TWeaK @ TWeaK @lemm.ee

Posts

24

Comments

4,766

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Fun fact: trespassing isn't even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn't occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.

Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You're absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).

Is it a constant problem? How many child molesters are confessing in church? How many Catholics are child molesters?

The Catholic church's history with child abuse is to do with Priests and the church covering for them. This is new spin, suggesting that Catholics as a whole contains a lot of child molesters, but I've not seen any evidence showing that.

Small correction, a lawyer is only obligated if they believe there is a specific ongoing risk. It's the difference between saying you committed a crime in the past and saying that you are going to commit one in future.

If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.

This is the thing that's bugging me. People are taking the Catholic church's history with priests committing child abuse, then making a blind logical leap that Catholics in general are child abusers (or a significant number of them). It's twisting the feelings about Catholic priests and targeting them at a wider group. What's happening here is insidious.

How many Catholics are child molesters, and how many of them are confessing in church, and what penance were they given?

though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.

That's the thing, if you violate the confidentiality of confessionals then people simply won't confess, and then you lose the avenue for a priest to try and convince someone to address their behaviour. Maybe that's not very effective, but it's more effective than not having it.

In line with your assessment of the article's agenda, I have to question how much of an issue this even is. Like, the Catholic church has a long history with child abuse, but wasn't that primarily about Priests abusing children in their parish, and the church protecting its priests? This is an accusation that Catholics themselves are a bunch of child molesters, which is not something I've seen any evidence in support of.

That's not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don't confess to things that haven't happened yet. You're more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.

If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that's when a confession should become reportable, if we're want the law to be secular and equitable.

Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.

The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen's duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.

The logs were deleted, sounds like there isn't any proof left.

a) The logs were deleted, so there isn't much evidence left. b) We don't even know if this is a university project and not just a side project.

The EU does already have them under some control. They restrict MC/VISA transaction fees to like 0.3% - literally the day Brexit happened the fees went up to 1.5%. However that was all before covid, no idea what fees are everywhere now.

It never was, for any of them. They claim fair use under "research", but the very next step after determining the category is to consider the commerciality. Their research is not an academic pursuit in the public interest and they don't publish their research data (because that would be incriminating); the entire activity is commercial product development. Such a venture is very clearly and obviously not fair use.

I don't think it's you being paranoid, however at the same time your husband is perhaps more on the front line of things, so should have a better idea.

I would say that as a journeyman lineman he'll be pretty decently qualified and probably wouldn't have as hard a time finding work abroad. It might be a tough sell with lower salaries on paper, but you often find that the standard of living improves and makes it more than worthwhile.

Apparently this was from Threadless. They don't have this anymore, but they do have a KISS one:

The koala thing is slightly different, at birth they can't digest eucalyptus leaves. The necessary gut bacteria is passed down from mother to child through coprophagy.

Bunnies and guinea pigs just eat their poop to ensure complete digestion.

Fun fact: at birth koalas can't actually digest eucalyptus leaves on their own. They eat their mum's faeces to gain the necessary gut bacteria.

I mean it was a precarious case that was on the verge of being acceptable to most people, but legally was clearly not. Scanning books and providing a single digital copy was legally grey, but everyone looked the other way. Providing extra copies during a pandemic was kind, but allowing it to go to court and not settling (and then doubling down with appeals, all of which has to be funded by donations that could have been spent elsewhere) ended up with a judge ruling that no one can scan books and publish a single copy without an explicit license from the publisher. So that grey area is now black and white.

I can't help but resent them for this, given that the main part of the organisation - the actual Internet Archive - is so important and they've put its survial at risk with their side hussle. Some of the blame (perhaps even a majority?) should also go to the lawyers that represented IA.

Starlink literally has direct to cell capability. Their orbits are around 300-600km, and this is well within reach for two way communication for cellphones as there's nothing in the way (no trees, no buildings, just space). GPS satellites are one-way, because they're at geostationary orbit of 35,786km. GPS antennae are powerful enough to shout at your phone, but your phone isn't powerful enough to shout back; with Starshield's orbit your phone can.

Starlink has deals with T-Mobile in the US and others across the world to provide cellphone coverage. They have a webpage for it and the concept is proven. https://www.starlink.com/business/direct-to-cell

The point I'm making is that this turns Starlink into global cellphone towers, existing extrajudicially to almost all the countries they effectively operate in. Furthermore, as they move (and quite quickly at that) it becomes easy for them to take multiple measurements from different locations over time, allowing them to get high accuracy location information even if only one or two satellites are nearby (with cell towers you would need at least 3 as they're at a fixed location). And on top of that the two-way communication to devices creates an avenue for exploits - maybe not all of those available to a Stingray device (which is much closer and potentially overpowers and blocks ground based cell towers) but certainly a potential for things that I find concerning.

They currently have a couple hundred direct to cell satellites out of the total constellation of 6,-8,000 satellites. However this may just be the number of satellites allocated to the commercial product; having watched most of the Falcon 9 Starlink launches I had the impression there were more direct to cell ones up there. This number also doesn't include the Starshield satellites in the constellation, which are owned by the US Space Force and have classified capabilities.

The IA is already marked for death and has been ever since they doubled down after blatantly infringing copyright with scanned books during the pandemic. IRC the full penalties of that haven't been felt yet, and I think they are likely to bankrupt the ogranisation.

What IA needs to do is spin off the actual Internet Archive element to another organisation, outside of the US like you say, such that an essential part of the internet isn't taken down with the organisation.

Could be? It absolutely is off topic.

That's to say nothing of the global mass tracking of cellphones via Starlink satellites...