,' as well as the burden of legal fees, time, and negative publicity, false claims like these would have on the defendant.
Proving intent in most cases, is extremely costly and difficult. Are you familiar with the concept of 'precedent' in criminal law?
If some goofy, or troubled and confused child, plants jalapeno peppers in his yard, with the intent that that Shia Labeouf hitchhikes across the country, develops an allergy to Jalapenos and trespasses and picks the jalapenos and wipes them all over his face and dies, should the government allocate resources, obtain warrants, and investigate said intent?
The internet contains mechanisms to completely obfuscate identity, to varying degrees, with ease; anyone can access it, there is virtually no accountability in many cases. There are no qualifications required, no definitive rules, no required courses, and there is no required key or credential to partake. It provides more abstraction, more distance between parties, less immediate responses, less certainty of truth, and very few implications are inherently evident to the naive. It is easier to make the decision to take action, and more dangerous, in every facet I can think of, than firearms are. We definitely need to issue certifications, credentials, consequences, training course mandates and massive regulations asap. Aside from the epileptic, I know of someone who experience transient psychosis, often leading to complete mental breakdown, upon seeing images of kittens. The doctors have been thus far unable to identify the root cause of the condition, but kitten pictures are extremely risky. He's only ten years old, and his mom lets him browse 4chan for twelve hours a day, and is in grave danger. I think any condition affecting more than seven people, need be addressed; INTERNET KILLS.
Is the word 'fantasy' commonly used to describe future, similar cases in the legal world? Are you familiar with the word 'implications' or 'citations' in the English language? How about 'money', 'foolishness', 'wastefulness' or 'petty'? The phrase: 'insufferable ignorance'?
So the reason this article is on hackernews, is because some kid said he wanted to hurt someone else? That is the newsworthy bit? I can think of a dozen possible arguments justifying this articles relevancy to this community, and they are all laughable. Which one do you prefer? What makes this specific example of said argument more relevant than the thousands of comparable examples to said argument, to hn? I'm curious.
The only reasonable one I can come up with off-hand, is that there should be a browser plugin or video driver plugin that somehow limits refresh rate, detects risky patterns, or prevents media from autoplaying. Seems like the real travesty is that someone raised a child with this condition, in this world, with no fear, and no motivation to protect their life, while providing the child without any direction or insight into the many existing tools that could be installed for free in minutes, for their safety. Also, the child's doctors/health system in general.
Edit: No I didn't see that, only briefly skimmed the article, my comment (of facetious length), was triggered by the comments near the top when I posted. I would have posted the same thing, minus the bit you quoted, had I not overlooked that fact. Also I listed a plethora of reasons that the existence of this case is ridiculous. Had the perp been harder to find, used obfuscation, or hadn't immediately produced the confession, any random kid could effect potentially MASSIVE costs on the justice and police departments.
I am implying that this is rediculous, and that spending any significant resources to pursue this should be criminal. I'm saying that unless they have a confession from the defendant that he was trying to kill this guy, or his diary dictating that, which they should include in the story were that the case, then this is just stupid. The presidence this case might set forth is terrifying. It provides a never before seen limitless weaponization of the justice system, which will be abused by those without morals, those who have a lot to lose, and those with more $ to attack anyone they like. Any halfway smart kid can use this image attack with zero risk of being caught, so clearly the safety mechanisms and protections need to be on the victims end.
Convicting a person who allegedly posted an image on the internet, with intent to trigger a sizeure in another, sets the precident for every means of distribution of a similar image that I listed off to be treated as attempted murder or whatever charges come of this. Name one thing in my wall of text that is not an implication of this story; Unless you are implying this article is on hackernews, only to foster discussion of the technical aspects of a subpoena of personal information?
What happens if some 10 year old in say Russia, for example (lol), used Bitcoin he made from a few minutes of mining in the very early days of Bitcoin, to purchase a black hat SEO campaign, spamming social networks like Twitter, Tumblr, and Reddit with a click-baity title and purchased upvotes/likes/retweets, spreading a gif like this across US social networks. Would our law enforcement convince, or manually penetrate the networks of the black hat SEO service spending possibly millions of dollars to maybe track down this 10 year old, to find out they have no jurisdiction over him? What if someone had an unsecured hotspot on their phone and local LE accused the person who owned the phone of this?
Are local LE's capable of deciphering the possibly extremely technical misdirections one could easily employ? What if someone reads WikiLeaks, and used one of the exposed zero day exploits to frame a mobile phone user of this. What if someone's friend knows their WiFi password and does the same thing, spoofing the owners Mac address?
What prevents a 10 year old kid from sending anyone they dislike to court for who knows how long, requiring them to amass legal fees to defend themselves. What happens if one of the enormous number of people who have RAT's from malware on their computer from being set up in this manner?
What if someone creates their own image hosting server, and they swap all the images hosted, out for this gif? What happens if someone hacks said img hoster and does the same? What if it is a massive free, fast image hoster, and they are hacked and this happens?
If the precident dictates that this could potentially kill people, what standards of security should image hosters be held to? Should they be required to pay for the same annual audits companies who handle credit card info do? Or should they be held to the standards of government contractors? Seems like they are effectively claiming the security of image hosters is an order of magnitude more vital than any other company. What if a kid uses the WikiLeaks zerodays which were purposely not exposed by the CIA, provided the entry for this 'prankster'? Can any potential victims sue the government.
Since we've established that feelings matter, how is a gif like this different then offending someone to an absurd degree? I've seen several articles from multiple news sources from different countries, detailing the enforcement of hate speech crimes; for example, Western countries making it illegal to speak out against islam? Are offenses of those nature subject to similar accountibility? Are law enforcement agencies equipped well enough to be certain that no misdirection or projection of the actions onto another was utilized?
Obviously one could go on for eternity like this. Making it simple for anyone with Google to lock someone up who they dislike. Seems to me that a person who is susceptible to these triggers, should find a solution on their end to somehow inhibit the effectiveness of such weapons. If all jurisdictions were to take this seriously, whether it's a 'meme' charge or attempted murder, one could backlog an entire countries legal system for years for a small sum of money. Tbh, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, and the few comments I read, are equally ignorant.
What if, the defendant in op's story denies the accusations. What if his friend did it from his phone while he was sleeping, and never told a soul? Good luck using the internet, everyone. Hide your kids, hide your wife.
Right. CTR and Shareblue is all in reference to reddit. Rest is just somewhat relevant rambling, that many may not be aware of. Also, unrelated, I somehow responded in the wrong place with my first comment, to be clear.
I'll add the most common use if intelligence shilling appears to be burying legitimate leaks in similar but provably false claims, or completely unverifiable, but equally absurd claims. On the Chan's '' for instance, there is no way to tell whatsoever, who is being sincere.
I think you highly underestimate the effect they have on you. A small number of bots can completely disrupt discourse, eliminate stories that might make the top of all, and instead only get a couple dozen views. One of the tests they (point) ran, consisted of voting every story in new on a particular, decent sized sub, either up or down, as soon as it was posted. the stories they voted up, once, had several times more likelihood of making the first page of hot, and consequently all. The first few minutes can make or break a story with just a handful of votes with great consistency. The $ spent on such narrative control are absurd. For instance, David Brock's "correct the record" burned through 10's of millions of $ during the election, used new and purchased accounts, custom 3rd party anaylitics, offices of shills domestic and foreign; there are several different leaks which came out, showing the conversations in their slack groups, and how they go about effectively killing a story, or fabricating an entire narritive. It is VERY difficult to distinguish shills from 'legit' posters in some circumstances, often those who laid low and applied only mild pressure, weren't discovered until they posted images with correct the record filenames, or accidentally used the same verbiage from separate accounts. Currently, since the termination of correct the record, shareblue has taken over their 'mission' and does the same stuff in the same places. The FBI and CIA make enormous use of the same things, to discourage leaked Intel and damaging natsec information on Reddit and the Chan's from spreading, and he FBI has gone as far as planting child pornography to scare people off and even threaten prosecution of those who are influential/damaging. Correct the record has lists and ratings of Reddit users, one which leaked recently, which you can download right now and import into RES. The same thing occurs in the movie/TV industry, and we are starting to see the evidence come out now, of the massive operation mansanto was running out of large corporate offices, as well as partnering/contracting researches and those of larger social significance to discredit and dismantle the compilation of evidence and investigation into their wrongdoings. Judging by your comment, I'd guess you are among the highest tier of impressionability among those partaking in this discussion. Ignorant comment.