It seems pretty strange (arrogant) to me that someone would choose a profession that any reasonable person knows comes with inherent danger, and then try to say that the job needs to be changed to eliminate that danger.
If you're a cook and can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. And if you're a *trained* cop and can't stand dealing with inherently dangerous citizens (you know, because that's your job: to "serve and protect" the public who is not trained to do so), then get out of the uniform.
Every cop who thinks they need to use excessive force should be required to read/watch this account of Australian cops subduing a mentally ill man in a mall with a gun. It can be done. And if you choose not to do it, that's fine. We can find someone else who will. Maybe we need to get some Aussie cops over here on a work visa. http://www.businessinsider.com/tense-footage-of-aussie-cops-restraint-2014-8
I think the bigger issue that no one seems to be talking about here is that my phone is not physically tethered to me. While I am with it much of the time, I sometimes leave it at home, in the car, at a friends, or even in a friend's car. Especially if there is no user activity on the phone, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that the phone was in fact with me at the time they claim it was in a particular area.
For what it's worth, I reached out to Deborah J. Nightingale last night sending her the TechDirt article debunking her post and asking her for a comment. No bounce and no response.
I can't say I was around for the beginning of email, but I do consider myself a bit of a domain expert, having worked on several email systems throughout my career including Lotus cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, Claris Emailer, Microsoft Outlook Express, Entourage, and Yahoo Mail.
Actually, the trend was to include a hyphen initially, and then the hyphen gets dropped. If one presumes that usage in books roughly mirrors use on the Inter-net and in spoken conversation, the only thing he was ahead on was in hyphen dropping.
If copyright is "the equivalent of a patent," then Mr. Dark Skinned child prodigy should take Hotmail, Gmail, Ymail and all the other *mails of the world to court and reap all of those juicy license fees that he is clearly due.
Oh wait, he hasn't done that because the results would only reinforce the complete insincerity of his claims.
I was trying to find his web site, so did a Google search for "mike meier copyright law group". Pretty amusing that the top results are from torrentlawyer, extortionletterinfo.com, dietrolldie.com and fightcopyrighttrolls.com. After getting to page 3 or the search results, I gave up. Nice SEO there.
Welcome to the CA Buyers Club, where—with a reasonable membership fee and a flat processing fee that bears uncanny resemblance to the retail cost + shipping—you can have one of our suits of body armor. Of course you don't own it; the club does. We are based in Nevada with outlets all along the Western border of that state, so it takes only a day to ship to anywhere in CA. We might even open another operation in Ashland, Oregon. It's beautiful and who doesn't love Shakespeare?
Can't afford the lump sums required in the Buyers Club? Well then join up with NetBodyArmorFlix. For a flat monthly fee, you rent a suit of body armor for as long as you want. When you return the one you have, the next one in your queue will be sent to you. Get in line early for our most popular model, which has a variety of messages speculating on Mike Honda's lineage and creative suggestions on what he can go do.
Seems to me that any site hosted by a public institution would be the place to start. Has any issue of free speech on sites like these vs censorship gone through the courts yet? Maybe it's time to put some to the test...
Ignorant (or asshole) lawyers do the same thing...
I think it's amusing and at the pinnacle of irony that law firms—who are the first people on the planet that should know better—think they can impose restrictions on my behavior simply by saying so in some BS boilerplate footer text.
Here's one that claims if THEY mistakenly send it to me, I need to notify some people and "destroy" the email (however that would possibly work in this digital age where everything on my computer is backed up locally and in the cloud). And "any disclosure... is strictly prohibited." by what possible law other than the fear that some might believe this pompous law firm must know what they are talking about and telling the truth.
"This is an email from Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Attorneys at Law. This email and any attachments hereto may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. This email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Inadvertent disclosure of the contents of this email or its attachments to unintended recipients is not intended to and does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections. If you have received this email in error, immediately notify the sender of the erroneous receipt and destroy this email, any attachments, and all copies of same, either electronic or printed. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents or information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Federal tax regulations require us to notify you that any tax advice in this electronic message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties. "
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: say what you mean; mean what you say
If you want to be Asperger's literal about things, that's fine. Don't accept "never" or "always". I prefer to operate more pragmatically.
Yes I understand that there are mitigating circumstances for everything. There are always an infinite number of improbable black swans out there ready to take the stage at any moment. But there is power to the word never, and that sends a powerful message to trolls. If you need to put a mental asterisk next to that word when you read it, by all means.
I don't see it that way. I dislike SuperPACs and the current state of campaign finance. Yet I gave to MayDay specifically to help change this. Similar concept. Use the tools and rules of the current system to change it for the better.
My ethics happily enable me to use any and all legal loopholes to take advantage away from social parasites like this. Sounds like yours are different.
If I were a lawyer with any one of those "a number of TV companies", I would be doing everything in my power to delay the trial until after the gag order lifts. It clearly will be very probative to their defense. In fact that reason alone may be justification enough to warrant a delay (though the cynic in me doubts it).
So maybe I'm just ignorant here (if so, I'm sure you all can crowdsource me into my place), but what's to stop me from getting the agreement, scanning it, posting it online, and only THEN signing?
You cannot be bound by things that happen BEFORE you actually sign the agreement. After all, you hadn't yet agreed to it and in fact you could walk away and never sign. So the other party would be powerless to punish you for that. And of course from that point forward you can't say anything else about it, or even re-post the document.
But you don't have to. Now it's out in the public. If you were smart, you not only posted it, but you also emailed it to one or more friendlies who are not party to the agreement (info@techdirt.com natch). Now they can do whatever they want with it.
Maybe this only works once until gag order writers start anticipating this. But still, the first time it happens would be a beautiful thing.
So why would I—even if I were a UK citizen—operate a web site physically located in UK jurisdiction? There are plenty of hosting services in other places that actually respect privacy. All they are doing is driving businesses to set up shop elsewhere.
On the post: Seattle Cops Crowdsourcing Legal Battle Against DOJ-Imposed Excessive Force Remedies
Isn't that in the job description?
If you're a cook and can't stand the heat, you get out of the kitchen. And if you're a *trained* cop and can't stand dealing with inherently dangerous citizens (you know, because that's your job: to "serve and protect" the public who is not trained to do so), then get out of the uniform.
Every cop who thinks they need to use excessive force should be required to read/watch this account of Australian cops subduing a mentally ill man in a mall with a gun. It can be done. And if you choose not to do it, that's fine. We can find someone else who will. Maybe we need to get some Aussie cops over here on a work visa.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tense-footage-of-aussie-cops-restraint-2014-8
On the post: Turns Out Cell Phone Location Data Is Not Even Close To Accurate, But Everyone Falls For It
My phone location ⇏ my location
On the post: New Intercept Leak Shows That Intelligence Agencies Are Ready And Willing To Perform Economic Espionage If US Tech Edge 'Slips'
So one program will repair the damage another one causes?
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140518/17433327281/
On the post: Huffington Post And The View From Bogustan: Standing Behind Blatantly False Claims Isn't Journalism
I wonder what Arianna would say?
What the heck...
https://twitter.com/davecort/status/507983301106073601
On the post: Huffington Post Finally Responds, Stands By Its Completely Bogus, Totally Debunked 'History Of Email' Series
No response from Deborah J. Nightingale either
I can't say I was around for the beginning of email, but I do consider myself a bit of a domain expert, having worked on several email systems throughout my career including Lotus cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, Claris Emailer, Microsoft Outlook Express, Entourage, and Yahoo Mail.
On the post: Why Is Huffington Post Running A Multi-Part Series To Promote The Lies Of A Guy Who Pretended To Invent Email?
Re: email vs. e-mail
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=electronic+mail%2Ce-mail%2Cemail&year_sta rt=1975&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Celectronic %20mail%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ce%20-%20mail%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cemail%3B%2Cc0
On the post: Why Is Huffington Post Running A Multi-Part Series To Promote The Lies Of A Guy Who Pretended To Invent Email?
Let's get the courts involved!
Oh wait, he hasn't done that because the results would only reinforce the complete insincerity of his claims.
On the post: Copyright Trolling Lawyer Abusing DMCA To Try To Silence Critics
PageRank algorithm as public consensus
https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=mike+meier+copyright+law+group
On the post: As Police Get More Militarized, Bill In Congress Would Make Owning Body Armor Punishable By Up To 10 Years In Prison
New business models abound
Can't afford the lump sums required in the Buyers Club? Well then join up with NetBodyArmorFlix. For a flat monthly fee, you rent a suit of body armor for as long as you want. When you return the one you have, the next one in your queue will be sent to you. Get in line early for our most popular model, which has a variety of messages speculating on Mike Honda's lineage and creative suggestions on what he can go do.
On the post: Can We Create A Public Internet Space Where The First Amendment, Not Private Terms Of Service, Rules?
What about web sites on .edu and .gov?
On the post: Thomson Reuters Thinks Not Responding To Their Email Means You've Freely Licensed All Your Content
Ignorant (or asshole) lawyers do the same thing...
Here's one that claims if THEY mistakenly send it to me, I need to notify some people and "destroy" the email (however that would possibly work in this digital age where everything on my computer is backed up locally and in the cloud). And "any disclosure... is strictly prohibited." by what possible law other than the fear that some might believe this pompous law firm must know what they are talking about and telling the truth.
"This is an email from Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP, Attorneys at Law. This email and any attachments hereto may contain information that is confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. This email is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. Inadvertent disclosure of the contents of this email or its attachments to unintended recipients is not intended to and does not constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protections. If you have received this email in error, immediately notify the sender of the erroneous receipt and destroy this email, any attachments, and all copies of same, either electronic or printed. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents or information received in error is strictly prohibited.
Federal tax regulations require us to notify you that any tax advice in this electronic message was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties. "
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: say what you mean; mean what you say
Yes I understand that there are mitigating circumstances for everything. There are always an infinite number of improbable black swans out there ready to take the stage at any moment. But there is power to the word never, and that sends a powerful message to trolls. If you need to put a mental asterisk next to that word when you read it, by all means.
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Re: Re: Re: say what you mean; mean what you say
Доверяй, но проверяй
Regarding not backing down for patent trolls, my verification of the data available shows NewEgg has 100% trustworthy, while Adam Carolla is at 0%.
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Re: Re: Re: Re: How to get around a gag order
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Re: say what you mean; mean what you say
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Re: Re: How to get around a gag order
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
Delay the trial until Oct
On the post: Adam Carolla Settles With Podcasting Patent Troll: Even With A Strong Case And $500k In The Bank, It's Too Expensive To Fight
How to get around a gag order
You cannot be bound by things that happen BEFORE you actually sign the agreement. After all, you hadn't yet agreed to it and in fact you could walk away and never sign. So the other party would be powerless to punish you for that. And of course from that point forward you can't say anything else about it, or even re-post the document.
But you don't have to. Now it's out in the public. If you were smart, you not only posted it, but you also emailed it to one or more friendlies who are not party to the agreement (info@techdirt.com natch). Now they can do whatever they want with it.
Maybe this only works once until gag order writers start anticipating this. But still, the first time it happens would be a beautiful thing.
On the post: California Cops Seize Recordings Of Questionable Arrest, Claim They Have The 'Right' To Do So
I wish mobile video apps recorded to the cloud
http://www.eyegotyoucovered.com/
I already used it once going through a TSA security check. pointed at the ceiling most of the time, but I got the audio of the interaction.
On the post: Did UK Gov't Already Effectively Outlaw Anonymity Online With Its New Defamation Law?
The Internet has no borders
Next >>