4·
9 months agoI didn’t remember that or hadn’t heard of it, but someone in the comments of OP link provided this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Todd_mugging_hoax
Cricket@lemmy.zip
- 0 Posts
- 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 4th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Haha, no problem!
For the cameras themselves, if you would be interested in DIY solutions and have some old spare Raspberry Pis around, you can turn them into streaming IP cameras and have some control over what camera specs and lenses you use. I can’t tell you how they compare to purpose-built cameras though.
Huh? There’s a post about exactly that pinned at the tops of !linux@lemmy.ml for quite a while. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying.
Is that like drugs? Are they strict liability as well? That definitely sounds scary.
Oh, I totally agree. I was thinking in general terms, like a 25 year old having sex with someone who told them that they were 19, but actually being 17. I just didn’t realize that the over age person would be liable even if the minor used a fake ID to pretend that they were of legal age.
Wait, from a purely logical and legal perspective, how does that work? The guy is disgusting and I’m not defending him, but speaking in general terms, if someone lies about their age, how is the other person liable? Presumably this service would have some age check and claim that all the people on their site were of legal age?
How about a scenario where person A meets person B who looks of age and person B shows them a (fake) government ID showing that they are of age? Is person A still legally liable?
Yikes, I searched and found my own answer. I see what you meant by strict liability - at least in California, it means the person over age is still liable even if the minor shows a fake ID. That’s a scary scenario to think about for sure (not for me personally, just in general). Source: https://thenieveslawfirm.com/what-if-a-minor-lies-about-their-age-online/
Interesting take, thanks.
Yeah, I misunderstood your post and wrote my reply before looking at the OP.
The first video on this article conveys the booing pretty well: https://sports.yahoo.com/article/trump-drowned-boos-commanders-nfl-151416276.html
It really seems like it was relentless.
In the US, it can be difficult for many people to get an approved ID.
In a 2017 “Fact sheet on voter ID laws,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) outlined the following claims:
- Millions of Americans Lack ID. 11% of U.S. citizens – or more than 21 million Americans – do not have government-issued photo identification.
- Obtaining ID Costs Money. Even if ID is offered for free, voters must incur numerous costs (such as paying for birth certificates) to apply for a government-issued ID.
- Underlying documents required to obtain ID cost money, a significant expense for lower-income Americans. The combined cost of document fees, travel expenses and waiting time are estimated to range from $75 to $175.
- The travel required is often a major burden on people with disabilities, the elderly, or those in rural areas without access to a car or public transportation. In Texas, some people in rural areas must travel approximately 170 miles to reach the nearest ID office.
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Arguments_for_and_against_voter_identification_laws
If those calling for voter ID laws were sincere they would first ensure that the documents ID and all required documents could be obtained for free at any government office (post office, city hall, public library, public school, etc.), but they would be the first to stop that from ever happening because their real intention is to suppress the vote of the most vulnerable citizens.
Got it, I was just checking. From what I understand, they only use RCV in the primaries but not the general election.
That would definitely have been interesting to know, but I doubt that the data was captured anywhere. Perhaps the data from the primary would provide some hints though.
I’m curious, what do you mean by “the ranking”?
I had already said I don’t care if it’s called an “assault rifle” or not, so your last reply is beside the point. I’ve already explained that the point is that they are essentially military weapons that are sold to civilians. The two reddit threads were to reinforce my points. They explain that a) the AR15 was designed for military use and b) regular US military is generally trained not to use full-auto.
I may not have been very clear. I’m not arguing that it is or isn’t an “assault rifle”. I don’t care what it’s named. My point is that an AR15 is at its most essential function (high-capacity semi-auto rifle) the same as a military weapon. Like I said, I’m not making a judgement on whether everyone should be allowed to own military weapons or not. I’m just pointing out that that’s what it is.
The m-16 supports burst fire and full auto, the ar-15 does not.
This is apparently the only significant difference between the two, and at least full auto is rarely used by regular soldiers from what I found from multiple sources. I’m not sure about burst fire, but I imagine that it’s also used in a minority of cases. I looked all of this up except burst fire before making my previous reply. I’m not confusing them, I’m making the specific point that ar-15 are for the most part the same as m-16.
The ar-15 is not an assault rifle. Regardless of how much cosmetic crap you throw on it, it’s semi auto. Not burst fire or full auto. It’s no more deadly than any number of wood stock semi auto hunting rifles.
It does most of what an assault rifle does and the part it doesn’t do is rarely used in combat because it burns through ammo too fast. So an ar-15 is for all practical purposes pretty much the same thing that soldiers use in combat and whether or not it can do full-auto is nearly irrelevant. A wood stock semi auto hunting rifle typically won’t be as efficient as an ar-15 in either handling or ammo capacity for a shooter to very easily kill lots of people.
I say this in a neutral manner, not claiming that these weapons should be banned or not, which is a philosophical question. Yes, “assault rifle” is used loosely by anti-gun people to scare but it’s also a term used narrowly by pro-gun people to defend their right to own weapons that are clearly capable of military combat and killing large numbers of people fast.
I took it up to 12 because 11 just didn’t seem like enough these days. :)
You did, I remember that!