- 4 Posts
- 8 Comments
RobotToaster@mander.xyzto Opensource@programming.dev•The Open Printer Is a Raspberry Pi Zero W-Powered, Fully-Open, Highly-Flexible Inkjet Printer20·5 days ago“Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 [Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike] license for all of its files,”
That isn’t an open source licence…
People are already just pointing their phone camera at their monitor.
RobotToaster@mander.xyzto Not The Onion@lemmy.world•Self-Driving Tesla Crashes into Wall Painted to Look Like a Road… Just Months Before Planned Robotaxi LaunchEnglish1·7 months agoOr a badly painted sign that says “Free charging”
Oracle linux, just tell them your carpet has an unlicensed database.
Yeah, by this argument lead in the water isn’t a concern.
RobotToaster@mander.xyzto No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world•If I threaten a politician to kill them like Trump did to Liz Cheney could I be arrested? If so how come Trump hasn't been arrested for it?1·11 months agoTo give you an actual answer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
The true threat doctrine was established in the 1969 Supreme Court case Watts v. United States.[3] In that case, an eighteen-year-old male was convicted in a Washington, D.C. District Court for violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly and willfully making threats to harm or kill the President of the United States.[3]
The conviction was based on a statement made by Watts, in which he said, “[i]f they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”[3] Watts appealed, leading to the Supreme Court finding the statute constitutional on its face, but reversing the conviction of Watts.
In reviewing the lower court’s analysis of the case, the Court noted that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.”[3] The Court recognized that “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” political debate can at times be characterized by “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” In light of the context of Watts’ statement - and the laughter that it received from the crowd - the Court found that it was more “a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President” than a “true threat.”[3]
RobotToaster@mander.xyzto Technology@lemmy.world•‘IRL Fakes:’ Where People Pay for AI-Generated Porn of Normal PeopleEnglish0·2 years agoThis is only going to get easier. The djinn is out of the bottle.
This is one of the reasons Gnosticism exists. In the gnostic interpretation the God of the old testament was the demiurge, while the snake is identified with God or Jesus.