Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


This user doesn't have any awards


About Vanderburg

  • Title
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 1985-03-05

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Grand Prairie, Texas
  • Interests
    Computers. Golf. Stuff
  • Biography
    Currently doing tech support at **********.com
  • Occupation
    Support Technician

Recent Profile Visitors

1,380 profile views
  1. HDR 600 is a joke.
  2. Vanderburg

    Assange arrested

    There's a lot of lawyers here, apparently.
  3. Uh... yeah. I DECIDED to subscribe to Spectrum... "because I had a choice"...
  4. I didn't even realize there was one here in Arlington, TX, until leaving Six Flags. Apparently, it's "the largest in the Americas", but I don't know if that's big or not, or how they can manage to make a profit. Are there really that many events?
  5. Negative. This is similar to a drag net, which have largely been ruled unconstitutional. Police have to have particularized suspicion about you, specifically, and it has to be suspicion of a specific crime. A lot of types of checkpoints are also unconstitutional. DUI checkpoints, specifically, and a couple others are mostly tolerated by the courts (and regularly get attention from them) because it's considered a "brief" detainment (but still a detainment), and you're not required to participate. You can just sit there and not say anything to them if you want.
  6. So, screw your rights, because the cause is moral and you're only slightly inconvenienced? That's the equivalent of saying you don't have a right at all. And if we don't have to protect the 4th amendment, then what's preventing us from taking away the 1st amendment? Or the 8th? Or the 14th? The rights have to mean something, to be exercised at any time, or they aren't rights, and you have to considered the consequences of what you're suggesting beyond just this "slight inconvenience".
  7. The rights can be a bit hard to grasp at times, but they are about individual freedoms. You don't have the right to not have a drunk driver on the streets, but that doesn't mean you have the right to drive drunk on the street. It just can't be the default status that you might be drunk. The police have to already reasonably suspect you of being drunk (by observing you weaving, or whatever). You still have the right to not have your property, or yourself, damaged by a drunk driver, but that right is only violated when that actually happens, not by virtue of them being on the road. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to not want a drunk driver around, but the protections they enjoy that could possibly let them get away with it are a required effect of being able to have all the protections of rights that people who aren't drinking and driving. Either people have rights, or they don't. You can't selectively apply them, or they aren't rights, and at least in America, the rights are fundamental.
  8. Reading this and realizing that you might not be from the US makes me think I was harsh on you earlier and so I apologize for that. Here in the US, our constitution establishes that we have rights that are granted to us by virtue of being human. Our rights aren't made rights by law - we already have those rights with or without the constitution, the constitution simply says what some of them are. It can be a weird concept for some. To be free from unreasonable searches or seizures is one of those fundamental rights, so we require that police have particularized, articulable suspicion of a specific crime before they can stop you, or the sarcastic situation I presented to you about the cocaine could become very real (or any other number of things you might not anticipate). Our fundamental philosophy (at least, as originated, even if not in practice anymore) is that these individual rights are paramount, and everyone has them, even if you're driving drunk on the road. As weird as it sounds, there is no right to not have a drunk driver on the street, but there is the right not to be detained absent that particular suspicion.
  9. Another example of "the ends justify the means". The rights don't exist to allow someone to drive drunk. There's a very good that police have to have particularized suspicion of a specific crime to be able to detain you. If you don't mind, I'm just going to walk into your house and start rummaging around, because, you know, you could have some crack cocaine in there. I don't know you have it, and I don't even have a reason to suspect that you might, BUT YOU COULD! You don't want people walking around selling crack cocaine, do you?! Think of the children! If you're not doing anything wrong, you shouldn't mind me going through all your stuff.
  10. While DUI checkpoints aren't technically unconstitutional, your attitude towards the potential violation of rights is pretty idiotic.
  11. Vanderburg

    Many IoT devices can be easily hacked

    We see thousands upon thousands of these devices as part of large botnets attacking out data centers frequently. I thought this was common knowledge. The most common problem devices are IP cameras. I wouldn't really even say they are "hacked". Usually, some dummy has them exposed to the internet, using the default passwords.