Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Goodness slashdot. Update your character encoding.
Goodness slashdot. Update your character encoding.
So you would like
If
They don’t have to support Unicode. All they need to do is convert two or three well-known byte sequences that certain Apple devices emit into proper ASCII apostrophes and quotes.
Since that one-man-day coding task hasn’t happened after all these years, I assume that they’re either intentionally keeping it this way in a vain attempt to force Apple to relent, or else no updates at all have been done to the code on this site in the past decade. (Is it still implemented in PERL? I remember back in the day how proud Cmdr Taco and his team seemed to be of their PERL skills.)
In the short term, do you know how easy it is to turn off “smart quotes” in iOS?
To disable this auto-conversion on iPhone:
Open the “Settings” app.
Go to “General” and then go to “Keyboards”
Locate the setting for “Smart Punctuation” and turn that to the OFF position.
To disable this auto-conversion on iPhone:
Open the “Settings” app.
Go to “General” and then go to “Keyboards”
Locate the setting for “Smart Punctuation” and turn that to the OFF position.
The quote symbols are so small on phone screens it doesn’t really add much to have typographical quote characters replacing straight quote characters. Yeah, I know it isn’t the iPhone owner’s responsibility to fix the problem, but if that person is a frequent
Speaking as an Android/PC user, can you carefully explain to me how I’m supposed to turn off smart quotes on the iOS devices of people who are posting to Slashdot?
Indeed, I was going to post something like that in TFA (https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=23/10/19/1821219) but I was afraid to be called a racist.
Plenty of hack and vulnerabilities based on UTF-8 and Punycode.
The outcome doesn’t go the way they wanted it to.
This does not let government dictate what these companies do. The lower court order was clearly wrong in preventing the government from contacting tech companies. If the govt was exerting undue pressure the tech lawyers are smart enough and well paid enough to get the govt. to back off. The 5th Circuit is spending too much time pushing its political agenda. That is far more dangerous than the executive branch placing a call to Silicon Valley.
That’s like saying Quebec is being settled by Canadians and being driven off their land…
Kagan said it best in EPA v WV
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
The so called “letter of the law” Justices have deviated in erratic ways on topics that are usually Executive deference by tradition and sometimes by stare decisis. Good point is Dobbs where the majority held.
But the opinion concluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, required adherence to what it called Roe’s “central holding”—that a State may not constitutionally protect fetal life before “viability”—even if that holding was wrong
But the opinion concluded that stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, required adherence to what it called Roe’s “central holding”—that a State may not constitutionally protect fetal life before “viability”—even if that holding was wrong
And then founds the rationality for overturning long held precedent as “to save kids lives” basically the Court indicates the States have rights to protect children that can override things the Supreme Court held prior. BUT for some reason, the court completely ignores the argument of “protecting children should be paramount to prior court cases” when it comes to their textualiation of the Second Amendment, “OH WELL we have to strictly read the second amendment and our hands are tied, because that protecting children argument doesn’t hold water here because we’re strict readers of the Constitution.” And if that logic seems somewhat circular, congrats! That’s how frustrating the current court can be these days.
They are so all over the place with their double speak. Where major doctrine applies and child rights reign supreme, except when it doesn’t because we decided to not use that argument today. I think that’s what killed me the most about the EPA case. The law indicates that the EPA has to include the environmental cost, BUT because the law didn’t explicitly say CO2, the EPA can’t regulate that. Then Congress adds a 400 page amendment to explicitly cover CO2 and all the other various gases and who might emit them, and then everyone is like “HOW DARE THEY ADD A 400 PAGE AMENDMENT!”
Pick a fucking lane. Either we have executive discretion or we have textualist, but we can’t have Judges that just randomly select which one they want to be based on who the current President is and get all huffy when Congress actually writes out every single possibility in black and white. I mean at some point we can’t enforce the endangered species act because the law doesn’t literally list every single animal that needs to be protected. We can’t fund highways because the law doesn’t list every single mile of road that needs improvement and indicate what kind of improvement it needs.
The current mix on the Supreme Court really needs to pick which one they’re going to be. Are you going to read the letter of the law or pull out magic cards like Major Questions? I’m glad Judges like Kagan are calling them out for their more waffles than a Waffle House can serve in a year. This case, they’re outraged by the stay on a basis that isn’t even founded in the original argument, it’s one the lower courts invented and the dissent is just running with it, because they’re supposed to support the lower one for “insert whatever reason that they failed to give”.
But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government “may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,” not concrete proof
But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government “may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,” not concrete proof
But this same Motley Crew is the one that indicated that they needed to wipe the DC Circuit’s ruling on if the House could openly question the border wall in court, because then President Trump said that “it would really, really, I pinky swear promise, would make life difficult.” And that was apparently good enough for the Court. Concrete not needed.
I mean you just can’t anything with this Court because they’ll just contradict themselves in another case and provide magic cards, smoke, and mi
I’d say for this kind of case any private communication by government with the companies constitutes undue pressure, due to power imbalance.
Power imbalance can negate consent in other contexts. If you take the same line here, the mere communication is a first amendment violation on the part of government.
This would also mean if a certain buffoon were to get elected president he wouldn’t be able to use his power to quell “the liberal media” as he wants, either.
The decision actually says that the administration cannot threaten or coerce the media companies to act (in a round about way). What it doesn’t do is gag the administration from coordinating with social media companies.
The decision actually says that the administration cannot threaten or coerce the media companies to act (in a round about way). What it doesn’t do is gag the administration from coordinating with social media companies.
The decision actually says that the administration cannot threaten or coerce the media companies to act (in a round about way). What it doesn’t do is gag the administration from coordinating with social media companies.
This! The plaintiffs will have their day in court, what they don’t get is this over reaching injunction until it’s settled.
The lower court ruling was effectively that the administration could not contact social media companies. There is a big difference between “contacting” and “threatening.” As long as the social media companies are free to make their own decision without reprisal, Bob’s your uncle.
Zuckerberg is a very lefty liberal. Elon is not on the topics he’s public about.
Welcome to
By then it can be reintroduced and the SCOTUS will find a reason why it’s a-ok then.
They must be dealt with!
Who’d want to see old geezers naked?
Dude, no kinkshaming, allright, but there are fucking LIMITS!
…the GOP’s lower levels are trying to ensure they can continue to spread misinformation and propaganda, while their higher levels are trying to ensure a future Republican administration can control social media with an iron fist.
I suspect the votes on the appeal will change depending on what option looks best for the next election.
As much as I *want* to disagree with this ruling, I always thought totally disallowing any contact with those companies went too far. There had to be some remedy that protects the government’s ability to inform social media companies of genuine illegal activity and bad actors while also preventing Democrats from abusing that ability to silence their political enemies, like they’re doing with 4 separate, transparently political, and each unprecedented, prosecutions against Trump.
like they’re doing with 4 separate, transparently political, and each unprecedented, prosecutions against Trump.
like they’re doing with 4 separate, transparently political, and each unprecedented, prosecutions against Trump.
Unprecedented because Trump is the biggest turd in the punch bowl of American presidential history.
Not even close. Trump is an asshole. If that was a crime then most of our politicians would be in prison.
Real crimes have been committed by many presidents going all the way back. Zero prosecutions.
I don’t mean shit like stealing dozens of boxes of classified documents and storing them in their garage next to their corvette. I mean bribery, rape/sexual assault, extra judicial killings of American citizens (aka murder if anyone else did it) and other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Yet, not a peep, ever. A
“LiKe oH mY gOD! BOTH SIDES YO!”
Not even fucking close. He is a complete scumbag with blood on his hands and a very thirsty look in his amphetamine eyes.
Nazi speech should never be allowed anywhere. Nor should it be accepted as just an “alternative opinion”. It’s not alternative anymore than murder is an alternative for disagreements. The fuck is wrong with you people?
Yes, even Nazi speech should be allowed. The ugly evil side of humanity must be shown in bright public light. Forcing it into hiding doesn’t kill it. It only makes certain people more interested in it.
Do you oppose when the ACLU defended the Nazi march in Skokie. Nazi are disgusting and stupid but have the right to be stupid in public.
The problem with deciding “Nazis are bad therefore should be silenced” is eventually the people getting silenced aren’t Nazis. They are just people who disagree with thei
like they’re doing with 4 separate, transparently political, and each unprecedented, prosecutions against Trump.
How are they transparently political? You don’t think someone stealing national secrets, keeping them in the bathroom, lying about having national secrets, trying to prevent the recovery of national secrets, and showing them to whomever the highest bidder is isn’t a crime?
You think calling up an elected official and telling them to “find” votes to change the outcome of an election isn’t a crime?
Y
Documents: Biden did the same to a larger extent, for longer and even as VP had no right to take documents anywhere. Either both or neither should be prosecuted. When Justice is one sided it is political.
Phone call to Georgia: go read the transcript. The level of blatant misquote on that is criminal.
Fake electors: totally legal and has happened before. By Democrats. No prosecutions previously.
Knowing facts and history are important when making a point about politics. Either these things are a crime, w
If we don’t allow conspiracy loonies to propagate bullshit, we will never get this pandemic restarted and it will be way harder to bury that RTO bullshit for good.
An unsigned order doesn’t give a hint either way how the court will rule but it is good to see them take up this issue.
I believe strongly in the FA. Posting stupid shit is not a crime. Posting incorrect shit is not a crime. Posting known incorrect shit is not a crime. Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime.
I’d much rather the net be filled with silly shit than the government decide what we’re _allowed_ to say and ruining or forcefully silencing anyone who disagrees. Th
Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime..
Even posting foreign propaganda written by hostile states is not a crime..
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]
We also interned thousands of innocent Japanese. Do you want to repeat that?
The dumb shit we did during ww2 is not a good look for how we should behave as a free people.
So “chilling effect” only existed before the left had a total grip.
Now that they do
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
British Museum Will Digitize Entire Collection At a Cost of $12.1 Million In Response To Thefts
Jon Stewart’s Apple TV Plus Show Ends, Reportedly Over Coverage of AI and China
“For the man who has everything… Penicillin.” — F. Borquin