Conservapedia talk:Law Terms D
Has anyone else checked the edit history of this page? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 19:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(sobs) It's the end of a golden era... Totnesmartin 09:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
From the deletion log
(8 revisions restored: subject of illegality by vandals, punishable by up to 10 years in jail per 18 USC § 1030) - what a tit. Totnesmartin 09:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- That comment alone has made it worthwhile. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer but...
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1030.html It seems to be that it's all about breaking into so-called "protected computers". Now, does Conservapedia's server fall under either of the following?
- (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
- (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
Now, even without that, the thing is still all about unauthorized access. As anyone is fully authorised to view web-accessible content that isn't protected by htacess basic authentication or a higher form of security... well, go figure. pathetic 10:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think we've had this conversation before, and I believe that Caius, our local lawyer type, said that Andy is pretty much spouting bullshit...TheoryOfPractice 11:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- You don't need to be a lawyer to know that! ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 12:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sure it has come up before with his various legal threats which hold as much water as a... well, something that doesn't hold much water. "Intimidation by qualification" may well be a real thing that we need to look at, Schlafly is certainly guilty of it. But anyway, it's worth having this info readily available by the relevant article on the subject. pathetic 12:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
how about a "favorite script" section, which would be purely academic and we wouldn't endorse using any of them.
while true; do curl -s 'http://www.conservapedia.com/Law_Terms_X' | grep -o 'This .* times.'; done
I've never used that and I don't know if that works and I don't recommend using it, but it might make for an interesting section. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 (Dictated But Not Read) / Talk / Block 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)