Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 8 Nov 2013 @ 12:22pm
Seriously?
"For without the prospect of such an award, [an infringement defendant] might be forced into a nuisance settlement or deterred altogether from exercising [its] rights."
Is this really the first time in copyright history that this observation, so obvious that a 4 year old could point it out, has been made in a court of law?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Nov 2013 @ 4:05pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
S/C American countries and a bunch of places with "stan" at the end comprises almost 50% of the data. I call that skewing the stats.
Yeah, because in the same part of the list as Krgystan, Pakistan, the Ukraine and Belarus and above Iran and Kosovo is definitely where you want to be aiming for... Oh, and yes throwing knifes are equally quick and fatal, but you can learn to shoot a pistol in an afternoon and skill enough to kill someone with a knife at better than arms length takes rather longer. You also forgot to mention bows and arrows, which at least have an effective lethal range above about 10 meters. I have at least some skill with all 3 and I know if I were to go bat-shit crazy enough to want to try it, I wouldn't be reaching for a knife or a bow given the option - there's a reason war moved on from bows and arrows - so that argument seems a little spurious.
As for gun control, you seem to be assuming what I mean by it. I'd probably agree with you about the precision argument, but I'd add that there's a whole other potential dimension of gun control that you seem to ignore. There's a big difference for example between it being legal to own a gun and being able to carry it, store it, transport it or shoot it any way or place you want (and yes I know you can't do all those things in the US either but many states seem more up the permissive end of that as far as I can see).
Correlation isn't causation and I think that the UK gun laws are stupid and botched, and only a part of the reason there's relatively little gun crime (being an island tends to help a bit) but I can't help noticing that most of the "western nations" that you'd probably mention in the same list as the US have some sort of gun control and mostly turn out to have 1/2 or less of the per capita murder rate of the US overall. If you want to "unscew the stats", how about ignoring the nations notorious for lawlessness and violence? Or would you consider that would also drop the US from the list?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Nov 2013 @ 9:46am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Drop the skewed stats first, then we'll talk about which gun bans make sense
Well ok, but looking at "intentional homicide per capita", in the stats I'm looking at the US is still only below most of the S/C American countries and a bunch of places with "stan" at the end and above everyone else so I'm not sure that's so great. Also, you were the one talking about mass shootings, so the firearm homicide stats seemed relevant.
You also missed the part where I said I don't think banning guns is the answer. Possibly part of solution might be gun control (in the true sense of the word "control" rather than the politician's usual use of the word, which seems synonymous with "ban"). However, I think it likely that the main source of the problem is elsewhere, which leads back to the question of why the US seems to be so (to use the original poster's phrase) "hostile"?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Nov 2013 @ 9:12am
Re: Re: Re: Can we please go back...
Kind of a logical jump from school to the rich isn't it?
Yes it is, but not an impossible one. Much though blue's rants are famous, I actually bothered to read this one because there weren't any gratuitous ad-homs and there is a grain of a point in there. We have created a society where it is considered the solution to everything to move money around. Governments either throw gobs of money at sound-bite versions of "society's problems" or take it away in taxes to somehow "disincentivise" supposedly wrong behaviour. Laws are often created basically to defend money (copyright for example) and such laws often carry a harsher penalty than crimes against the person - fraud for example often receiving a longer jail term than, say, rape. Increasingly too, it seems someone must be to blame for everything that goes wrong, from an industrial accident to a simple sprained ankle while walking and at the end of the blame is usually someone getting paid. A societical focus on money as a solution encourages governments (whether "helped" to this thinking or not) to create more yes/no boundaries in rules where money can be applied instead of the maybe where human judgement lies. Money-based solutions also inevitably favour those that are very rich because they allow them to manipulate the conditions of win/lose and also to ignore at least some of the supposed "punishment" since the same "fine" will have less impact. That bias encourages those in a position to do so (i.e. primarily the very rich) to support laws that further encourage this separation.
OK I'm stretching a bit and it's a long way from being that simple, I'm just trying to show that it may not be such an impossible logical leap as you imagine no matter the source.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 7 Nov 2013 @ 8:18am
Re: Re:
And the problem with that is???? Notice all the mass shootings are in "gun free zones".
Arguably it could be that the zones you speak of are "gun free" rather than gun free specifically because of the 2nd amendment. Whatever the reason (and no, I don't think banning guns is any kind of answer), it is true that the US has the highest per-capita gun-related homicide rate of basically any developed country in the world that's not central or south America. What would you say is the reason? Certainly on an international stage, America comes off as a gigantic bully the world over, but to the original poster's point, I don't think it's necessarily a dichotomy of ideas between that and this kind of stupid "zero tolerance" stuff. I think both are examples of "We know what's best and we're in biggest and in charge so your opinion doesn't matter".
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Nov 2013 @ 12:32pm
Re: Re: Lottery
As we the taxpayers should for the crime of electing politicians who permit and support this kind of legalized terrorism.
I'd agree with the sentiment, but sadly there seems to be little choice of "type" when it comes to politicians. You can choose the one that you know supports this crap, or you can choose the one who lies through their teeth to get elected then supports this crap.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Nov 2013 @ 10:38am
Serendipity?
Is it just me that finds it serendipitous and perhaps a little ironic that this story comes straight after the one where the NSA claims it has to be able to search anything and everything it wants "to keep us safe". An interesting parallel, no?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Nov 2013 @ 10:34am
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He is likely a drug dealer (or a bad dude known to police) who just didn't have drugs this time
And that makes it OK does it? I'd understood that the point of that Constitution thing was that punishment for a crime is supposed to come after conviction. You know, in a court of law... I don't recall "'Coz we know he's bad and stuff" being justifiable grounds for multiple assaults.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 6 Nov 2013 @ 8:50am
Re: Moving Goalposts
thereby allowing an argument that the programs are better than Stop & Frisk to carry weight.
If that's the goal you've gotta wonder about this particular method don't you?
Though the agency collects data about all U.S. phone calls, NSA employees need to demonstrate “reasonable and articulable suspicion” when they want to access that phone call data.
To me that instantly sets up the comparison as "this is way worse than stop and frisk", they already have the data to "frisk" so to be a valid comparison, you'd have to have constant knowledge of where everyone is and be able to frisk them any time you like.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 5 Nov 2013 @ 4:50am
Yeah, right!
Trevor Timm, over at the Freedom of the Press Foundation wonders if the US State Department will condemn the UK for this activity, noting a long history of the State Department condemning countries who use anti-terror laws to stifle journalism and haven't been giving the US all the illegally obtained intelligence they are using the terror laws to cover up.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 4 Nov 2013 @ 8:39am
Re:
I think they'll need to release every single document.
What, you mean like the "bury 'em in an avalanche of paper" technique favoured by lawyers? Hmm, that might work better than their current tactics come to think of it...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 2 Nov 2013 @ 7:49am
Comedy
You can say, well show me proof that this really worked. I can show you proof that the lack of this really failed. And when you lose 3,000 people, that proof is pretty compelling.
That's an elephant joke, right? Something to do with custard I think...
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2013 @ 2:04pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By my reading of the relevant statute, I don't think that Google Glass violates it, but there is room for interpretation there.
Well, I'm not a lawyer but a plain text reading of the link would suggest that, since (AFAIK) Google Glass can play video and doesn't have a "dedicated lock out while driving", it would be covered by the statute. Of course that means that smartphones would be as well so I guess the question is, would the officer have equally ticketed her for having a smartphone strapped to a mount on the windscreen in lieu of a satnav? Either way it's a dumb law, which is worth a discussion of course
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2013 @ 1:35pm
Re: Re: but...?
and the cop uses the technicality as a little bit of karma.
I guess this is usually the way it happens and I also believe that most stupid laws like this are probably written with the best intentions (though likely a very jerky knee too). However, in the current climate especially, laws like this that clearly don't fit reality strike me as extremely dangerous, if not fatal, to the "free" countries we are supposed to live in. When you are in the situation where you are de-facto guilty of several "crimes" there is always the temptation for law enforcement to use them to circumvent due process when they suspect someone of something more serious that they know they can't prove.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2013 @ 7:36am
but...?
Instead, California Vehicle Code Section 27602 is focused on operating video screens within an automobile that are within view of the operator, such as television screens.
If this ludicrous law applies to google glass, does it not also apply to smartphones? Wouldn't that mean 1/2 of California is likely to be done for it?
OK I'm not in the US, but I imagine I'm hardly unique even there and I've never had a dedicated GPS device and have always used apps on smartphones. In fact several "dedicated GPS devices" I've seen have other functions these days and since not one of such things has "an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive", they would seem to be illegal under this (seemingly very poorly thought out) law.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 1 Nov 2013 @ 3:07am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When does this become TREASON?
I think it should be brought back with a vengeance.
I'd 100% agree with you... if the power to do so was in the hands of a body with some sort of track record nodding towards judgement, impartiality, objectiveness and due process. Unfortunately, if I read you right, it would be the US government... which is rather the opposite.
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 31 Oct 2013 @ 1:50pm
Re: Non-Denial Acknowledgement
You didn't confirm or deny it or talk about it, but you said yes anyway.
Of course you did: Max: "No comment" means "yes." William: No it doesn't. Max: Do you ever masturbate? William: DEFINITELY no comment. Max: You see? It means "yes." - Notting Hill
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 31 Oct 2013 @ 1:33pm
Re: Re: When does this become TREASON?
As awful as it is, it is not treason.
A better question is: "At what point does this violate the oath of office?" Isn't there something in there about defending the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic? Or is that just for the big screen?
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 30 Oct 2013 @ 4:18pm
What a plan!
You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated.
I love this. I have a cunning plan.... clearly many US judges have no concept of the internet so if I arrange for compromising pictures of them doing rude things in their own homes and post them all over the internet where they themselves will never see them, I'm totally in the clear... right? I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that plan?
On the post: Appeals Court Says Defendants In Bogus Copyright Cases 'Are Entitled To A Very Strong Presumption' For Receiving Attorneys' Fees
Seriously?
On the post: School Threatens Child With Expulsion For Halloween Drawings
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for gun control, you seem to be assuming what I mean by it. I'd probably agree with you about the precision argument, but I'd add that there's a whole other potential dimension of gun control that you seem to ignore. There's a big difference for example between it being legal to own a gun and being able to carry it, store it, transport it or shoot it any way or place you want (and yes I know you can't do all those things in the US either but many states seem more up the permissive end of that as far as I can see).
Correlation isn't causation and I think that the UK gun laws are stupid and botched, and only a part of the reason there's relatively little gun crime (being an island tends to help a bit) but I can't help noticing that most of the "western nations" that you'd probably mention in the same list as the US have some sort of gun control and mostly turn out to have 1/2 or less of the per capita murder rate of the US overall. If you want to "unscew the stats", how about ignoring the nations notorious for lawlessness and violence? Or would you consider that would also drop the US from the list?
On the post: School Threatens Child With Expulsion For Halloween Drawings
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You also missed the part where I said I don't think banning guns is the answer. Possibly part of solution might be gun control (in the true sense of the word "control" rather than the politician's usual use of the word, which seems synonymous with "ban"). However, I think it likely that the main source of the problem is elsewhere, which leads back to the question of why the US seems to be so (to use the original poster's phrase) "hostile"?
On the post: School Threatens Child With Expulsion For Halloween Drawings
Re: Re: Re: Can we please go back...
We have created a society where it is considered the solution to everything to move money around. Governments either throw gobs of money at sound-bite versions of "society's problems" or take it away in taxes to somehow "disincentivise" supposedly wrong behaviour.
Laws are often created basically to defend money (copyright for example) and such laws often carry a harsher penalty than crimes against the person - fraud for example often receiving a longer jail term than, say, rape.
Increasingly too, it seems someone must be to blame for everything that goes wrong, from an industrial accident to a simple sprained ankle while walking and at the end of the blame is usually someone getting paid.
A societical focus on money as a solution encourages governments (whether "helped" to this thinking or not) to create more yes/no boundaries in rules where money can be applied instead of the maybe where human judgement lies. Money-based solutions also inevitably favour those that are very rich because they allow them to manipulate the conditions of win/lose and also to ignore at least some of the supposed "punishment" since the same "fine" will have less impact. That bias encourages those in a position to do so (i.e. primarily the very rich) to support laws that further encourage this separation.
OK I'm stretching a bit and it's a long way from being that simple, I'm just trying to show that it may not be such an impossible logical leap as you imagine no matter the source.
On the post: School Threatens Child With Expulsion For Halloween Drawings
Re: Re:
Certainly on an international stage, America comes off as a gigantic bully the world over, but to the original poster's point, I don't think it's necessarily a dichotomy of ideas between that and this kind of stupid "zero tolerance" stuff. I think both are examples of "We know what's best and we're in biggest and in charge so your opinion doesn't matter".
On the post: UK Gov't Losing The Plot: Now Claiming Snowden Leaks Could Help Pedophiles
Re: Re: Re: It's simple
On the post: Cops Subject Man To Rectal Searches, Enemas And A Colonoscopy In Futile Effort To Find Drugs They Swear He Was Hiding
Re: Re: Lottery
On the post: Cops Subject Man To Rectal Searches, Enemas And A Colonoscopy In Futile Effort To Find Drugs They Swear He Was Hiding
Serendipity?
On the post: Cops Subject Man To Rectal Searches, Enemas And A Colonoscopy In Futile Effort To Find Drugs They Swear He Was Hiding
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NSA Official Positively Compares Metadata Searches To Stop And Frisk
Re: Moving Goalposts
On the post: Will State Department Condemn The UK For Using Terror Laws To Stifle Journalism?
Yeah, right!
On the post: Former NSA Boss Says NSA Should Just Reveal Everything Itself And Move On
Re:
On the post: Dumbest Logic Ever: 9/11 Happened Without Today's NSA Surveillance, And That's Proof Why It's Necessary
Comedy
On the post: Google Glass Milestone: Driver Ticketed For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way it's a dumb law, which is worth a discussion of course
On the post: Google Glass Milestone: Driver Ticketed For Wearing Google Glass
Re: Re: but...?
However, in the current climate especially, laws like this that clearly don't fit reality strike me as extremely dangerous, if not fatal, to the "free" countries we are supposed to live in. When you are in the situation where you are de-facto guilty of several "crimes" there is always the temptation for law enforcement to use them to circumvent due process when they suspect someone of something more serious that they know they can't prove.
On the post: Google Glass Milestone: Driver Ticketed For Wearing Google Glass
but...?
OK I'm not in the US, but I imagine I'm hardly unique even there and I've never had a dedicated GPS device and have always used apps on smartphones. In fact several "dedicated GPS devices" I've seen have other functions these days and since not one of such things has "an interlock device that, when the motor vehicle is driven, disables the equipment for all uses except as a visual display as described in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive", they would seem to be illegal under this (seemingly very poorly thought out) law.
On the post: Feinstein Releases Fake NSA Reform Bill, Actually Tries To Legalize Illegal NSA Bulk Data Collection
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When does this become TREASON?
On the post: Was Level 3 The Weak Link That Gave The Feds A Way To Hack Into Google's Network?
Re: Non-Denial Acknowledgement
Max: "No comment" means "yes."
William: No it doesn't.
Max: Do you ever masturbate?
William: DEFINITELY no comment.
Max: You see? It means "yes."
- Notting Hill
On the post: Feinstein Releases Fake NSA Reform Bill, Actually Tries To Legalize Illegal NSA Bulk Data Collection
Re: Re: When does this become TREASON?
On the post: Mike Rogers: You Can't Have Your Privacy Violated If You Don't Know About It
What a plan!
Next >>