Web lists-archives.com

Re: ping Walt, bug about add-on verification override

On 2/9/2017, 12:18:46 PM, Sailfish
<NIXCAPSsailfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> but, yes, your response via your email list server 
> actuates it. You can see for yourself here:
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.general/Mx1G9zz7xqs

I don't care. I didn't post to a newsgroup. Get over it.

> Then you're a lawyer?

Nope. But surely you aren't suggesting that one must be a lawyer to
understand the law?

All that is required is the willingness to read the law, and understand
what it is saying in context (ie, some words may be specially defined or
have a specific legal meaning, etc).

> We disagree then, again. 

And again, it doesn't matter if you disagree, just like it doesn't
matter if you think you can fly without mechanical assistance.

> There's an old saying about 
> [mechanical] watches that goes something like, "When it comes to working 
> on watches, only jewelers and fools ever attempt it".

Riiiight... it isn't like someone mechanically inclined could just study
the mechanics of how watches work, and do it.

> The same goes for non-lawyers speaking with any authority when it comes 
> to understanding law, no?


> Laws are fluid

Only in the minds of people who don't understand it.

> along with differences in different countries.

That comment is meaningless, since no country can enact a law that
applies to people in other countries.

Laws themselves have differences, based on their content (ie, the
structure and meaning of the words) and

> So what happens when the software that caused your harm resides in your 
> car?

You cannot compare physical harm, with some perceived harm that cannot
be physically demonstrated.

If you cannot see the difference, then we are wasting our time (probably

> Well, sadly now we do have the chance that this software might 
> cause you physical harm. When a Jeep loses acceleration power due to 
> exploit of a software vulnerability, the occupants could suffer serious 
> bodily injury. A victim who was injured in this way could meet the 
> damages requirement and bring a lawsuit.

Of course they could, and damages would vary dramatically if negligence
could be proven.

But a bug in Thunderbird that loses some of your emails? Or a browser,
that causes your computer to get hijacked?

Objection, failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
> Agreed but your sense of reality isn't as hard set as you seem to think 
> it is.

It works for me.
general mailing list