I agree that NoScript tends to make it a hassle to get basic functionality out of the vast majority of the web. You have to play around with allowing scripts from some domains and not others, on pretty much every page you visit.

...Which is pretty scary, if you think about it. Are all of those cross-site scripts beneficial or even necessary from a user standpoint? Hell no. Users stand to gain nothing from all that crap running. From our perspective, they just increase load times and data usage, often compounded with auto-reloading. We should have control over that stuff in all circumstances, but it becomes absolutely critical in mobile internet where we generally don't have as much processing power AND the vast majority of people have data usage caps.

Basically what I'm saying is, the admitted fact that NoScript tends to make the web unusable is a symptom of a deeper problem with how the web is constructed these days.

If you like the idea of NoScript, but generally find it too high-maintenance, you might want to try Privacy Badger. It requires somewhat less user input with regards to which trackers/scripts get blocked, instead going with defaults based on "trustworthiness" as measured by algorithms from the EFF. Those defaults can be tweaked if you desire, also.

I usually run a Firefox (or Pale Moon) client that is extremely locked down. UBlock Origin, NoScript, Privacy Badger, Self-Destructing Cookies, sometimes Ghostery, etc. I use that as my default browser, and take the time to fine-tune the controls in NoScript, element hiding in uBlock, etc. for sites that I visit regularly.

But frequently, I'll find a link to some article that I want to read and notice that the page content won't load at all since it requires some nonsensical script. In those cases, if I don't want to take the time to fiddle with NoScript etc. permissions, I copy the URL and fire up Chrome in incognito mode, with only uBlock Origin.

Probably not worth the hassle for most people, but I guess I'm kicking and screaming my way into this brave new world.

@BSR.... is this public domain?

I thought we aren't supposed to post full episodes (37.4). This can't be public domain already, can it? It aired last night.

Disney doesn't own "The Little Mermaid"... it's public domain, originally from Hans Christian Andersen's story written in the 1800's.

Disney might have a trademark on their graphic for "The Little Mermaid", which probably always has "Disney's" in it.

It's like the public domain kung fu + hilarious CGI and film splices of Kung Pao: Enter the Fist, meets the ridiculous headlining on magazines (at the very end of this clip) from the Spike Jonze/Charlie Kaufman movie Being John Malkovich.

Aw, goofingoff.org doesn't work even looking its domain up.

Did Dominoes Pizza pay for this scene?

I don't think this is the sort of thing that wouldn't be happening if not for Stanford, but rather it wouldn't be happening in a transparent and openly published way. The entertainment and gaming industries alone guarantee these techniques will make steady progress.

In the description they mention a big part of their work is the detection of video edits to verify the authenticity of videos. Trying to keep state of the art programming techniques in the public domain can only help us spot this stuff and be less gullible as a society.

hahaha nice, i want one
(though technically, these particular tests are also based on user browsing and interaction patterns as soon as they hit the domain, and in most cases for many websites prior, so if a human had been using that computer at some point beforehand, there's a good chance the robot would pass anyway as long as it didn't jump straght to the button and click)

Maddow and the Hollywood Reporter have documentation and admissions from the corporate entities themselves that they hired paid actors. You have a bullshit article with a single person as a source hosted on a website with a Colombian top level domain name. Oh, and the cherry on top of this shit sundae is the name of the author of this article, Jimmy Rustling.
Well played Bobby, well played indeed.

Ha!!! Because, CLEARLY, if Native Americans respect property rights...nothing bad will happen to them.

You know who else would like some respect for land rights? The 15 farmers whose land was stolen by Dakota Access, via eminent domain, to build that pipeline.

What if the farmers gave the Native Americans permission to protest on their land? Do you feel that would give them the same right to be there as the private security guards hired by the multi-billion dollar corporation?

Corporate theft of millions of dollars worth of private property for dubious use or trespassing? Which is worse in your world bobknight?

The explanation afterwards typifies my skepticism of machine learning and the kind of magical thinking that makes people think that limitless tasks can be automated beyond set domains.

Of course, algorithms with enough data are going to be effective at determining scary, tender or action segments from movies. But just like how they admit, a human touch is required to then piece it together in a way that resonates on an emotional level.

Trailers ultimately are pretty formulaic so they may be automatable but there are bound to be a whole host of areas where either a deterministic result is not practical or the noise of the algorithm response will be high enough to render the prediction meaningless.

Also too bad the movie's getting panned by reviews, I was kind of excited about watching this.

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the legislature....so their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then.

Um...yeah...you just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.
-Newt

The supreme court is in a position to take liberties because there is no court above it to which one can appeal.

Courts have a mandate to judge compliance with the law - not to redefine the law (that's the legislature's role).

If due process was followed, courts would find cases like 'yelling fire' as protected, and refer the law to the legislature to exempt-from-1st-amentment-protection any inappropriate behaviors via new written constitutional law.

As it stands, there are many judicial opinions that are enforcible via the legal system, that are never written down as law by the legislature.

Again, it's a matter of what people are willing to enforce. The courts are just people. The law is only as important to them as they will it to be. If everyone is on board with twisting the rules, then that's the norm.

(aside : Yelling fire is a stupid example. If you did it, everyone would look around, and then look at you, and would be like "wtf are you talking about?")



Words are written to convey meanings. They don't exist for their own sake. The 1791 meaning of "well regulated" is similar to today's meaning "well adjusted". It would be best summarized as "orderly" or "properly functioning". It has nothing to do with government regulation.

Similarly, "eminent domain" means "obvious domain" (obvious because republic, and every citizen (i.e. statesman) owns the country collectively, and you never actually owned your land, you only had a title to be the sole user).
Sounds weird by todays' standards, but back then the norm was that regular people had nothing and the crown (and its friends) owned everything. Republic sounded quite progressive at the time. Remember, the U.S. revolution was just prior to the French revolution. Kingdoms were the norm.

Sounds a bit different when translated from 1700's english to 2000's english.

-scheherazade