Web lists-archives.com

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

My bloviated meandering follows what Disaster Master graced us with on 2/9/2017 10:09 AM:
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:

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

Yes, you did, deal with it.

<snip />

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.

Really, so Dred Scott is still in effect?

along with differences in different countries.

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

Yes, they can and as we've recently been reminded in the Citizens United ruling corporations are people. Firefox is offered internationally so they are affected by any laws applying to software from other countries. A couple of cases in point, the EU force Microsoft to offer other browser alternative to their OS. Also:

REF: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-loses-big-german-reputation-lawsuit/88985/

[excerpt quote=\"
*The German Case*

And that’s what this case in Germany is all about. Essentially, the main player in this case had some pretty unsavory photographs appearing when people searched for his name online, and while he had filed suits in order to block the publication of those images, they were still appearing years later. So, this man filed a suit and demanded that Google remove all of the photographs that were attached to his name and this event. And the judge ordered Google to comply.
\" /]

And who can forget:

REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargo_against_Cuba#Helms.E2.80.93Burton_Act

[excerpt quote=\"
The European Union resented the Helms Burton Act because it felt that the U.S. was dictating how other nations ought to conduct their trade and challenged it on that basis. The EU eventually dropped its challenge in favor of negotiating a solution.
\" /]

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

And you seemingly ignoring the fact that malicious software can cause physical harm beyond the one computer that it was installed seems beyond naive. So, since we can't seem to bridge that gap in understanding, I agree, we're wasting our time.

REF: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/506604/is-it-possible-to-have-a-virus-spread-via-your-router/

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.

Purportedly, Al Capones ovewr-heard word before being arrest for (legalized theft) tax evasion.

Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/lcey2ex
general mailing list