(no subject)
Aug. 5th, 2007 06:20 pmyeah, you're a dumbass.
the best part about this? DefCon already knew she was a mole...from their mole inside Dateline:NBC.
best snark about this goes to Glenn Reynolds..."YOU DON'T TUG ON SUPERMAN'S CAPE, and you don't spy on hackers unless you're, you know, actually good at it."
heh
eta:
and in the "wow, fuck off a LOT" column, there's MADD who's apparently getting really good atbuilding up the Nanny State influencing companies.
the best part about this? DefCon already knew she was a mole...from their mole inside Dateline:NBC.
best snark about this goes to Glenn Reynolds..."YOU DON'T TUG ON SUPERMAN'S CAPE, and you don't spy on hackers unless you're, you know, actually good at it."
heh
eta:
and in the "wow, fuck off a LOT" column, there's MADD who's apparently getting really good at
"...Notice that the language "make it impossible for a vehicle to be driven by someone who is drunk," does not mean what it appears to imply -- that the crime of drunk driving would become impossible. What it would mean is that there would have to be a new category of crime -- the affirmative failure to have crime-prevention devices installed.
From a constitutional perspective, these devices might be an invasion of privacy, as well as inherently self-incriminating.
But I just don't like the idea of criminalizing an individual's failure to pre-empt a crime he never committed.