Not speaking for aerinai above, but I'm definitely in favor of these two points.
Stripping police of military hardware is a definite plus.
Stop making police think and behave themselves like military personnel waging a war against the public.
And also, stop having the military off load perfectly functional equipment on the police, only to turn back to Congress for budget to replace them. This would save a lot of tax money when we stop giving the army an excuse to fund the military-industrial business.
As for getting guns in general off the hands of most policemen, that's a good point too. Give them reason to rethink themselves as peace keepers, not troopers. Train them to deescalate situations and find peaceful outcomes to calls. Only keep special intervention teams armed for dangerous situations. Why are there even SWATs when every single cop in the US behaves like one?
Make cop be part of the community instead of act like zookeepers for dangerous species. People are not animals. Despite how cops are currently trained, the people they interact with are neither prey or dangerous wild carnivores on the hunt.
90% of situations can be solved without guns. Certain countries don't even arm their cops for routine operations, save for something like a baton and a pepper spray. Firearms are only seen as needed in the US because of both racism and too many guns every where. With the paradox/hypocrisy that everyone is entitled to have a gun, but a black man with a gun is directly seen as a threat, not as a man who exercises his right. (Even worse when he doesn't even have a gun.)
Added bonus, the Karens out there wouldn't have an incentive to call the cops on every black man that shattered their vision of a white haven for bigots.
You're equating despair and tyranny.
Congratulations, you win... I can't reply to such an elaborate argument.
Or maybe I can.
Killing someone, destroying property and businesses, those are not excusable.
I don't excuse them.
But they have reasons, I understand them a little. And sympathize with them a lot.
You have people who are outraged at what is done to them, over and over and over again. And they see no outlet in the judicial system who constantly abuses them at worst or ignores them at best, just as the cops do.
Which leaves one request: change. When they asked peacefully, it was made clear they would be offered nothing. Or "thoughts and prayers" at best. Definitely not change. This was repeated over and over and over again.
And when asking peacefully constantly fails, only violence is left. When you are oppressed for years, when you can only fear for your life, when you must teach your children that fear and how to fake respect to thugs in uniform, despair grows. Until it bursts. This is not tyranny. Tyranny is what was done to them. This is revolt.
It failed before. It might fail again (in no small part thanks to a large number of insensitive people like you). But this would only perpetuate the cycle. Not solve anything, and even less so because you wagged your finger at them, condescendingly telling them that they should not revolt against their better.
It has to change because every man deserves treatment according to his actions, not whatever skin color he was born with.
Floyd might have used a $20 counterfeit bill. (We're not even sure of that.) If so, he deserves a fine. Maybe a short prison time, if that.
Chauvin killed someone in cold blood. He did not premeditate it, he might not have intended it, but he knew exactly what was happening under his knee. He was killing someone. And that didn't faze him. He definitely deserves a long prison sentence.
(Unless we want another change, where prison is not the answer to everything. That is another discussion though.)
Here's a riddle:
One is dead, the one who killed him is about to walk free without even an investigation (but doesn't only because of public outcry).
Guess who is black and who is white?
We all know the answer. This needs to change.
The day we can answer "The one with the badge walks", there will have been some change.
The day we can answer "No idea, what kind of riddle is that?", even better change.
that Chauvin was “perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life.”
The problem is that he did.
That much is obvious for everyone to see.
Choking someone who begs for his life, and continuing on after it's been made obvious his victim is dead or dying. This is obviously dangerous, depraved, and very certainly disregards human life.
but it’s also not an uncommon restraint, and is a permissible use of force in Minneapolis.
And there you have it: he just has the excuse that someone officially declared that asphyxiating someone is "not dangerous". Violent cops are not the only ones at fault. Those providing them with ready-made excuses are as much at fault.
They will likely all ignore the fact that there were restrictions on the use of this move, conditions that were not met as it obvious on the camera feeds. (note :Please find a jury to prove me wrong on this one.) This proves Chauvin was recklessly using a "hardly undangerous technique" - as they put it mildly - on an unresisting individual. (I'm nearly surprised the camera didn't show the cop shouting "stop resisting" all the way to Floyd's death.)
I can agree with the cops having a proper defense attorney and fair trial as everyone should (though they also have a lot more help to prepare for the trial than normal citizens do), but those who preemptively gave them "get out of jail" cards should also be made responsible in some way. Not as directly as charging them for murder or manslaughter, but aiding and abetting would be a good one, I think. They are as much responsible as those other three cops who did nothing to stop Chauvin... or actively helped him. Since that is not going to happen, I hope they do have a conscience at the very least. A conscience that will burn their soul forever.
P.S. How come NONE, NONE of these complainers ever mention Bing, Yahoo, or DuckDuckGo?
Because they don't need to. They just need to showcase Google for their little project, and a law will be drafted that targets them all anyway. Google is well-known, so they are the perfect example.
Also note that they don't need to tell too much. Just criticize Google and lots of people will pile reasons to target it. Tax evasion, tracking, ad placements, more tracking... People like using Google as much as they dislike some of Google's behavior, justified or not. With this, some people will defend anyone trying to get money from Google as a form of revenge by proxy.
Later on, things will be worse for everyone involved, because this kind of law doesn't do any good, is not even intended for it. But it will still be Google's fault, somehow.
With this in mind, naming more companies would only make the issue more confusing for the public, some of which might not have any resentment towards DuckDuckGo, if they even know of it. That would in turn make things more difficult for them to push for a link tax.
I don't think you could make capitalism work, as you don't even seem able to make capitalization work.
(Sorry "ECA", but every single one of your posts hurts my eyes.)
On the other hand, this half-justifies Arpaio's confidence that this court would go easy on him. Not to the point of actually granting him the case, but at least in not judging him frivolous enough to sanction him (and his lawyer, who deserves it just as much).
True enough, but those were things happening behind the scenes. Personal scandals about the company and its owner. Rarely affected the public in general, so you could enjoy Disney's productions without problem.
Nowadays, Disney (like many others to be fair) makes it a habit of suing anyone trying to make an hommage to any of their so-called "property". Or bury you in legalese when you try to come to an agreement with them for something as negligible as a tweet.
Anything related to "art" has become such a pain that you need a real dedication to it if you want to make anything. Art as a hobby is getting pretty dangerous. And even simply enjoying it is sometimes difficult due to agreements and lawsuits between entertainment companies (be it producers or distributors).
They want the money this sector provides without actually distributing the content as widely as possible. Some days, you wonder if they want their productions known at all. Suing for people talking about them in public, suing for people appropriating it for their own enjoyment, in way that were normal years ago and are now legal liabilities, thanks to "copyright" covering anything you want to do now that it's on Internet, because Internet is basically an information copying machine.
It's a comparison. Like all other metaphors and analogies, it's an approximation, and it's also used here as a caricature.
And yes, you could compare car renters to landlords. It would make little sense as there is no debate over the status of cars and car owners, but we can.
Now, if you want us to stop silly comparisons like this, I (and probably most everyone else here) wouldn't mind. But let the copyright holders stop comparing content to property and copyright violation to theft first. Then we'll have a discussion about stopping the landlord metaphor.
I'm not going to risk "binding" myself to their terms, so I'll share this here:
My favorite memories of Star Wars were when I didn't have to worry about bs legal claims when talking about Star Wars. Even on #MayThe4th .
Disney is ruining all my childhood memories with the franchise they now own by adding a layer of legalese on everything. Not that they are the only ones, but they are definitely among the worst offenders.
Re: Re: New Minimum SEO Demands for EVERY News Agency
Actually, if we work with robots.txt, most of them have already opted-in even as the concept is currently opt-out.
That is the hypocrisy that was underlined years ago when this demand was first put forward by news agency.
Check their robots.txt: many already have rules that mention Googlebot, or just allow every bot. Not a single one I checked disallowed Google entirely. Also of note: they can block access to just the Google News bot if they want. I haven't found any that did even this.
As an example, NYTimes allows every one and just restricts GoogleBot from indexing urls that use a couple of query parameters. CNN just explicitly allows every bot.
Google: "No problem, we can pay you. 1 cent per link? 1 dollar per link? 100 dollars per link? No problem. However, you should expect the number of links to be zero. Have a nice day."
Are they? Ever pass a toll booth with a license plate reader? Are you concerned about your privacy then, where you'd be comfortable waiting in a line with your change? How about cops parked on the side of their road with a license plate reader? How many times have you stopped and asked them to delete your data?
My point exactly.
These solutions are more intrusive to my privacy, but still accepted.
They just don't leave traces on the spot, by which I mean that you don't immediately realize that your privacy was breached.
Chalking doesn't, unless the cop chalking your tire also writes down your plate number (or photographs it), in which chalking still doesn't breach your privacy: writing down the plate does.
In my everyday life, I accept a measure of loss of privacy (which is how I introduced my comment). This is an easy acceptable loss, while having ALPR everywhere wouldn't be.
As for your examples, they are more tolerable than acceptable. Mostly because I wouldn't bother doing much about it unless the company managing them has a severe data breach.
This article shows the opposite stance where someone decided to go to war (figuratively speaking) over one such minor (in my opinion) loss of privacy. One that I even rank as acceptable, particularly since one's identity is not even part of that loss.
The law might be on the plaintiff's side there, so he's well within his right to sue, but I just find this pointless and possibly counter-productive. What will the cops do if they can't chalk your tires? They will have to use one of those other methods that might have a higher risk of breach of privacy. More ALPR, or at the very least keeping track of your plate number. You think that's a win? Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory?
Though I tend to take privacy seriously, I don't take it to extremes.
This judgment does seem a little extreme to me.
This mark can be labeled as an investigative technique, I'll grant that much. But I wouldn't label this a "search".
It's pretty much anonymous (until the police actually writes the ticket) and you can get rid of it with a bit of water. Your tires will likely have worst treatment in their life cycle. There is no actual search of vehicle (nothing of the identity of the owner nor of the content of the car are investigated) and it just tracks an estimation of the parking time in a cheap and non-intrusive way.
Nowadays, there are alternative that would leave no mark on the car (taking photos, writing down licence plates) and some of them can even be automated (such ALPR which would cost way more than a piece of chalk). But their consequences on privacy can be much worse, despite not leaving traces on the spot.
As for "suspicion", this seems like a pointless requirement in this case. Nobody is really investigated (only the parking time is), the mark is basically anonymous and it's no so different from a parking meter. Just cheaper for the driver and the fact that it's only a less accurate estimate of parking time is also in his favor.
I do think police must be kept in check because they can and do easily abuse their power and authority, but "chalking" doesn't seem to be the case to me. Though it's just my opinion, I see this as an abuse of the law in the same way (but nowhere near the same scale) as police often does it.
You're a bit quick assuming he didn't inform his immediate superior first.
There is quite a good chance he did and was either denied or ignored.
If he didn't, then there is a good case to be made that he tried to bypass his hierarchy without good reason. But I wouldn't assume that so without proof.
We actually still know too little to be judgmental. And given the current administration, I doubt we'll know anything for sure until... at least a complete reorganization of the whole administration.
On the post: Trump Campaign Gets Parody Cartoon Taken Down Off Redbubble Over Trademark Claim On MAGA Hats
Cartoon gets taken off from Redbubble over trademark.
Cartoonist: "Too bad. How can I sell my cartoons to people trying to buy MAGA hats now?"
On the post: John Oliver Says What Needs To Be Said About Why Defunding The Police Is The Right Thing Right Now
Re: Re: I was a skeptic...
Not speaking for aerinai above, but I'm definitely in favor of these two points.
Stripping police of military hardware is a definite plus.
Stop making police think and behave themselves like military personnel waging a war against the public.
And also, stop having the military off load perfectly functional equipment on the police, only to turn back to Congress for budget to replace them. This would save a lot of tax money when we stop giving the army an excuse to fund the military-industrial business.
As for getting guns in general off the hands of most policemen, that's a good point too. Give them reason to rethink themselves as peace keepers, not troopers. Train them to deescalate situations and find peaceful outcomes to calls. Only keep special intervention teams armed for dangerous situations. Why are there even SWATs when every single cop in the US behaves like one?
Make cop be part of the community instead of act like zookeepers for dangerous species. People are not animals. Despite how cops are currently trained, the people they interact with are neither prey or dangerous wild carnivores on the hunt.
90% of situations can be solved without guns. Certain countries don't even arm their cops for routine operations, save for something like a baton and a pepper spray. Firearms are only seen as needed in the US because of both racism and too many guns every where. With the paradox/hypocrisy that everyone is entitled to have a gun, but a black man with a gun is directly seen as a threat, not as a man who exercises his right. (Even worse when he doesn't even have a gun.)
Added bonus, the Karens out there wouldn't have an incentive to call the cops on every black man that shattered their vision of a white haven for bigots.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Trolling
When you're privileged, calls for equality feel like oppression.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
You're equating despair and tyranny.
Congratulations, you win... I can't reply to such an elaborate argument.
Or maybe I can.
Killing someone, destroying property and businesses, those are not excusable.
I don't excuse them.
But they have reasons, I understand them a little. And sympathize with them a lot.
You have people who are outraged at what is done to them, over and over and over again. And they see no outlet in the judicial system who constantly abuses them at worst or ignores them at best, just as the cops do.
Which leaves one request: change. When they asked peacefully, it was made clear they would be offered nothing. Or "thoughts and prayers" at best. Definitely not change. This was repeated over and over and over again.
And when asking peacefully constantly fails, only violence is left. When you are oppressed for years, when you can only fear for your life, when you must teach your children that fear and how to fake respect to thugs in uniform, despair grows. Until it bursts. This is not tyranny. Tyranny is what was done to them. This is revolt.
It failed before. It might fail again (in no small part thanks to a large number of insensitive people like you). But this would only perpetuate the cycle. Not solve anything, and even less so because you wagged your finger at them, condescendingly telling them that they should not revolt against their better.
It has to change because every man deserves treatment according to his actions, not whatever skin color he was born with.
Floyd might have used a $20 counterfeit bill. (We're not even sure of that.) If so, he deserves a fine. Maybe a short prison time, if that.
Chauvin killed someone in cold blood. He did not premeditate it, he might not have intended it, but he knew exactly what was happening under his knee. He was killing someone. And that didn't faze him. He definitely deserves a long prison sentence.
(Unless we want another change, where prison is not the answer to everything. That is another discussion though.)
Here's a riddle:
We all know the answer. This needs to change.
The day we can answer "The one with the badge walks", there will have been some change.
The day we can answer "No idea, what kind of riddle is that?", even better change.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
The problem is that he did.
That much is obvious for everyone to see.
Choking someone who begs for his life, and continuing on after it's been made obvious his victim is dead or dying. This is obviously dangerous, depraved, and very certainly disregards human life.
And there you have it: he just has the excuse that someone officially declared that asphyxiating someone is "not dangerous". Violent cops are not the only ones at fault. Those providing them with ready-made excuses are as much at fault.
They will likely all ignore the fact that there were restrictions on the use of this move, conditions that were not met as it obvious on the camera feeds. (note :Please find a jury to prove me wrong on this one.) This proves Chauvin was recklessly using a "hardly undangerous technique" - as they put it mildly - on an unresisting individual. (I'm nearly surprised the camera didn't show the cop shouting "stop resisting" all the way to Floyd's death.)
I can agree with the cops having a proper defense attorney and fair trial as everyone should (though they also have a lot more help to prepare for the trial than normal citizens do), but those who preemptively gave them "get out of jail" cards should also be made responsible in some way. Not as directly as charging them for murder or manslaughter, but aiding and abetting would be a good one, I think. They are as much responsible as those other three cops who did nothing to stop Chauvin... or actively helped him. Since that is not going to happen, I hope they do have a conscience at the very least. A conscience that will burn their soul forever.
On the post: Hedge Fund 'Asshole' Destroying Local News & Firing Reporters Wants Google & Facebook To Just Hand Him More Money
Re: Charge newspapers
Because they don't need to. They just need to showcase Google for their little project, and a law will be drafted that targets them all anyway. Google is well-known, so they are the perfect example.
Also note that they don't need to tell too much. Just criticize Google and lots of people will pile reasons to target it. Tax evasion, tracking, ad placements, more tracking... People like using Google as much as they dislike some of Google's behavior, justified or not. With this, some people will defend anyone trying to get money from Google as a form of revenge by proxy.
Later on, things will be worse for everyone involved, because this kind of law doesn't do any good, is not even intended for it. But it will still be Google's fault, somehow.
With this in mind, naming more companies would only make the issue more confusing for the public, some of which might not have any resentment towards DuckDuckGo, if they even know of it. That would in turn make things more difficult for them to push for a link tax.
On the post: New AT&T CEO Says You're A Moron If You Don't Use AT&T Streaming Services
That reminds me of somebody else... Who could that ever be?
Oh wait! That guy!
On the post: Amazon Sued For Saying You've 'Bought' Movies That It Can Take Away From You
Re: Re: Re: And someplace
I don't think you could make capitalism work, as you don't even seem able to make capitalization work.
(Sorry "ECA", but every single one of your posts hurts my eyes.)
On the post: Court Tosses Former Sheriff Arpaio's Attempt To Relitigate His Libel Lawsuit The Court Tossed Last Year
Re: This? This is how you get terrible lawsuits.
I second (or third) this conclusion.
On the other hand, this half-justifies Arpaio's confidence that this court would go easy on him. Not to the point of actually granting him the case, but at least in not judging him frivolous enough to sanction him (and his lawyer, who deserves it just as much).
On the post: Disney Says If You Tweet #MayThe4th At It, You're Agreeing To A Disney Terms Of Use (You're Not)
Re: Re: Re:
True enough, but those were things happening behind the scenes. Personal scandals about the company and its owner. Rarely affected the public in general, so you could enjoy Disney's productions without problem.
Nowadays, Disney (like many others to be fair) makes it a habit of suing anyone trying to make an hommage to any of their so-called "property". Or bury you in legalese when you try to come to an agreement with them for something as negligible as a tweet.
Anything related to "art" has become such a pain that you need a real dedication to it if you want to make anything. Art as a hobby is getting pretty dangerous. And even simply enjoying it is sometimes difficult due to agreements and lawsuits between entertainment companies (be it producers or distributors).
They want the money this sector provides without actually distributing the content as widely as possible. Some days, you wonder if they want their productions known at all. Suing for people talking about them in public, suing for people appropriating it for their own enjoyment, in way that were normal years ago and are now legal liabilities, thanks to "copyright" covering anything you want to do now that it's on Internet, because Internet is basically an information copying machine.
On the post: OK, Landlord: If Copyright Supporters Are Going To Insist Copyright Is Property, Why Are They So Mad About Being Called Landlords?
Re:
It's a comparison. Like all other metaphors and analogies, it's an approximation, and it's also used here as a caricature.
And yes, you could compare car renters to landlords. It would make little sense as there is no debate over the status of cars and car owners, but we can.
Now, if you want us to stop silly comparisons like this, I (and probably most everyone else here) wouldn't mind. But let the copyright holders stop comparing content to property and copyright violation to theft first. Then we'll have a discussion about stopping the landlord metaphor.
On the post: Disney Says If You Tweet #MayThe4th At It, You're Agreeing To A Disney Terms Of Use (You're Not)
I'm not going to risk "binding" myself to their terms, so I'll share this here:
Disney is ruining all my childhood memories with the franchise they now own by adding a layer of legalese on everything. Not that they are the only ones, but they are definitely among the worst offenders.
On the post: Sheriff Sued After Threatening To Arrest A High School Student Over Her Coronavirus-Related Instagram Posts
Did this lawyer just try to imply that only journalists have a claim to First Amendment protections? If so, he really needs to go back to school.
On the post: The System Works: Deputy Who Randomly Fired His Gun Through His Windshield Into Rush Hour Traffic Fined $2
"The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible", Mark Twain
On the post: US Patent Office: Supreme Court Made Us Reject More Patents, But We've Now Fixed That And Are Back To Approving Bad Patents
Re: As a software developer, do I have 'standing' to sue?
Except, in patent litigation, there is nearly no other district than that infamous East Texas district that is so biased towards patent holders.
On the post: Canadian Publishing Group Says France Has The Right Idea, Presses For Its Own Google Tax
Re: Re: New Minimum SEO Demands for EVERY News Agency
Actually, if we work with robots.txt, most of them have already opted-in even as the concept is currently opt-out.
That is the hypocrisy that was underlined years ago when this demand was first put forward by news agency.
Check their robots.txt: many already have rules that mention Googlebot, or just allow every bot. Not a single one I checked disallowed Google entirely. Also of note: they can block access to just the Google News bot if they want. I haven't found any that did even this.
As an example, NYTimes allows every one and just restricts GoogleBot from indexing urls that use a couple of query parameters. CNN just explicitly allows every bot.
On the post: Canadian Publishing Group Says France Has The Right Idea, Presses For Its Own Google Tax
Google: "No problem, we can pay you. 1 cent per link? 1 dollar per link? 100 dollars per link? No problem. However, you should expect the number of links to be zero. Have a nice day."
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Chalking Tires Is A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment
Re: Re:
My point exactly.
These solutions are more intrusive to my privacy, but still accepted.
They just don't leave traces on the spot, by which I mean that you don't immediately realize that your privacy was breached.
Chalking doesn't, unless the cop chalking your tire also writes down your plate number (or photographs it), in which chalking still doesn't breach your privacy: writing down the plate does.
In my everyday life, I accept a measure of loss of privacy (which is how I introduced my comment). This is an easy acceptable loss, while having ALPR everywhere wouldn't be.
As for your examples, they are more tolerable than acceptable. Mostly because I wouldn't bother doing much about it unless the company managing them has a severe data breach.
This article shows the opposite stance where someone decided to go to war (figuratively speaking) over one such minor (in my opinion) loss of privacy. One that I even rank as acceptable, particularly since one's identity is not even part of that loss.
The law might be on the plaintiff's side there, so he's well within his right to sue, but I just find this pointless and possibly counter-productive. What will the cops do if they can't chalk your tires? They will have to use one of those other methods that might have a higher risk of breach of privacy. More ALPR, or at the very least keeping track of your plate number. You think that's a win? Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory?
On the post: Another Federal Court Says Chalking Tires Is A Violation Of The Fourth Amendment
Though I tend to take privacy seriously, I don't take it to extremes.
This judgment does seem a little extreme to me.
This mark can be labeled as an investigative technique, I'll grant that much. But I wouldn't label this a "search".
It's pretty much anonymous (until the police actually writes the ticket) and you can get rid of it with a bit of water. Your tires will likely have worst treatment in their life cycle. There is no actual search of vehicle (nothing of the identity of the owner nor of the content of the car are investigated) and it just tracks an estimation of the parking time in a cheap and non-intrusive way.
Nowadays, there are alternative that would leave no mark on the car (taking photos, writing down licence plates) and some of them can even be automated (such ALPR which would cost way more than a piece of chalk). But their consequences on privacy can be much worse, despite not leaving traces on the spot.
As for "suspicion", this seems like a pointless requirement in this case. Nobody is really investigated (only the parking time is), the mark is basically anonymous and it's no so different from a parking meter. Just cheaper for the driver and the fact that it's only a less accurate estimate of parking time is also in his favor.
I do think police must be kept in check because they can and do easily abuse their power and authority, but "chalking" doesn't seem to be the case to me. Though it's just my opinion, I see this as an abuse of the law in the same way (but nowhere near the same scale) as police often does it.
On the post: Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
Re: Re: Thomas Modly has already resigned
You're a bit quick assuming he didn't inform his immediate superior first.
There is quite a good chance he did and was either denied or ignored.
If he didn't, then there is a good case to be made that he tried to bypass his hierarchy without good reason. But I wouldn't assume that so without proof.
We actually still know too little to be judgmental. And given the current administration, I doubt we'll know anything for sure until... at least a complete reorganization of the whole administration.
Next >>