Oh look, another AC who completely misses the point.
I think what we really need to do with these guys is just respond, "No, I am Sparticus!" and let them stew. They have no intention of speaking their own mind and just want to derail the thoughtful conversation of others.
They kinda lost them when they wanted to stand over my shoulder every time I wanted to play one of their games, and if my internet dipped for even a second (something clearly not my fault) they would accuse me of theft and stop me from playing the game I paid for.
The fact that they assume that I will have internet when I want to play their game is what bothers me most about the new fangled always-on DRM. What if I want to play their game on an international flight (which I do play games on...stick me in a metal sausage for 14 hours and I usually am looking for stress relief by 7-8 hours in)? Either I cannot get internet or its prohibitively expensive, and now that brand spanking new game I want to play is useless to me (but all my GOG.com games work so I am happy.)
I hate all DRM, but the newer DRM systems are so broken from a usability standpoint that it isn't even worth me trying to purchase them and getting them to work, especially when I use Windows through VirtualBox (so that I can purge it if something goes wrong as it always does.)
If I remember correctly, back in the days of Boy Scouting, that was the level between Cub Scout and Boy Scout ;). Too old to hang out with the kids, but too young to get a real job. Then again, Boy Scouts pretty much blew a lot too, lets not talk about it any more.
Are you kidding? I'm a United Statsian and I'll take a British sitcom over and American one any day of the week. After laughing my ass off at The IT Crowd, Black Books, and countless others I can't go back to the mindless crap we seem to always put out. That's not even counting classics like Red Dwarf and Doctor Who.
+1. The sad thing is that there isn't really any place that I can go to get most of this stuff. Can't seem to get BBC America on my cable, and have to wait for the DVDs to come out several months to years after it airs. I am happy that last season of Dr. Who (2011) just came out, almost a year after it started broadcasting. With technology the way it is, it seems like the day the final episode airs, they should have the DVDs out and ready to buy in the stores. Yet, if I wanted to, I could get all the episodes the day after they air on television via P2P.
Do we have a list of exactly which phone models this software exists in? I believe that would be helpful for us to know.
I have AT&T. Looking at my backups for my Samsung Captivate from AT&T, CarrierIQ is listed as an application installed on their stock image. Not sure whether they were using it, but its there. Now that I am using CTMod, CarrierIQ is not installed (though when I originally installed CTMod, I tried to load CarrierIQ back on the phone as I had no idea what it was, but it said my phones OS was incompatible (as did quite a bit of the other stock applications.)
I also checked my blackberry app backups and it was on one of the two Blackberries I owned before I bought my Captivate.
However, I am not sure if AT&T was actually using it, or if they just bought it from the vendor that way. AT&T called me after I loaded the updated code for blackberry from the RIM website and asked me if my phone was working properly because they weren't getting updates...not sure if this is related. They never called me when I rooted my Samsung, but I figure they already knew I "was one of those guys" based on my discussion with them after updating my blackberry.
Any person may kill any mad dog, and also any dog if he is killing sheep, cattle, hogs, goats, or poultry. (1919, c. 116, s. 8; C.S., s. 1682.)
Please show me where in this case cattle were killed. Oh, that's right, you can't. Nor can the original shooter.
The owner of a dangerous dog shall be strictly liable in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal.
Show me where cattle were killed or injured. In a matter of fact, the way the shooter was firing the handgun, I suspect there was more risk of the cattle or the observers being injured by the shooter.
Realistically you cant expect a jury to get drug in on every little thing
True, but when there is an obvious conflict of interest, the best thing the judge should have done was recuse himself.
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
Like it or not, (and you dont) your society has decided by majority that certain acts and deeds are considered illegal.
You know, based on the MAFIAA's current stance that everyone other than the labels and the artists are dirty pirates -- it would seem that the majority of society has spoken and the law needs to be changed.
It works great if you are running XBMC on Windows or MacOSX (I have a XBMC running on a Windows virtual machine and it works fine.) It does not work natively on Linux. However, since they ported it to Android, I cannot see how difficult it would be to port it to Linux but the source isn't available for the open-source guys to get it working.
I understand you are not defending it I am just saying they get away with what they want and every time they do get away with it they just get more dangerous.
It sucks...I've had several friends agree with me when I say I'd take a tazer over pepper-spray any day. I prefer to experience neither, but if I was told I had to experience one or the other, I'd take the tazer. Pepper-spray is temporary, as is, usually, the effects of the tazer (if your heart doesn't explode.) With one, you feel groggy and out of it after losing all muscle control, but it just isn't the same as being clogged up and in pain for an hour.
I think the article by the Chief of Police for Seattle is a great one (in the article above.) We cannot keep fighting "wars" (drug war, etc.) where the politicians and the police expect us to give up our freedoms for temporary security over and over again without seeing the militarization. But one thing everyone seems to point to is that the police are getting more and more dangerous -- what people fail to understand is that some elements of law enforcement have always been really bad, and that the police actually have become far more accountable and far more under control in the 20th century. Back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the police were actually the goons for the labor/anti-labor movements and several battles (legitimate, full on wars,) were fought between police forces (even though they were semi-legitimate private police forces) in the US History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_and_Iron_Police.) Nevermind the original Sheriffs in England were paid goons for the wealthy.
However, with the tank incident in Tampa, I am more apt to believe that it is just the Tampa Occupy Movement's paranoia instead of actual threat. They are expecting something to happen (rightly or otherwise,) and as a result, they see threats where there are none (the article stated that police said the tank was on its way to an educational event.)
The fact it has remained in place for about 30 years should tell you something.
The groups that have been most vocal about "fixing" the Sony decision has been the content industry. DMCA/SOPA/PIPA etc, are all methods bought or being bought to "fix" the Sony decision. Sure, BitTorrent has legitimate uses, but since BitTorrent is used for illegal purposes, then the website it is available from is a Rogue site and all money for the software will be stopped at the payment processors.
from what I am reading the owner of the dogs was an idiot and should be charged with cruelty to animals as well as stupidity
Doesn't matter. Just because the owner is a moron doesn't mean that a third party can shoot the dogs when the moron comes to collect them? If you have a dog, and your dog runs all over the street, and I accidently run into your dog and kill it. Under most state laws (I did a cursory check,) I still am required to contact you and arrange payment for the loss of your property. Just because you let them run wild doesn't mean that I am off the hook. Sure, you might be charged with allowing your dogs to run free, but I am still on the hook.
Now, the first couple shots while the owner wasn't present is fine...but the moment the owner approached and told the man with a gun that it was his dogs, and instead of stopping or confronting the owner, he continued to shoot. I am not going off of the video, I am going off of court testimony from the trial which if you read, would have given you a clearer understanding of what happened from people who were there. Since you and I weren't there, and only have the video (and in my case, the statements of those who were there,) we can't really say exactly what happened, but shouldn't a jury, given all the facts, be called upon to do so, instead of a judge who was friends with the shooter?
One basic proposition that is a take away from Sony is that a tool that has lawful uses is insufficient to create liability simply because some employ the tool for unlawful purposes. If Grokster has stopped there the case would have gone nowhere. Unfortunately for for them, the Grokster principals took an otherwise useful (and liability-free) tool and then encouraged others to use it to engage in unlawful acts.
Oh, give me a break -- they have been fighting against the Sony ruling long afterwards. The Supreme Court may agree that the tools shouldn't be used mainly for illegal acts -- but the content industry would love to see any tool that may remotely have infringing uses regardless to its legal usefulness, i.e. BitTorrent, which is used by a lot of organizations to traffic in open source software or purely legal to copy material.
Grokster got into trouble because of things it did in the physical world; i.e., specifically encouraging users of the software to engage in illegal downloading.
How did it do that specifically in the real world? I don't remember ever seeing an ad for Grokster, and no Grokster goons showed up at my house with a gun or with money encouraging me to use Grokster to engage in illegal downloading.
What Grokster did was offer a service -- which their users used. I am not happy with the Supreme Court ruling on this, but I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court decision never said that Grokster physically encouraged users, just that they made their service so useful in trafficking infringed works. And can you please explain "illegal downloading." It does not appear in my technical dictionary -- Downloading is downloading, it can't be legal or illegal. It is only what you are downloading that may be illegal.
Stray dogs around livestock get shot, end of story.
From what I read so far, that is not what happened here:
1. The owner of the cattle knew that these were dogs.
2. The dogs were not stray, and the owner was present during much of the shooting -- and even confronted the shooter during the shooting, and the shooter continued to shoot the dogs after the owner tried to intervene.
3. The shooter initially said that the dogs tried to attack him and the cattle, but the video tells a different story.
4. A civil case against the shooter found that the shooter was liable for shooting the dogs.
5. The judge, the owner of the cattle, and the shooter know each other through a prayer group. In this case, the judge should have recused himself, as he is unfit to make a judgement on an individual he had personal contact with.
6. The judge acquitted the shooter half way through the trial, after a jury was impaneled.
I hope people start buying Guy Fawkes masks with protections for the eyes and gas.
Having been hit by pepper spray...unless the Guy Fawkes mask includes a whole body condom/biomed suit and glass for the eye slits, a Guy Fawkes mask doesn't offer any protection against O.C.
That stuff is like magma, it burns through every pore and opening, and even if you manage to protect your eyes (in training, they never told us to take our glasses off when they sprayed us (though they did have us remove contact lenses if we had them,) and those who wore glasses said they were hurt just as much as the rest of us. They sprayed O.C. on the face, and it got everywhere. We covered one of our eyes with our hands, but that didn't matter -- the stuff still got everywhere. I didn't realize how many pores I had until I got sprayed the first time.
Friendly word of advice for those who get sprayed...when you take a shower afterwards, bend over so the water falls off your body and doesn't run down it -- and aloe/alcohol-based baby-wipes work wonders! Water just spreads the pain.
Yeah if sitting peacefully means they can use pepper-spray on protesters then if the protesters pepper-spray back the cops get to run them over with tanks.
Hey, I am not saying anything of the sort...I totally disagree with this use and if I was in this situation, I would have handled it differently. Escalation is only true when the use of force is lawful, and a point could be made by a protester that they used pepper spray in self-defense, which could be entirely legal use of force depending on how the courts interpreted the use of force by the police (the supreme court has, in the past, ruled both for and against the use of force against peaceful demonstrators -- I am looking for the cites, believe Graham is for and Orcutt is against.)
It is just that the way the use of force laws exist based on law and on supreme court decisions, is force+1, a police officer may ratchet up the level of force by one in order to receive compliance during an arrest. And in some cases, +1 is pepper spray, then gun (since some police officers don't have access to other resources.) Not saying it is right, just saying that it is what the law allows.
A tank against protesters, however, would likely fall afoul of US v Graham in this case as it is entirely unreasonable.
Oh, but then they'd probably be charged with "Assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, cops do it to peaceful protesters, and it's supposedly a justified and safe tactic, but if anyone ever sprayed a cop, the other cops and the DA would make them out to be public enemy #1.
IANAL, but I've received training in use of pepper spray. In California, it would be "battery on a police officer," CA PC 243(b)2 which is considerably less than assault with a deadly weapon (to be ADW, it has to be able to cause serious injury, i.e. broken bones, or death. Pepper Spray is not capable of either, except in the extreme circumstances where the individual is allergic to pepper spray.) CA PC 243(b)2 is a wobbler, it can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. CA PC 245 (ADW) is always a felony.
However, I am in no way suggesting that protesters start doing so, as there is a principle in the law called escalation of force when related to law enforcement. Bringing pepper-spray to a gun fight is probably not the best method of winning a gun fight.
Yup -- turn-about is fair play. When will the copyright attorneys finally realize that the DMCA is essentially a low-yield nuclear weapon (where as SOPA is far, far more deadly.) Mutually Assured Destruction worked when we had two superpowers that were absolutely afraid to use them, but not so well when every terrorist cell wants them. Same with the DMCA -- it falls apart when anyone can use DMCA without any sort of fact-checking -- and those who can will use the DMCA in malice because there is absolutely no protections against doing so.
As they say in the "good" book -- "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
if you use go back and forward on your browser it will resubmit
Not necessarily. I've had the same thing happen just hitting the button once...a blank page loaded, then the "you have successfully submitted your comment" page loaded after a few seconds. I think what sometimes happens (it happens with other sites too,) is that the website gets a little overwhelmed and when a user hits the submit button during these times, something happens (either a timeout with the user or with the website) and the same message gets pushed twice. However, in this case, since it appeared three times, I think you're right.
Actually, I would think it's more the pursuit of profits inherent in the business teachings we have in the US.
It isn't the pursuit of profits that is the problem...it is the mindless pursuit of profits at all costs that is the problem. Getting money for what you do is fine. It is when you do so at the loss of goodwill and reason that things go terribly wrong. Especially when you pursue money that doesn't rightly belong to you (such as in this case where someone claimed something that wasn't theirs.) Also, the entitlement mentality and the unreasonably long state-granted monopolies are a problem too...
Oh sentencing enhancements! well that should keep anyone from selling or buying counterfeit military goods. As we all know the only reason people would try to sell bogus goods to the military is because the sentence was too light, because we all know with a strict enough punishment you can stop any crime, just like rape and murder which are gone now due to strict penalties.
Nevermind the fact that as OP stated and others have said, SOPA will in no way effect these purchases since most of this is done at the "non-electronic" level.
I know with 100% certainty that the government contracting will be unaffected by SOPA and counterfeit components will continue to find their way into the government procurement process regardless to how many sentencing enhancements are included in Title II, section 204. I suspect even those electronic systems operated by GAO and the services will be exempt from SOPA, so the $500 counterfeit hammers we are forced to buy will still be there on the GAO website for us, regardless to what SOPA does.
On the post: Ubisoft Director Backtracks On Piracy Complaints After Public Lashing
Re: Re: Re:
I think what we really need to do with these guys is just respond, "No, I am Sparticus!" and let them stew. They have no intention of speaking their own mind and just want to derail the thoughtful conversation of others.
They kinda lost them when they wanted to stand over my shoulder every time I wanted to play one of their games, and if my internet dipped for even a second (something clearly not my fault) they would accuse me of theft and stop me from playing the game I paid for.
The fact that they assume that I will have internet when I want to play their game is what bothers me most about the new fangled always-on DRM. What if I want to play their game on an international flight (which I do play games on...stick me in a metal sausage for 14 hours and I usually am looking for stress relief by 7-8 hours in)? Either I cannot get internet or its prohibitively expensive, and now that brand spanking new game I want to play is useless to me (but all my GOG.com games work so I am happy.)
I hate all DRM, but the newer DRM systems are so broken from a usability standpoint that it isn't even worth me trying to purchase them and getting them to work, especially when I use Windows through VirtualBox (so that I can purge it if something goes wrong as it always does.)
On the post: Kansas Governor Apologizes After Staff Gets High School Student In Trouble For Tweet About The Governor
Re: Kids these days and their fancy jargon.
If I remember correctly, back in the days of Boy Scouting, that was the level between Cub Scout and Boy Scout ;). Too old to hang out with the kids, but too young to get a real job. Then again, Boy Scouts pretty much blew a lot too, lets not talk about it any more.
On the post: When Even The Strongest Copyright Defenders Recognize That SOPA Goes Too Far...
Re: Re: Re:
+1. The sad thing is that there isn't really any place that I can go to get most of this stuff. Can't seem to get BBC America on my cable, and have to wait for the DVDs to come out several months to years after it airs. I am happy that last season of Dr. Who (2011) just came out, almost a year after it started broadcasting. With technology the way it is, it seems like the day the final episode airs, they should have the DVDs out and ready to buy in the stores. Yet, if I wanted to, I could get all the episodes the day after they air on television via P2P.
On the post: CarrierIQ Fails At The Internet: Threatens Security Researcher With Copyright Infringement Claim Over His Research [Update]
Re:
I have AT&T. Looking at my backups for my Samsung Captivate from AT&T, CarrierIQ is listed as an application installed on their stock image. Not sure whether they were using it, but its there. Now that I am using CTMod, CarrierIQ is not installed (though when I originally installed CTMod, I tried to load CarrierIQ back on the phone as I had no idea what it was, but it said my phones OS was incompatible (as did quite a bit of the other stock applications.)
I also checked my blackberry app backups and it was on one of the two Blackberries I owned before I bought my Captivate.
However, I am not sure if AT&T was actually using it, or if they just bought it from the vendor that way. AT&T called me after I loaded the updated code for blackberry from the RIM website and asked me if my phone was working properly because they weren't getting updates...not sure if this is related. They never called me when I rooted my Samsung, but I figure they already knew I "was one of those guys" based on my discussion with them after updating my blackberry.
On the post: If At First You Fail In Suing A Blogger For Defamation Over His Description Of You Shooting Two Dogs, Try, Try Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dogs on the range
Please show me where in this case cattle were killed. Oh, that's right, you can't. Nor can the original shooter.
The owner of a dangerous dog shall be strictly liable in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal.
Show me where cattle were killed or injured. In a matter of fact, the way the shooter was firing the handgun, I suspect there was more risk of the cattle or the observers being injured by the shooter.
Realistically you cant expect a jury to get drug in on every little thing
True, but when there is an obvious conflict of interest, the best thing the judge should have done was recuse himself.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: No matter how prolix you get, Mike, problem is still PIRACY.
You know, based on the MAFIAA's current stance that everyone other than the labels and the artists are dirty pirates -- it would seem that the majority of society has spoken and the law needs to be changed.
On the post: The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It works great if you are running XBMC on Windows or MacOSX (I have a XBMC running on a Windows virtual machine and it works fine.) It does not work natively on Linux. However, since they ported it to Android, I cannot see how difficult it would be to port it to Linux but the source isn't available for the open-source guys to get it working.
On the post: Protest In The Age Of YouTube... And The Long Term Consequences Of Focusing On 'Enforcement' To Deal With Moral Panics
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It sucks...I've had several friends agree with me when I say I'd take a tazer over pepper-spray any day. I prefer to experience neither, but if I was told I had to experience one or the other, I'd take the tazer. Pepper-spray is temporary, as is, usually, the effects of the tazer (if your heart doesn't explode.) With one, you feel groggy and out of it after losing all muscle control, but it just isn't the same as being clogged up and in pain for an hour.
I think the article by the Chief of Police for Seattle is a great one (in the article above.) We cannot keep fighting "wars" (drug war, etc.) where the politicians and the police expect us to give up our freedoms for temporary security over and over again without seeing the militarization. But one thing everyone seems to point to is that the police are getting more and more dangerous -- what people fail to understand is that some elements of law enforcement have always been really bad, and that the police actually have become far more accountable and far more under control in the 20th century. Back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the police were actually the goons for the labor/anti-labor movements and several battles (legitimate, full on wars,) were fought between police forces (even though they were semi-legitimate private police forces) in the US History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_and_Iron_Police.) Nevermind the original Sheriffs in England were paid goons for the wealthy.
However, with the tank incident in Tampa, I am more apt to believe that it is just the Tampa Occupy Movement's paranoia instead of actual threat. They are expecting something to happen (rightly or otherwise,) and as a result, they see threats where there are none (the article stated that police said the tank was on its way to an educational event.)
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The groups that have been most vocal about "fixing" the Sony decision has been the content industry. DMCA/SOPA/PIPA etc, are all methods bought or being bought to "fix" the Sony decision. Sure, BitTorrent has legitimate uses, but since BitTorrent is used for illegal purposes, then the website it is available from is a Rogue site and all money for the software will be stopped at the payment processors.
On the post: If At First You Fail In Suing A Blogger For Defamation Over His Description Of You Shooting Two Dogs, Try, Try Again
Re: Re: Re: Dogs on the range
Doesn't matter. Just because the owner is a moron doesn't mean that a third party can shoot the dogs when the moron comes to collect them? If you have a dog, and your dog runs all over the street, and I accidently run into your dog and kill it. Under most state laws (I did a cursory check,) I still am required to contact you and arrange payment for the loss of your property. Just because you let them run wild doesn't mean that I am off the hook. Sure, you might be charged with allowing your dogs to run free, but I am still on the hook.
Now, the first couple shots while the owner wasn't present is fine...but the moment the owner approached and told the man with a gun that it was his dogs, and instead of stopping or confronting the owner, he continued to shoot. I am not going off of the video, I am going off of court testimony from the trial which if you read, would have given you a clearer understanding of what happened from people who were there. Since you and I weren't there, and only have the video (and in my case, the statements of those who were there,) we can't really say exactly what happened, but shouldn't a jury, given all the facts, be called upon to do so, instead of a judge who was friends with the shooter?
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, give me a break -- they have been fighting against the Sony ruling long afterwards. The Supreme Court may agree that the tools shouldn't be used mainly for illegal acts -- but the content industry would love to see any tool that may remotely have infringing uses regardless to its legal usefulness, i.e. BitTorrent, which is used by a lot of organizations to traffic in open source software or purely legal to copy material.
On the post: Why The Supreme Court's 'Grokster' Decision Led To More, Not Less, P2P Filesharing
Re:
How did it do that specifically in the real world? I don't remember ever seeing an ad for Grokster, and no Grokster goons showed up at my house with a gun or with money encouraging me to use Grokster to engage in illegal downloading.
What Grokster did was offer a service -- which their users used. I am not happy with the Supreme Court ruling on this, but I am pretty sure that the Supreme Court decision never said that Grokster physically encouraged users, just that they made their service so useful in trafficking infringed works. And can you please explain "illegal downloading." It does not appear in my technical dictionary -- Downloading is downloading, it can't be legal or illegal. It is only what you are downloading that may be illegal.
On the post: If At First You Fail In Suing A Blogger For Defamation Over His Description Of You Shooting Two Dogs, Try, Try Again
Re: Dogs on the range
From what I read so far, that is not what happened here:
1. The owner of the cattle knew that these were dogs.
2. The dogs were not stray, and the owner was present during much of the shooting -- and even confronted the shooter during the shooting, and the shooter continued to shoot the dogs after the owner tried to intervene.
3. The shooter initially said that the dogs tried to attack him and the cattle, but the video tells a different story.
4. A civil case against the shooter found that the shooter was liable for shooting the dogs.
5. The judge, the owner of the cattle, and the shooter know each other through a prayer group. In this case, the judge should have recused himself, as he is unfit to make a judgement on an individual he had personal contact with.
6. The judge acquitted the shooter half way through the trial, after a jury was impaneled.
On the post: Protest In The Age Of YouTube... And The Long Term Consequences Of Focusing On 'Enforcement' To Deal With Moral Panics
Re:
Having been hit by pepper spray...unless the Guy Fawkes mask includes a whole body condom/biomed suit and glass for the eye slits, a Guy Fawkes mask doesn't offer any protection against O.C.
That stuff is like magma, it burns through every pore and opening, and even if you manage to protect your eyes (in training, they never told us to take our glasses off when they sprayed us (though they did have us remove contact lenses if we had them,) and those who wore glasses said they were hurt just as much as the rest of us. They sprayed O.C. on the face, and it got everywhere. We covered one of our eyes with our hands, but that didn't matter -- the stuff still got everywhere. I didn't realize how many pores I had until I got sprayed the first time.
Friendly word of advice for those who get sprayed...when you take a shower afterwards, bend over so the water falls off your body and doesn't run down it -- and aloe/alcohol-based baby-wipes work wonders! Water just spreads the pain.
On the post: Protest In The Age Of YouTube... And The Long Term Consequences Of Focusing On 'Enforcement' To Deal With Moral Panics
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, I am not saying anything of the sort...I totally disagree with this use and if I was in this situation, I would have handled it differently. Escalation is only true when the use of force is lawful, and a point could be made by a protester that they used pepper spray in self-defense, which could be entirely legal use of force depending on how the courts interpreted the use of force by the police (the supreme court has, in the past, ruled both for and against the use of force against peaceful demonstrators -- I am looking for the cites, believe Graham is for and Orcutt is against.)
It is just that the way the use of force laws exist based on law and on supreme court decisions, is force+1, a police officer may ratchet up the level of force by one in order to receive compliance during an arrest. And in some cases, +1 is pepper spray, then gun (since some police officers don't have access to other resources.) Not saying it is right, just saying that it is what the law allows.
A tank against protesters, however, would likely fall afoul of US v Graham in this case as it is entirely unreasonable.
On the post: Protest In The Age Of YouTube... And The Long Term Consequences Of Focusing On 'Enforcement' To Deal With Moral Panics
Re:
IANAL, but I've received training in use of pepper spray. In California, it would be "battery on a police officer," CA PC 243(b)2 which is considerably less than assault with a deadly weapon (to be ADW, it has to be able to cause serious injury, i.e. broken bones, or death. Pepper Spray is not capable of either, except in the extreme circumstances where the individual is allergic to pepper spray.) CA PC 243(b)2 is a wobbler, it can either be a misdemeanor or a felony. CA PC 245 (ADW) is always a felony.
However, I am in no way suggesting that protesters start doing so, as there is a principle in the law called escalation of force when related to law enforcement. Bringing pepper-spray to a gun fight is probably not the best method of winning a gun fight.
On the post: GoDaddy Takes Down Entire Site Of Copyright Attorney/Photographer Over Bogus DMCA Claim
Re:
Yup -- turn-about is fair play. When will the copyright attorneys finally realize that the DMCA is essentially a low-yield nuclear weapon (where as SOPA is far, far more deadly.) Mutually Assured Destruction worked when we had two superpowers that were absolutely afraid to use them, but not so well when every terrorist cell wants them. Same with the DMCA -- it falls apart when anyone can use DMCA without any sort of fact-checking -- and those who can will use the DMCA in malice because there is absolutely no protections against doing so.
As they say in the "good" book -- "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."
On the post: GoDaddy Takes Down Entire Site Of Copyright Attorney/Photographer Over Bogus DMCA Claim
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. I've had the same thing happen just hitting the button once...a blank page loaded, then the "you have successfully submitted your comment" page loaded after a few seconds. I think what sometimes happens (it happens with other sites too,) is that the website gets a little overwhelmed and when a user hits the submit button during these times, something happens (either a timeout with the user or with the website) and the same message gets pushed twice. However, in this case, since it appeared three times, I think you're right.
On the post: GoDaddy Takes Down Entire Site Of Copyright Attorney/Photographer Over Bogus DMCA Claim
Re: Re:
It isn't the pursuit of profits that is the problem...it is the mindless pursuit of profits at all costs that is the problem. Getting money for what you do is fine. It is when you do so at the loss of goodwill and reason that things go terribly wrong. Especially when you pursue money that doesn't rightly belong to you (such as in this case where someone claimed something that wasn't theirs.) Also, the entitlement mentality and the unreasonably long state-granted monopolies are a problem too...
On the post: SOPA Sponsors: Pass SOPA To Protect The Troops; Everyone Else: WTF?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nevermind the fact that as OP stated and others have said, SOPA will in no way effect these purchases since most of this is done at the "non-electronic" level.
I know with 100% certainty that the government contracting will be unaffected by SOPA and counterfeit components will continue to find their way into the government procurement process regardless to how many sentencing enhancements are included in Title II, section 204. I suspect even those electronic systems operated by GAO and the services will be exempt from SOPA, so the $500 counterfeit hammers we are forced to buy will still be there on the GAO website for us, regardless to what SOPA does.
Next >>