Dendy Cinemas in Australia (owned by Mel Gibson's company) are quite good:
The Dendy Premium Lounge cinemas boast its own exclusive lounge bar area, full in-seat dining and bar service as well as opulent electric reclining seats.
They have a decent menu (burgers, pizzas, seafood platters, appetizers, deserts, soft drinks, beer's, wines, cocktails) all brought to your chair in the cinema.
No, because FedEx supplies on-site facilities for the CIA, NSA and FBI to inspect (tamper with) packages, therefore they never have to get near Langley.
"As of the June 2007 edition of the DSS C&SM, overwriting is no longer acceptable for sanitization of magnetic media; only degaussing or physical destruction is acceptable"
Phones typically don't use magnetic media for internal storage.
I think that since the USPTO has revealed that information we can safely assume that the White House has finally gotten around to assigning the USPTO Commissar.
The linked article stated that it took 3 weeks (usually 3-6 months, but they got a hurry-up) and he was released and charges dropped after that because there was no evidence of child-porn.
However, the long-term impact still existed, he worked as a counselor for abused teens - often sexual abuse. Therefore there was a cloud over him in this job as the police had informed his employer of the arrest. The arrest was public record, and therefore employers, especially those whose work was to do with children, counselors, teachers and so on - which is what his job was - would find that record in a police background check of him.
Not to mention that because of the arrest, social services got involved, and their records would have that he was arrested for child-porn, which could impact any future interactions that involved social services.
Beyond the initial mistake, another big issue here was that he never should have been arrested and charged in the first place.
The appropriate procedure is to serve a search warrant, take possession of any materials, examine them, and after the examination make a decision on whether he should be arrested or not. Which in this case would have been a 'not'.
It was completely inappropriate for the police to have sought out an arrest warrant prior to completing and reviewing the results of a search warrant.
If he had never been arrested, most of the issues caused would not have arisen, as it was because of the arrest that the follow-on issues occurred.
I still don't see how a court justified the idea that it's ok for cops not to know the law.
That's not quite what the judgement said, it's a bit more nuanced than that.
I had a bit of a read of it a while back after some links from here and with respect to another judgement (also noted here on TD) where a court didn't accept that the cops didn't know the law as an excuse. This apparent conflict got me reading a bit.
This latter situation was to do with a stop in some state where the excuse for the stop was because the car didn't have a passenger-side side mirror. The states laws required cars to have a passenger-side mirror, however, the law explicitly stated that that regulation only applied to vehicles that were registered in that state and did not apply to out-of-state registered vehicles, such as the target of the stop. The cops said it was an honest mistake and they didn't know that. However the judge (may have been appeals) still tossed it out, and the results of the searches due to the stop, with reference to the Supreme Court decision that people say stated that "cops don't need to know the law" noting that that case did not apply.
The gist of the discussion and ruling was that the Supreme Court case related to where an ambiguity can exist in the language of a statute and that ambiguity has been clarified or narrowed by common-law decisions in court. The cops aren't expected to be aware of all the subtle rulings, clarifications, precedents and so on that can alter or narrow the effect of a statute.
However in the example case, there was no dependency on those sorts of rulings/situations, as the statute was plain and straightforward, no ambiguity, no precedent's to refer to.
So "cops don't need to know the law" is too simplistic a summation of that Supreme Court case.
In this incident being reported, the cops merely said it was illegal and made threats based on that, they didn't actually take any physical action - no arrest, no confiscation - to prevent the filming. It was used as intimidation, rather than as an excuse to arrest.
And there are other precedents (probably more nuanced than I'm using here) that say that the police are allowed to lie to suspects. They can say "hey, what you just did is illegal and the minimum sentence for that is 3 years, but we'll forget about it if you tell us...". So them saying it is illegal to film them (when it isn't) in itself isn't illegal - although it should be.
IMO deliberately misstating the law by a law officer or other officer of the court while acting in an official capacity should be illegal.
There are incentives other than money to write books.
Or writing a textbook could be seen as a loss-leader.
Even if you don't make much money directly from the textbook, I'm pretty sure a lecturer being able to say "I literally wrote the textbook on " would make them a highly sought-after teacher. They could pick and choose the teaching positions, and it would be a leg-up on getting tenure too.
The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office.
In this context an accommodation is synonymous with advantage and gain.
I'm not sure why those stories deserve 'but' in relation to this article.
This TD article is about it not being illegal for *consumers* to access copyrighted streams. It does not say it is legal for someone to *provide* copyrighted streams.
The linked stories refer to the *provider* of the streams being illegal and ISPs being forced to block the *provider*. It has not ordered any actions against *consumers* of the streams.
Therefore the linked stories are completely compatible with this article, not a 'but' situation.
On Android, when you install a 3rd party keyboard, you'll get a notification about how the developer can intercept what you type (SwiftKey anyone?).
That's sorta how keyboards work.
If the keyboard can't intercept keystrokes (what you are typing), then the keyboard won't function. If it's not allowed to intercept keystrokes, it can't receive input from the touchscreen and then translate that into a keystroke (a, b, c...) to be sent to/from the application that's using the keyboard (browser, SMS app, etc.).
The problem arises when a keyboard app can:
1) intercept keystrokes (i.e. do its job);
and
2) access communications interfaces (bluetooth, 3/4/X/G, USB, thunderbolt, IR, WiFi).
Therefore a developer of the keyboard, in addition to legitimately intercepting the keystrokes, could also illegitimately forward those on through the communications interfaces.
Of course, there are legitimate reasons for forwarding on the keystrokes - cloud-based handwriting/voice recognition, and so on.
To an extent parents are responsible for the actions of minors.
If an 11 year old vandalised something, threw rocks through windows or something similar, the parents would be legally responsible for compensating the owners, such as paying for repairs.
So if a minor received a fine of some type, the parents would be responsible for paying the fine.
On the post: NY Legislators Looking At Installing A Free Speech-Stomping 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Re:
On the post: NY Legislators Looking At Installing A Free Speech-Stomping 'Right To Be Forgotten'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Film Distributor Creates Torrent Site Clone That Gives Away Movie Tickets To Combat Piracy
Re: The "cinema experience"
Dendy Cinemas in Australia (owned by Mel Gibson's company) are quite good:
They have a decent menu (burgers, pizzas, seafood platters, appetizers, deserts, soft drinks, beer's, wines, cocktails) all brought to your chair in the cinema.
But they aren't cheap...
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Re:
On the post: Phone Searches Now Default Mode At The Border; More Searches Last Month Than In All Of 2015
Re: Re: neat
Phones typically don't use magnetic media for internal storage.
On the post: General Franco Is Still Dead And Michelle Lee Is Still Director Of The US Patent Office
Re: Not unusual
On the post: General Franco Is Still Dead And Michelle Lee Is Still Director Of The US Patent Office
Re: Re:
I am Mike Masnick!.
On the post: Bad Libel Law Strikes Again: Silly UK Twitter Spat Results In Six Figure Payout
Re: Perhaps I overlooked something
£24,000.0 ?
On the post: Extra Digit Accidentally Typed By Officer Turns UK Man Into A Pedophile
Re:
However, the long-term impact still existed, he worked as a counselor for abused teens - often sexual abuse. Therefore there was a cloud over him in this job as the police had informed his employer of the arrest. The arrest was public record, and therefore employers, especially those whose work was to do with children, counselors, teachers and so on - which is what his job was - would find that record in a police background check of him.
Not to mention that because of the arrest, social services got involved, and their records would have that he was arrested for child-porn, which could impact any future interactions that involved social services.
Beyond the initial mistake, another big issue here was that he never should have been arrested and charged in the first place.
The appropriate procedure is to serve a search warrant, take possession of any materials, examine them, and after the examination make a decision on whether he should be arrested or not. Which in this case would have been a 'not'.
It was completely inappropriate for the police to have sought out an arrest warrant prior to completing and reviewing the results of a search warrant.
If he had never been arrested, most of the issues caused would not have arisen, as it was because of the arrest that the follow-on issues occurred.
On the post: Officers Cite Nonexistent Law In Attempt To Prevent Citizen From Filming Them During A Traffic Stop
Re: Bizarre
That's not quite what the judgement said, it's a bit more nuanced than that.
I had a bit of a read of it a while back after some links from here and with respect to another judgement (also noted here on TD) where a court didn't accept that the cops didn't know the law as an excuse. This apparent conflict got me reading a bit.
This latter situation was to do with a stop in some state where the excuse for the stop was because the car didn't have a passenger-side side mirror. The states laws required cars to have a passenger-side mirror, however, the law explicitly stated that that regulation only applied to vehicles that were registered in that state and did not apply to out-of-state registered vehicles, such as the target of the stop. The cops said it was an honest mistake and they didn't know that. However the judge (may have been appeals) still tossed it out, and the results of the searches due to the stop, with reference to the Supreme Court decision that people say stated that "cops don't need to know the law" noting that that case did not apply.
The gist of the discussion and ruling was that the Supreme Court case related to where an ambiguity can exist in the language of a statute and that ambiguity has been clarified or narrowed by common-law decisions in court. The cops aren't expected to be aware of all the subtle rulings, clarifications, precedents and so on that can alter or narrow the effect of a statute.
However in the example case, there was no dependency on those sorts of rulings/situations, as the statute was plain and straightforward, no ambiguity, no precedent's to refer to.
So "cops don't need to know the law" is too simplistic a summation of that Supreme Court case.
In this incident being reported, the cops merely said it was illegal and made threats based on that, they didn't actually take any physical action - no arrest, no confiscation - to prevent the filming. It was used as intimidation, rather than as an excuse to arrest.
And there are other precedents (probably more nuanced than I'm using here) that say that the police are allowed to lie to suspects. They can say "hey, what you just did is illegal and the minimum sentence for that is 3 years, but we'll forget about it if you tell us...". So them saying it is illegal to film them (when it isn't) in itself isn't illegal - although it should be.
IMO deliberately misstating the law by a law officer or other officer of the court while acting in an official capacity should be illegal.
On the post: Photocopying Textbooks Is Fair Use In India: Western Publishers Withdraw Copyright Suit Against Delhi University
Re: Re:
Or writing a textbook could be seen as a loss-leader.
Even if you don't make much money directly from the textbook, I'm pretty sure a lecturer being able to say "I literally wrote the textbook on " would make them a highly sought-after teacher. They could pick and choose the teaching positions, and it would be a leg-up on getting tenure too.
On the post: New Accountability Add-On Triggers Cameras When Police Officers Unholster Their Guns
Re: Re: Need more tasers
No, tasers are less-lethal.
On the post: Aussie Film Distributor That Pledged To End Movie Release Delays To Combat Piracy Delays Movies Anyway
Re:
That's when the kids sheer the sheep or work in the mines.
On the post: China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed
Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
In this context an accommodation is synonymous with advantage and gain.
On the post: Gothamist Purges Stories About The Ricketts Family While Joe Ricketts Was Negotiating To Buy Site
Re: Re: Re:
Mike>Alphabet>Google
?
On the post: UK Local Government Confirms Surprising EU Position That Viewing Pirated Streams Probably Isn't Illegal
Re: But on the same day....
This TD article is about it not being illegal for *consumers* to access copyrighted streams. It does not say it is legal for someone to *provide* copyrighted streams.
The linked stories refer to the *provider* of the streams being illegal and ISPs being forced to block the *provider*. It has not ordered any actions against *consumers* of the streams.
Therefore the linked stories are completely compatible with this article, not a 'but' situation.
On the post: Wolfgang Puck Battles Elon Musk's Brother Over Trademark Rights For 'The Kitchen' In Restaurant Industry
Re: it's all in the location
On the post: CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
Re:
That's sorta how keyboards work.
If the keyboard can't intercept keystrokes (what you are typing), then the keyboard won't function. If it's not allowed to intercept keystrokes, it can't receive input from the touchscreen and then translate that into a keystroke (a, b, c...) to be sent to/from the application that's using the keyboard (browser, SMS app, etc.).
The problem arises when a keyboard app can: 1) intercept keystrokes (i.e. do its job); and 2) access communications interfaces (bluetooth, 3/4/X/G, USB, thunderbolt, IR, WiFi).
Therefore a developer of the keyboard, in addition to legitimately intercepting the keystrokes, could also illegitimately forward those on through the communications interfaces.
Of course, there are legitimate reasons for forwarding on the keystrokes - cloud-based handwriting/voice recognition, and so on.
On the post: CIA Leak Shows Mobile Phones Vulnerable, Not Encryption
Re: Re: Paying?
On the post: German Judge Fines Father Because He Didn't Tell His Kid Not To Engage In Piracy
If an 11 year old vandalised something, threw rocks through windows or something similar, the parents would be legally responsible for compensating the owners, such as paying for repairs.
So if a minor received a fine of some type, the parents would be responsible for paying the fine.
Next >>