The first issue is those that will cry 'government censorship', but a union official is not 'the government'.
Second is the premise that when 'one doth protest too much' the usual outcome is the Streisand Effect, and it is burgeoning.
Third, does this dufus actually believe these kids live in some kind of bubble where they don't hear about abusive cops, on almost a daily basis, from other sources?
Fourth, where the hell does a union official get off on commenting on a school related summer reading list? Does he have a child in school? If he does, then he has the right to tell his child which books to NOT read, but others? Now it is certainly his right to comment, the 1st Amendment allows that, but to use his 'official' position as the head of a police union to 'strengthen' his position?
Fifth, one wonders about all those messages received by a union official? If the public has problems with the school issued reading list, wouldn't they contact the school? That the (supposedly) contacted a police union official smells very fishy. Maybe he is taking his cue's from Ajit Pai.
"we need the technologists of the world to work with law enforcement and make it possible to track potential criminals wherever they are regardless of whether or not they have any online activity"
Or whether or not they have committed a crime, yet. After all, if your not a member of law enforcement, we are all criminals.
The article states that the shooter had behaved in such a way that the police were aware of him, but if he had in fact committed a crime, why was he not in jail already?
Since I am on Linux, I use Liferea as my RSS reader, and did not miss Google Reader. Still, RSS has some limits (one of which is NOT social media connections), not all sites provide feeds, so while I currently have 22 sites on RSS, I still go to 18 other websites daily (they are in a folder in my bookmarks and open them all at once), because they don't have RSS.
Oh, and I have no social media accounts, not even Google+ (which they push on me all the time).
What price is that? The advertised price, plus whatever 'additional charges' you can think up? Sorry, but our administrative fees are costing us some profit, so we are gonna charge you to administer your account, starting at $5.00 per month, which will increase by $1.00 per month until someone tells us we can't do that anymore.
Risks
Ketamine is considered relatively safe in medical settings, because it does not affect the protective airway reflexes, and it does not depress the circulatory system, as other anesthetic medications do.
However, some patients have reported disturbing sensations when awakening from ketamine anesthesia.
Ketamine can cause an increase in blood pressure and intracranial pressure, or pressure in the brain.
People with the following conditions cannot receive ketamine for medical purposes:
brain swelling
glaucoma
brain lesion or tumor
It is used with caution in those with:
coronary artery disease
increased blood pressure
thyroid disease
chronic alcohol addiction
acute alcohol intoxication
aneurysm
chest pain
mental illness
These effects may be stronger in people aged over 65 years.
Some people may have an allergy to the ingredients. Patients with any type of allergy should tell their doctor before using any medication.
Anyone who is using this drug for therapeutic purposes on a regular basis should have regular blood pressure checks.
Are the paramedics checking the medical history of their patients prior to administering Ketamine? That point about acute alcohol intoxication, but they use Ketamine on drunk people? I wonder about your 44 medial directors.
There is also the question of those police officers practicing medicine without a license.
Businesses tend to operate with licenses from the government. Tell them they need to give up certain amounts of space/time for the purposes of elections to maintain their licenses. Then whatever agency designated to do so, divides up the space/time equally between candidates for whatever office.
2) It is not used to pay no hope candidates as a payoff for favors received, giving a partner an income etc.
We have laws against bribery, enforce them. Lobbying would be limited in that campaign contributions are no longer legal and the lobbying would have to be about merit rather than payment.
3) That the infomation needed for the public to monitor that the system is being used properly is actually made available, and not hidden as a national security concern.
Make all the transactions open and publicly disclosed, just as campaign contributions are now disclosed.
I am certain that there are other pitfalls, but a serious discussion prior to implementation would smooth out most of the kinks. The point is to not only allow someone with no money to run for office, and to remove the impact direct money has on candidates. It would also get elected officials to spend their time doing the peoples business, rather than campaigning. I also advocate removing political parties, for many of the same reasons. Undue influence.
Let corporations speak all they want, but remove money from politics (having government pay for all elections would remove the direct money (aka bribery) from the equation(and it would be cheap, maybe 1% of the black budget, or NSA's budget)) which would eliminate their undue power. This would satisfy both sides...well not the power hungry side.
Assuming your document is something juicy that the government does not want revealed due to embarrassment, email your document, using the most current form of encrypted email, from a public computer (library, coffee shop, print center) to someone who does not have a printer and have them take that digital document to someone who has a used printer, bought at a flea market, or Goodwill, or other some such, print the document, then physically take it to a fourth party, who will then (wear gloves for all the physical aspects of this, of course) take it to a Mailboxes R Us location and send it on to a fifth party (no return address, I have been told that no return address is illegal but I have sent a whole lot of mail with no return address that was received by the sent to party), who will then swap the mailing envelope and return it to you via some sort of physical mail or messenger. Then you can submit your documents to whomever you want that doesn't have a printer. That makes 5 co-conspirators, which is pretty dangerous, even if they are hard to track.
Or, you could just use a public library computer (wearing your Halloween costume, only on Halloween, which is the only date to do such things, except April 1st) and send it via encrypted email (no need for printers on your end) to someone like Wikileaks, or The Intercept, or the New York Times, or...well there are a lot of places who would love to receive it, and a lot of government types who would love to meet you. Up close and personal like.
Any better methods?
BTW, I have a serious complaint about printer manufacturers adding something I did not intend to my printed photographs. They are works of art, and I object to their trying to infringe upon my copyright by adding, surreptitiously their art to my art. Could we DMCA these dot?
John Law pulls a car over, goes to check on wants and warrants and verify the registration, then arrests all occupants of the car because the database didn't return an answer.
Come to court and the judge asks John Law how he made the determination to arrest, when their agency has had their access to the database revoked?
John Law stands up and says, SCOTUS says we don't have to know the law to enforce it, so I enforced it without knowing if they were perpetrators or not. Better safe than sorry.
Judge says, oh, well then. OK, with Good Faith Exception and Qualified Immunity applied they must be guilty. But of what?
Correct, speaking truth to power is often dangerous, but enhancing careers has nothing to do with enhancing investors income. It might happen as an ancillary effect, but enhancing careers is not a prime function of most corporations.
Well, I tried to pose the task as they would not have any upside to not recognizing all creators, even the one song/book/short film creators that have small followings. The significant fines portion, not coming from their collecting (preventing them from penalizing any other rights holder for their failures) would certainly cause them to go bankrupt. A primary feature, in my view.
If that was possible at all to identify the works and uses in any meaningful way.
Yeah, that is exactly what I expect would happen. The agency that was tasked to distribute the money, provably, and fined significantly for failures, would soon go broke. Any other group willing to pick up the task, under the same terms, would fail at it as well.
Then the discussion could be about how to compensate creators rather than rights holders, as it should be.
Which is how Verizon is probably using them, if they use them at all. No better way to shore up a corporate philosophy than to show your board of directors that your customers agree, whether it is true or not.
There, of course, is the correct way to use them, and actually learn something about your target audience, then shape your corporate philosophy around that.
Why does it seem like everyone is going about this backwards? Rather than taking down or blocking copyrighted material, find ways to monetize the material with both the copyright holder and the content poster being able to profit.
Here's a stupid idea (and probably not new either). Make a standard payment (reasonable to us, not them, and low enough to be payable from the scanty advertising rates available and still allow the poster to prosper (think of it as marketing of the copyrighted material rather than theft) maybe even a percentage, a small percentage of the advertising income) available that covers any copyrighted material.
It would be up to the 'rights societies' to funnel the money to the correct (provably correct with regular auditing and significant fines for failure to process the money correctly (payable from funds other than those collected from content posters) and no more than a 1% administration fee, and of course return the entire amount of money collected from the content poster, promptly) copyright holder. If a content poster incorrectly determines that they hold the copyright on what they post, then they pay the fee, plus a 1% penalty.
Well, even dumb pipes can have advantages, speed, quality, customer service quality, price, even dumbness. Things we would see if there was 'dumb pipe competition' (or local loop competition).
Of course, separating ISP service from content providers is just crazy talk.
On the post: Police Union Upset Not All Books Paint Cops As Heroes, Calls For Removal Of Titles From School's Reading List
Re: Re: Rambo
Police Academy might be a good example.
On the post: Police Union Upset Not All Books Paint Cops As Heroes, Calls For Removal Of Titles From School's Reading List
All kinds of crazy
Second is the premise that when 'one doth protest too much' the usual outcome is the Streisand Effect, and it is burgeoning.
Third, does this dufus actually believe these kids live in some kind of bubble where they don't hear about abusive cops, on almost a daily basis, from other sources?
Fourth, where the hell does a union official get off on commenting on a school related summer reading list? Does he have a child in school? If he does, then he has the right to tell his child which books to NOT read, but others? Now it is certainly his right to comment, the 1st Amendment allows that, but to use his 'official' position as the head of a police union to 'strengthen' his position?
Fifth, one wonders about all those messages received by a union official? If the public has problems with the school issued reading list, wouldn't they contact the school? That the (supposedly) contacted a police union official smells very fishy. Maybe he is taking his cue's from Ajit Pai.
On the post: Police Chief Tries To Blame Newspaper Shooting On The Loss Of Social Media Monitoring Tool, But It Doesn't Add Up
Re: Re: Oh no! Going dark!
Or whether or not they have committed a crime, yet. After all, if your not a member of law enforcement, we are all criminals.
The article states that the shooter had behaved in such a way that the police were aware of him, but if he had in fact committed a crime, why was he not in jail already?
On the post: The Death Of Google Reader And The Rise Of Silos
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The first sentance "Oh God... the last thing I need for my RSS feeds is "social integration"." which you obviously skipped over.
On the post: The Death Of Google Reader And The Rise Of Silos
Oh, and I have no social media accounts, not even Google+ (which they push on me all the time).
On the post: The Death Of Google Reader And The Rise Of Silos
Re: Re:
On the post: Comcast's Wireless Service Will Charge You More To Stream HD Video
Lock in your price for 12 months
On the post: Cops Are Telling Paramedics To Inject Arrestees With Ketamine. Worse, EMS Crews Are Actually Doing It.
Re:
These doctors seem to have a different point of view. Let's take a look at their list of risks:
Are the paramedics checking the medical history of their patients prior to administering Ketamine? That point about acute alcohol intoxication, but they use Ketamine on drunk people? I wonder about your 44 medial directors.
There is also the question of those police officers practicing medicine without a license.
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re: Re: Re: Corporate Rights...
Businesses tend to operate with licenses from the government. Tell them they need to give up certain amounts of space/time for the purposes of elections to maintain their licenses. Then whatever agency designated to do so, divides up the space/time equally between candidates for whatever office.
We have laws against bribery, enforce them. Lobbying would be limited in that campaign contributions are no longer legal and the lobbying would have to be about merit rather than payment.
Make all the transactions open and publicly disclosed, just as campaign contributions are now disclosed.
I am certain that there are other pitfalls, but a serious discussion prior to implementation would smooth out most of the kinks. The point is to not only allow someone with no money to run for office, and to remove the impact direct money has on candidates. It would also get elected officials to spend their time doing the peoples business, rather than campaigning. I also advocate removing political parties, for many of the same reasons. Undue influence.
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re: Corporate Rights...
On the post: Researchers Reveal Details Of Printer Tracking Dots, Develop Free Software To Defeat It
Re: Or
On the post: Researchers Reveal Details Of Printer Tracking Dots, Develop Free Software To Defeat It
Or
Or, you could just use a public library computer (wearing your Halloween costume, only on Halloween, which is the only date to do such things, except April 1st) and send it via encrypted email (no need for printers on your end) to someone like Wikileaks, or The Intercept, or the New York Times, or...well there are a lot of places who would love to receive it, and a lot of government types who would love to meet you. Up close and personal like.
Any better methods?
BTW, I have a serious complaint about printer manufacturers adding something I did not intend to my printed photographs. They are works of art, and I object to their trying to infringe upon my copyright by adding, surreptitiously their art to my art. Could we DMCA these dot?
On the post: Threats To Pull Database Access Increasing Misuse Reporting By Cali Law Enforcement Agencies
I can see it now
Come to court and the judge asks John Law how he made the determination to arrest, when their agency has had their access to the database revoked?
John Law stands up and says, SCOTUS says we don't have to know the law to enforce it, so I enforced it without knowing if they were perpetrators or not. Better safe than sorry.
Judge says, oh, well then. OK, with Good Faith Exception and Qualified Immunity applied they must be guilty. But of what?
On the post: Music Industry's Nonsense 'Myth Busting' About EU's Censorship Machines Is Basically Saying 'Nuh-uh' Repeatedly
Re:
On the post: Verizon's Sad Attempt To Woo Millennials Falls Flat On Its Face
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Music Industry's Nonsense 'Myth Busting' About EU's Censorship Machines Is Basically Saying 'Nuh-uh' Repeatedly
Re: Re: Why not, everyone makes money?
On the post: Music Industry's Nonsense 'Myth Busting' About EU's Censorship Machines Is Basically Saying 'Nuh-uh' Repeatedly
Re: Re: Why not, everyone makes money?
Yeah, that is exactly what I expect would happen. The agency that was tasked to distribute the money, provably, and fined significantly for failures, would soon go broke. Any other group willing to pick up the task, under the same terms, would fail at it as well.
Then the discussion could be about how to compensate creators rather than rights holders, as it should be.
On the post: Verizon's Sad Attempt To Woo Millennials Falls Flat On Its Face
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There, of course, is the correct way to use them, and actually learn something about your target audience, then shape your corporate philosophy around that.
On the post: Music Industry's Nonsense 'Myth Busting' About EU's Censorship Machines Is Basically Saying 'Nuh-uh' Repeatedly
Why not, everyone makes money?
Why does it seem like everyone is going about this backwards? Rather than taking down or blocking copyrighted material, find ways to monetize the material with both the copyright holder and the content poster being able to profit.
Here's a stupid idea (and probably not new either). Make a standard payment (reasonable to us, not them, and low enough to be payable from the scanty advertising rates available and still allow the poster to prosper (think of it as marketing of the copyrighted material rather than theft) maybe even a percentage, a small percentage of the advertising income) available that covers any copyrighted material.
It would be up to the 'rights societies' to funnel the money to the correct (provably correct with regular auditing and significant fines for failure to process the money correctly (payable from funds other than those collected from content posters) and no more than a 1% administration fee, and of course return the entire amount of money collected from the content poster, promptly) copyright holder. If a content poster incorrectly determines that they hold the copyright on what they post, then they pay the fee, plus a 1% penalty.
On the post: Verizon's Sad Attempt To Woo Millennials Falls Flat On Its Face
Re: Pipes
Of course, separating ISP service from content providers is just crazy talk.
Next >>