KGIII

You are not a proponent of free speech. You're a proponent of speech that you don't find offensive. It is, in my opinion, okay to hold those views.

You're absolutely entitled to have those views. However, you're not a proponent of free speech. Free speech allows people to say all lawful things.

Threats and slander are unlawful and aren't protected speech. Child pornography is illegal. There are many things freedom of speech doesn't protect.

I have no major complaints about the legislation aspect as it currently is.

I did not assert that rape threats were civil rights. No, those are illegal. Well, they are actually only illegal of they are credible threats.

Slander is illegal. Credible threats of violence are illegal. Disclosure of classified data is illegal. Certain kinds of pornography are illegal. Inciting a riot is illegal. Credibly suggesting someone harm another is illegal.

There are more but that's the gist. Those acts are illegal.

What is not illegal is when some jerk comes and says, "I think all women should be raped." I think we can all agree that it is deplorable, but it is not illegal.

'It would be great if all those n&ggers were strung up.' is not illegal. But, "I'm going to get a truckload of us, come back, and string up them n&ggers!' is illegal.

That last one is illegal because it has become a credible threat.

When the neo-Nazi marches go on, complete with their fancy clothes, and shouting how they hate K&kes, N&ggers, Sp&cks, etc... and throwing up their Nazi solute - that's legal.

It's deplorable, but legal. And I support free speech. That means I support their right to express themselves within the legal framework.

The right to express yourself as you see fit is very much a basic human right. There are already limits.

So, I support all lawful speech. That is what it means when you defend the freedom of speech. Anything else is not defending it. Anything else doesn't need to be defended.

It is okay, really. At least it is okay by me. You don't have to support free speech. There are probably a list of other rights you don't support. The rights I support are in the US Constitution. I'd like to keep them there, but I accept that it is a living document.

> As an officer of the court myself ...

Could you elaborate on that? I have some thoughts but want to know if my thoughts are really valid. What type of court officer are you? Is it in the same jurisdiction? Things like that. I don't want to prejudice your responses.

(I should also mention that my thoughts aren't going to put any blame on you.)

Thats okay. You're just not a proponent of free speech. Free speech is the deplorable and socially unacceptable.

It was once unacceptable to suggest black people had rights or that women should vote. To think we are at the apex of morality is hubris. Thus, I feel freedom of expression remains a vital component in modernity.

Sure, inasmuch as taking labor without payment is slavery.

Worst case, I'll just use cash. I always carry currency, as well.

That's a great idea, actually. I keep ID at the ready and my cards are all unsigned. If they want signature verification, the back of the card is a silly place to look for it - as it can be signed by anyone. It could be a fake ID, but that's more difficult and less likely.

Sadly, very seldom does anyone even look to confirm it is even signed.

Methinks I'll try your solution. Thanks!

I don't think Twitter is actually interested in defending free speech? Free speech is defending the toxic speech. Acceptable speech needs no defense.

Recently, someone posted a complaint about a Halloween costume that was a wall. That got the perpetually outraged group in motion, of course. One user said she would punch anyone who she saw wearing such a costume. Twitter banned her.

So, things may be changing slowly. It isn't easy for some folks to see faults in people who agree with them. I notice that when I stand up for something on the political right, I'm often assumed to be a member of the right. If I point out a problem with the political left, I'm often assumed to be a member of the political right.

It's very binary and people really aren't always objective. But, there are instances where this is changing. Some BLM members were recently banned because of hate speech and suggesting violence and some AntiFa have also suffered the same fate.

It takes time but it does appear that they are being more honest with their enforcement.

Of course, you still have the group who will try to interpret things as other than written. There are people who see -isms where none exist.

On this topic, it has led me to trying to coin the phrase, 'If you seek umbrage, you will find it.' I've seen another person quote it, so it may be catching on slowly.

I support IP rights, as a general rule. However, they sure get abused. I'm kind of annoyed about this, even though I have nothing to do with it.

If you break my system, thanks for letting us know. It'd be great if we could pay you to help fix our system and make it more difficult to break in the future.

I'd not take them to court. I'd try to hire them. Hell, I'd give them reward money - even if they didn't want to be hired.

I meant they could be chemically bound with opiate molecules in a separate process. Not that they contained them by default and in nature. Sorry for the confusion.

Blueberries contain antioxidants! LOL

How do they know they are HTML before they open them?

Also, I read in plain text. If you want me to read it in HTML format, include a link to the web version and, if I'm interested, I will actually click on that - which has the added benefit of putting me on your site.

Not many do that. 'If you want to read this in HTML format, click this link.' That works and I may very well click it.

Edit:

Never mind. I see they speak of unstyled HTML email, not plain text email. So, the email is still HTML, it's just not pretty. Chances are, I won't notice as I read in plain text most of the time.

In Thunderbird, you have to change it to plain text. I default to sending plain text, as a general rule. I usually read in plain text but currently have one system set to view in simple HTML. I forget why I changed that.

Holy crap! Thanks!

That's insane. I'm not a gamer but it looks like they just published how to "hack" the console and they were hit with that. That's crazy. In the span of a minute, I can think of a dozen better solutions to this.

If I'm reading properly, they didn't even do anything that I'd call wrong. They found an exploit and published it. I suppose the DMCA and "circumvention tools" come into play - but that only points to the absurdity of the situation (at least in my opinion).

Hmm... If I'm understanding correctly, they might possible be bound to opiate molecules and increase efficacy in hitting the receptors?

That makes some sense. By itself, I can't think of how it would benefit a healthy person. I'm not even sure what kinds of unhealthy people that might help.

So, to me it looked like, 'Hey, here are some fancy words! Don't look too deep, because they are mostly meaningless.' No offense intended, that's just what it looked like to a curious layman.

I have a commercial wild blueberry operation so I hear some really, really strange claims. Things like this peg my skepticism meter. No, my blueberries won't turn you into Superman or Einstein. They don't cure cancer, prevent HIV, or give you psychic powers.

Do you have a good link for some backstory on this one? I'm not sure how that could even be possible in the legal frameworks.

You can physically break into any facility, if you have enough force. Social engineering is a different problem.

In your case, no exiting the alarmed back doors for break. Breaks are taken by exiting the front doors or in designated break areas.

There were no security doors that weren't manned. Positive identification was required, as was approval. No exceptions.

We worked with proprietary data at that facility. Sometimes, we'd even have to put a team at the customer's site. Once, I had to personally do all of it as there were only two of us with government security clearances. For that, I had to be on a military facility.

The latter being really, really silly. I can't be specific but it is fairly well known that I modeled traffic. Yup... That's what I did and the USG determined the data was marked at a higher level that FOUO.

What is the benefit of containing neurotransmitters? I hit up Wikipedia and see they carry signals. I'm not seeing how that is a benefit, however. They appear to carry any signal, not some special signals. Unless one has too few (I'm not sure what might even cause that) then I'm not seeing why that's beneficial.

You should see what tourists will pay for certified organic wild Maine blueberries. The only difference between them is they come from a field that wasn't sprayed.

They pay three times the price and six times the wholesale price. They are the same berries, harvested the exact same way.

You can double the price again, if you have someone hand pick them instead of raking them. Even better, you can charge them about the same price and let them pick the berries themselves.

Layered and strict policies help prevent that. When I say strict, I mean the policies. If there is a security incident, you study it but not to blame someone. You study it to see where you can improve it.

My initial security training came from your tax dollars by way of the Marines. With the help of consultants, I designated much of our policy. Some of my employees spoke at Defcon, for example.

It's still possible for failure, but the chances are low. Each person entering is on a list - no exceptions. People who enter are NOT people who called us. We call you, at your HQ, and then do our vetting. Things like that. I am not going to go over all the methods, but we knew who was going into the facility beyond reasonable doubt.

Well, past tense. I'm retired.

You could still get in, but it's going to be difficult and expensive. Nothing is completely secure, nothing.

Mostly true.

In my area, once you get passed a point south of me, those walls are fewer and fewer. There are areas where it was never farmed and old growth trees still exist.

What is great is you can walk out to places and stand there and be reasonably certain that you're the first human to have ever stood in that spot.

Before you vote them down, she'd say the same thing. Trust but verify.

It sure comes in handy on a tablet or on mobile networks.

I keep it bookmarked on all such devices.

We worked with other people's data and were contractually obligated to keep it reasonably secure. You could get inside a building, but probably not one with anything good in it.

To get into the server room you had to badge and code in and be visually verified before exiting the man trap. Computers that were able to access any of that were locked down and had no Internet. The network itself was locked down, with multiple separate networks.

Entry into the building itself required badging and visual verification.

Notably, this was only one facility. You could walk right into the other offices. I doubt anyone would have noticed. But, the secure office was pretty secure. You could get in, but not by social engineering. That office was pretty strict. Not even I could get in without my badge and visual verification.

Well, you could but it would take a lot of work and money. You'd have had to set yourself up as a potential client and we vetted client contacts and it required approval for each guest. We'd call headquarters and verify you were supposed to be coming, who you were, and things like that. We took no unscheduled, unvetted, unknown guests. Not even my kids.

Absolutely. Pushing a product to a new group of people is innovation. It's innovation in the business aspect, not innovative on the tech side.

Yeah, I'll get the notice and decide at that point. My current thoughts are $24 is the limit. I think I'll adjust the notification to $25 and maybe automate selling at $24.

That way, I can change my mind if, for some reason, I think it will rally.

He was a Microsoft MVP award winner for a couple of years. I win the award a number of times, back when I was still using Windows, and he was around back then.

I'll avoid offering my own impressions except to say he reminded me of the Lockergnome guy.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think is a better (and more probable) answer?

Yup. The price I'm seeing is $7.99/mo.

Sorry - I switched to a laptop, as it's easier to type this out.

Now, 10 pictures is $7.99 is $0.77 each.

To keep that in mind, and do some quick math...

Package 2 is 25 pictures. If we use the $0.69, then $17.25, which can be rounded down to $16.99.

It's not major until you get higher.

Package 3 is 50 pictures. Using the same progression, now at $0.59 per image, we get $29.50.

Package 5 is 100 pictures. Again, that's now $0.49 which works out to a price of $49.99.

If you wanted...

Package 1 could be $7.99 for 10 (each additional is $0.75)

Package 2 would be $16.99 for 25 (each additional is $0.65)

Package 3 would be $27.99 for 50 (each additional is $0.55)

Package 4 would be $49.99 for 100 (each additional is $0.45)

Something like that. 100 well printed pictures each month? That's well worth $49.99 for many of us.

That's also a lot of pictures - so the idea comes into play of having a single recipient who can have multiple authorized senders. So, the grandparent's three kids could all send pictures to the account. (There's a number of ways to decide if only x-amount get printed, perhaps the final choice is done by the payee.)

You can just email me, if you want. uninvolved@outlook.com is certain to be seen and responded to, eventually.

I don't want to derail the thread too far. I'm just trying to share some quick and dirty marketing data.

If each of my kids made me a grandfather, I'd buy a package of 100 - if they can distribute it between them. If not, I'd buy two packages of 100 - and I'd do so at the $49.99/mo price, no questions asked.

I kinda like the idea of X-dollars for X-number of pictures and then X-number for each additional pictures.

I guess if you were to do that part, you should do the ethical thing and automatically charge them the less expensive price if, for example, they want to send 25 pictures in one month. If they want to send 25 pictures that month, you might as well just charge them for Package 2.

It'd be more ethical and probably encourage people to try higher packages - and then commit to keeping that same level of shared pictures.

And, as said before, there's ton of value-added services that you could toss into this.

Feel free to email, if you want. I'll throw some time at you. I wasn't doing anything better and HN is always good at helping me out when I have a question.

Edit, I typed a number wrong.

That is a neat article, thanks! I'd never seen it before but it's fairly close to what I've been doing.

I do another one and someone told me there's a technical name for it. I forget the name.

When I go shopping, I'll discretely look in shopping carts. I'll make a mental note and check to see how well the shelves are stocked in comparison to other products. If I see a lot of the same company in carts, to the point where the store hasn't matched stocking well, then I'll look further into the parent company.

So far, it has done well. I'd never played in the market before and my 401k was always managed. So, this is pretty new for me. I've been at it since maybe 2011.