Bingo. It would also make it trivial to alter images just enough so that it wouldn’t match the hash, and then they can post shit that would need to be manually flagged and removed.
I already see things like this with pirated media; pirates will include extraneous material bundled with the target media so that it’s not automatically flagged and removed.
You see, comrade, terrorist attack is when Nazis attack bridge we stole, not when comrade bomb Nazi apartment building.
Quick counter: lower kelvin lights are terrible for color reproduction. Pure sunlight is around 5000K, and has a CRI (color rendering index) of 100. Switching to warmer (lower kelvin) lights is going to also alter your CRI, and will change the way that you perceive colors. If you need high color discrimination, that’s going to be bad.
For outdoor lights, in most cases that’s not a problem.
Usually. In most cases, you aren’t going to notice just how much the colors have shifted, because your brain automatically adjusts. Youre perception of color is usually how colors appear relative to other things; you will see a red as red because your brain is comparing it to other objects with a known color. OTOH, if you’re taking photos under poor lighting conditions, you’ll see a significant shift in color. If you’ve ever taken film photos under fluorescent lights, you’d see that everything looked sharply green, when you don’t perceive them as being green at that moment. (Digital cameras often make color adjustments, and the sensors are often not as sensitive as film can be.)
Going to an extreme, if you use a red filter on a light source, all colors are going to end up looking brown and grey; switching to red lights does the best at minimizing light pollution and loss of night vision, but at the cost of most color information. That’s not bad, just a thing to consider.
First: How do you reconcile that view with the idea that animals also experience the world as people do with the idea that animals kill and eat other animals? Bears, for instance, are roughly as intelligent as a kindergartener, and yet happily kill and eat any other animals that they can. Pigs and crows are also omnivorous, and will eat any source of meat that they come across. They can all likewise avoid killing if they choose, yet they don’t. Are they immoral? Or does morality only apply to humans? (Even animals that we traditionally think of as herbivorous are opportunistic meat eaters.)
Second: What would you propose replacing animal products with, when there are no alternatives that function as well? What about when the alternative products also cause greater environmental harms?
Third: So you would not have a problem with, for instance, hunting and eating invasive species, since those species cause more harm to existing ecosystems than not eradicating them would? What about when those invasive species are also highly intelligent, e.g. feral pigs? Or is it better to let them wreck existing ecosystems so that humans aren’t causing harm? To drill down on that further, should humans allow harm to happen by failing to act, or should we cause harm to prevent greater harm?
Fourth: “Exploiting” is such an interesting claim. Vegans are typically opposed to honey, since they view it as an exploitative product. Are you aware that without commercial apiaries, agriculture would collapse? That is, without exploiting honey bees, we are not capable of pollinating crops?
Would you agree, given that all food production for humans causes environmental harm, that the only rational approach to eliminate that harm is the eradication of humanity?
…And how exactly do you think people are going to be able to eat meat otherwise? Or have dairy, eggs, wool, etc.? Do you think that people should e.g., raise chickens in the city?
And that’s ignoring the small obligate carnivores that make up most of the pets in the world.
Hey, I’d rather hunt my own food too, but we no longer live in tribal or feudal societies where you can reasonably expect to engage in animal husbandry yourself.
“Truth” is a matter of conclusions and meaning, not of facts. Factual information would be something like–and this is an intentionally racist argument–53% of the murder arrests in the US come from a racial group that makes up 14% of the population. This is a fact, and it can be clearly seen in FBI statistics. But your conclusions from that fact–what that fact means–that’s the point of rhetoric and logic. Faulty logic would make multiple leaps and say, well, obvs. this means that black people are more prone to commit murder. A more logically sound approach would look at things like whether there where different patterns in law enforcement based on racial groups, what factors were leading to murder rates in racial groups and whether those factors were present across all demographics, and so on.
That seems like a dangerous approach to not care if you disagree with people. Shouldn’t you know if your disagreement with them is based on sound reasoning?
No, you were quite clear; you aren’t actually interested in real solutions, you’re interested in gun control for the sake of gun control.
I used to be a member of the NRA too, but I’m not willing to pay for some dude’s $15,000 suits while he’s kissing the asses of people that want to overturn every part of the constitution that isn’t 2A rights. I’m slightly more okay with SAF and GOA, but they still often shill for Republicans.
The fact that a gun has a ‘purpose’ of killing is reductive and not useful. Killing is, by itself, neither good nor bad. Killing can be justified and moral, or it can be deeply immoral.
So, as I asked originally, if you could reduce the number of illegal and immoral uses of firearms without reducing the ability of people to exercise their civil rights, would you be open to that?
Fewer guns doesn’t, by itself, mean less violence. We can see that in Australia and in England, where the combined rates of all violent crimes (battery, robbery, forcible rape, murder) are comparable to the US, and possibly higher, but the lethality is reduced. On the other hand, reducing the amount of violence in society, through programs that attack root causes in the most affected communities (which, notably, is not harsher policing and sentencing, but more like community improvement and poverty reduction), reduces both rates of violence and the homicide rates. Chicago actually had a pretty good violence intervention program going for a number of years before it was senselessly defunded.
You’ve avoiding the question.
Would you be open to solutions that do not involve removing guns, or is that the only solution you would accept?
Love that people just ignore that violence doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and since violence must happen in a vacuum without any causes at all the only solution is to remove the tools.
Guns are tools. A knife is a tool. A car is a tool. Even high explosives are tools.
BTW, I do have a kitchen gun, because that’s where I need it when there’s a problem bear outside. (Yes, bear - one of those 300+ pound animals with teeth and claws that are sometimes extremely aggressive.)
I assume that you want safe communities; would you be open to solutions that increase safety if they didn’t involve removing firearms, or is that the only solution that you’d accept?
Obviously the problem is that there are too many knives in China, and it’s too easy for civilians to get knives! No one needs a knife; the only purpose of a knife is to cut and stab. The only solution is to completely ban all knives in China.
…Or they could seriously address the social issues that lead to certain segments of their population committing this kind of atrocity.
Hmmm. I wonder where else that could be applied…?
Well… Yes, it probably is. Because it’s political speech, and because there’s not a direct link to fraud or causal harm. See US v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198. When Trump says that he’s a stable genius, that’s protected speech even though 180 degrees opposed to the truth.
You’ll notice that e.g. what Trump’s attorneys said in public was very, very different from what they said to courts; it’s a criminal offense to lie to courts, but it’s largely legal and protected to lie to the public for political ends.
If we extend this thought experiment to a physical key, then that argument falls apart. A physical key is ‘real or physical evidence’, while a password (and apparently combinations?) ends up being considered ‘testimonial’, despite both serving the same function. While I may not be required to provide testimony against myself, I can be compelled to provide real of physical evidence. If, for instance, I have committed tax fraud, and my accountant has already told the IRS as much, but I have the only copies of the tax documents encrypted, I can be compelled to decrypt them, because the ‘testimonial’ value of the password is negligible since the gov’t already knows that I have the fraudulent documents. But if they can’t already demonstrate that they know what–roughly–the real evidence that’s encrypted is, then no password for cops.
This seems inconsistent to me, since a password and a physical key serve the same function.
Right, I’m not arguing that belief is inherently bad, per se. I think that the external structure of a religion can provide a lot of direct, tangible benefits that can’t be readily had in other ways.
On the other hand, a sincere belief in supernatural effects is not something that can be supported by the existing evidence.
As far as the US goes, that’s incorrect. The issue is a 1A issue, not a 5A issue.
tl;dr - you are required to provide keys, combinations, fingerprints, etc. when there’s a warrant. You might not be required to provide passwords.
Let’s say cops have a search warrant for your house, and you have a safe in your house that they think the evidence of the crime they’re investigating is hidden in. But it’s locked. You are obligated to unlock that safe for them, whether it’s a physical key, a combination, or a fingerprint. If you refuse, you can be compelled, and can be held in contempt of court and held in jail until you comply. (Or course, in the case of a physical safe, refusing the provide the key would mean that they’d hire a security expert to destroy the safe in order to retrieve the contents. But that’s not possible with encrypted data.)
The problem is that a password is both a key and speech. I can be compelled to provide a key, but I can’t be compelled to engage in certain speech. So far, courts have been divided on what a password is, and I don’t believe that the question has been addressed by SCOTUS yet. (Although, knowing SCOTUS, I wouldn’t expect them to be tech-savvy enough to make a good ruling.) In some cases, people that have been under court orders to provide passwords have been held in jail on contempt charges until they’ve divulged the password, even when they say that they’ve forgotten the password in question.
Keep in mind that the people that this is often applied to are not usually people you’d want to be friends with; most of that cases I’ve seen in the news involve people that are accused of having child pornography, either uploading or downloading it, or terrorism. But obvs. revoking rights to deal with exceptionally scummy people also means that those rights get revoked for everyone else…
I’m going to push back on this a bit.
No, you can’t disprove the existence of deity, because you can’t technically disprove anything. On the other hand, there’s no evidence that points to a divine that couldn’t be more easily explained by some other mechanism. This gets into Occam’s Razor territory; the lack of deity is more likely than the existence of deity, simply because it’s an answer that requires the least unsupported, new evidence to arrive at.
OTOH, I think that people have evolved in such a way that beliefs like this are easy to fall into, and are comforting in a deeply instinctual way, even if they aren’t factually correct. We are biological organisms, and our biological nature makes it impossible for us to perceive the universe as it ‘really’ is, but only through the lens of our own existence. We’re biologically programmed, through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, to see things and patterns that aren’t there, since missing patterns that are there is more likely to get us killed. Thus, religion.
If he was convicted of domestic violence, then he cannot legally own a firearm, unless the conviction has been vacated or he’s been pardoned. That’s federal law. Therefore, he either wasn’t convicted of domestic violence, the courts failed to follow through with their legal obligations and report the conviction to NICS, or he acquired the firearm illegally.
The problem is that it’s not “proven”; the only side presenting any evidence is the person seeking the protective order. If you make it an adversarial process so that the subject of the protective order can try to refute claims by the person seeking the order, then sure.
But right now it’s strictly one-sided. Most places do require some form of evidence, but that evidence doesn’t have to meet normal evidentiary standards, and the evidence isn’t being questioned in an adversarial way.
Personally, I’m not comfortable removing rights when the person losing rights can’t contest it.
I have a pair of Bellville MiniMils that I wear every single day; I had the last pair for about three years, and I’m at about a year and a half on this pair. I work and hike in them (although I want to get nicer hiking boots, something like the VivoBarefoot Tracker). They are minimalist boots though, so if you don’t already like and wear minimalist shoes, you’re not going to like these.