I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).
I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.
I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.
Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.
In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
(I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)
Have you seen pictures of the sub? What makes you think the wiring was all hidden?
You joke, but watch this:
https://archive.org/details/take-me-to-titanic
from 29 minutes in. A last-minute adjustment before launch plugged in a thruster backwards; no protocol to check the behaviour prelaunch. They doscovered it when they got to the bottom.
Was at the time (as per usual).
Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.
I think you’re spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson’s dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.
I take it that you can see a distinction between “Vance fucks couches” and “burn those people in their hotel”. They are not the same thing.
If the distinction is hard to determine - that’s why there’s a judicial process.
Look up the original judgement on the Maya Forstater tribunal. “In a functioning democracy, some beliefs are not worthy of respect,” or words to that effect. If you think inciting racist riots shouldn’t be criminal, then write to your MP about it.
That’s the thing about dog-whistles.
The defence you posit is the same as a politician chosing words carefully to imply one thing, while technically not lying: for aome reason they think that’s a defence, but were a six-year-old try it they’d be straight off to the naughty step.
She lit a fire which was fanned by agents provocateurs from outside the country (ie, Farrage and Yaxley-Lennon). The useful idiots picked it up and rioted with it.
The other thing to watch out for is if you’re splitting state between volumes, but i think you’ve already ruled that out.
I’d be cautious about the “kill -9” reasoning. It isn’t necessarily equivalent to yanking power.
Contents of application memory lost, yes. Contents of unflushed OS buffers, no. Your db will be fsyncing (or moral equivalent thereof) if it’s worth the name.
This is an aside; backing up from a volume snapshot is half a reasonable idea. (The other half is ensuring that you can restore from the backup, regularly, automatically, and the third half is ensuring that your automated validation can be relied on.)
That’d be Dame Cressida Dick, later promoted to Commissioner of the Met.
…unless it’s running software that uses signed 32-bit timestamps, or stores data using that format.
The point about the “millennium bug” was that it was a category of problems that required (hundreds of) thousands of fixes. It didn’t matter if your OS was immune, because the OS isn’t where the value is.
Dare I ask what the adjective “hella” means in this context?
What are the permissions on the directory? What is command are you running to edit the file? What command are you running to delete it? (Have you got selinux turned on? What filesystem is this directory on?)
Came here to mention laser cooling; glad someone else got there first.
Experience. For what it’s worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.