So many games have narratives, backstory, or what have you which utterly fall apart at the slightest prodding.
Because this doesn't exist in other formats?
Books, movies... They often have plot holes. Sometimes it's so huge you could drive an alien mothership through them. Sometimes it's in the details. Nowadays in particular, movies are "great" as long as they are visually impressive. To paraphrase one of the most cynical movie commenter I know, you miss one special effect and the whole internet is after your blood; your story doesn't make sense and nobody notices.
(Here is a link to that website, but I'll warn you first: it's french, both in language and tone. unodieuxconnard.com
Note that his specialty is to point out the inconsistencies. He has other subjects, such as interesting war anecdotes, but I linked straight to his movie spoiler section. Also... spoiler warning: the whole section is about spoilers. :D )
You see, games are not unique in that their narrative can fail. It's simply because the authors, regardless of the art form, are human. Imperfect. And so are their creations.
Depending on the genre, games have visual art (both static and animated), music, narrative...
It's not only art, it's a combination of multiple previous art forms with the addition of interaction. (Interaction has featured in some art as previously defined, but it's basically central to the game format.)
It's high time they get the same recognition as other art forms.
But resistance to change is the heart of most existing awards, so it will take time to be fully integrated.
If Giustra is truly a B.C. resident (which seems questionable), he should absolutely be able to get relief from B.C. courts.
No, you still have to prove you have standing in your venue of choice, meaning you have to demonstrate harm. Otherwise, I can buy a shack in China and sue anyone there even if my reputation in China is totally non-existent. That's not how this all works.
In this case, the plaintiff showed that 1. he has residence in BC and 2. he notified Twitter of his residence in BC (through letter with a heading that includes his BC address, which is pretty weak but might count if the judge is already inclined to accommodate the plaintiff). That's all. Nothing about how his reputation in BC will be harmed by deleted and geo-blocked conspiracy-theory tweets. Just "I live in BC (sometimes) and I told Twitter just that." Omitting that Twitter did act on this notice... even if it's not doing enough by Giustra's standards.
Is Giustra forum shopping? Maybe he is. But so is Twitter [...]
Maybe? No: definitely. Which wouldn't be a problem if he had proper standing in BC. Venue shopping is not evil in itself, unless it's based on legal standards rather than the merits of the case.
As for Twitter, as far as I'll admit that they're also trying to do their own venue shopping, I see them as having more standing in CA than in BC because everything points there: Twitter's location, Twitter's TOS, Giustra's residence in California, the content of the tweets being all about US, the posters likely being in the US (to be confirmed though), and Twitter's actions deleting some tweets and geo-blocking the other tweets from being visible in BC. (Not that geo-blocking is absolute, but it does limit the scope of their impact.)
If you allow venue shopping without clear standing, rich men will buy homes in countries with little to no free speech protection and launch their attacks from there. That is definitely not ok by any standard, except those of censorious thin-skinned rich guys. And that means the Internet will only be as free as the country with the least free speech protection will allow. Or worse if you consider that all the restrictions of all countries will apply. China's ban on Tiananmen history, Germany's ban on nazi symbols, etc. All will apply. That's why standing matters.
There are more debatable cases, but this one is pretty clear in comparison.
So if the trend is that piracy is on the significant downswing, you would think we'd see the IP industries ratchet down the rhetoric on the evils of piracy.
Not when we've seen them operate with the old "ever guilty" assumption: if piracy traffic goes up, obviously piracy is on the rise; if piracy traffic goes down, obviously pirates learned how to hide better.
There are other cases where this kind of reasoning is used. It's obviously flawed, but logic is not how they work. Assuming conclusions and working backwards from there is their SOP. They never doubt their own business model, they never doubt their own communication tone. They tell their lies, back them with sophistry and random stats ("lies, damned lies and statistics") and bribe politicians when all else fails. (Ah sorry, they "totally not bribe" politicians, they just speak to them in the dollar language. Thanks, SCOTUS.)
I still disagree with the statement that "guns don't kill people", but I understand your position better. I went through the debate above, but kind of lost track of your position in the regulation debate. Sorry about this one.
You don't use the expression to oppose regulation, but more to point to legal responsibility (judging the murderer, not the manufacturer), where I would agree with you.
My problem with this sentence is how it tends to be used to erase the gun itself from the chain of causality in the death of people. As if gun-related accidents or crimes have an equal chance of happening in the absence of guns. That's what I disagree with. And that's something that you seem to acknowledge since you do support better regulation. We just don't use the quote itself in the same way.
And some of those charges... "endangering an injured victim"? How do you endanger someone who's already dead?
Nothing proves the victim died on the spot. Might have been alive for a little while. Calling 911 immediately might have saved his life. Might not, we'll never know for sure, but an autopsy might give hints. The charge is probably there because of this possibility.
And "hindering one's own apprehension"? Wouldn't that apply to literally every criminal?
I was also interested in this one, but this might have something to do with the fact that the suspect is a cop. Trying to game the system in ways normal citizens can't might result in additional charges.
First I hear of this one though. Would be pretty funny if the circumstances weren't so dramatic.
So do swords and knives.
And planes, and cars, golf clubs, chain saws. Any my favourite, the spork.
Bad faith arguments. None of these items are as designed and efficient for the purpose of killing as guns. Read my anecdote about the school shooting vs school... "knifing".
And some of the items you mentioned have very strict regulations regarding their uses. Which leads to...
Where in all my postings about the need for restrictions and tighter laws did I ever say anything remotely close to that.
Not sure about you personally. I mentioned that's the view of a large enough population in the US. And since they use the same rhetoric you do, I consider that they are worth mentioning in my response to you.
If you don't have a problem with gun regulations, don't pretend that "guns don't kill people" because they absolutely do. And that's the reason they should be way more regulated. And also the reason people need to stop feeling entitled to guns without the responsibilities that go with them.\
All that to say that we should definitely blame and sue the actual murderer. Judicially, that's the prime responsible. If there were laws broken in the sale of the gun, then this should also be investigated and prosecuted. (nb: I don't think the website is responsible, unless it willfully circumvented any gun sale regulation.)
Overall though, legislative action needs to be taken to address the problem of guns in general. "Guns don't kill people" is just an excuse used by certain gun advocacy groups to prevent this necessary national discussion. To keep the US among the top nations in terms of gun-related death, accidental and/or criminal. And when you repeat their propaganda, you are part of the problem.
(You're free to do it, just don't complain about being criticized.)
We're advancing towards it.
We have unmanned drones doing the shooting and exploding abroad. They are still remote-controlled rather than fully automated, but there is a lot of automation involved already, and they are always pushing for more.
Also, a gun-based trap doesn't have a will, but it is setup to fire on its own. (That's illegal though. I remember a case on the subject.)
Granted, guns don't kill people by themselves, but the near omnipresence of guns in the US with little to no culture of responsible use of firearms does escalate situations. What can be a simple brawl turns into a deadly shooting.
I still remember an interesting coincidence a few years ago. It's anecdotal, but very illustrative.
On the same week, there were two violent incidents in two schools located in different countries. One in the US with guns, one in China with a knife. One of them had several deaths and several more people injured; the other ended with a few minor injuries. Can you guess which incident ended with each conclusion?
Guns kill people. They are designed to do so, even in the hands of someone weak and untrained. (Though it does so more efficiently with training.) They don't have their own will and the power to act by themselves (mostly), but they are not excluded from the chain of causality leading to death.
Denying that is just diversion from the simple fact that you have way more criminal and accidental deaths by firearms in the US than any other countries. Including some countries at war, and others that also have a pretty open gun culture. The US is the only country that actively defend the right to bear arms without the conscience that guns kill. Because of stupid rhetoric like yours.
Guns are considered by a large population in the US, and only in the US, as a right that must not have any restrictions. Funny enough, the same people accept restrictions on any other right, because that's what the law is: restrictions on your rights. You have a right to free speech, unless you threaten or libel someone. You have a right to drive a car, but you need a license. You have a right to sell food, but you must conform to regulations related to its storage and disposal... Nearly every single aspect of our lives has some law or regulation to make sure you don't harm others in some way. But strangely enough, the one thing that is designed to harm shouldn't be restricted in any way? Allow me to consider this the most stupid political view ever.
Former employees said it was impossible to not know the phones were being purchased and used by criminals.
The same goes for guns, hammers and nails, cars, etc. all of which can be used for criminal activities. The problem is that it's difficult to know when any specific sale is made by a criminal. (Though there are background checks that can be made, even this is not a 100% sure way to identify them.)
Despite that, gun, hammer and nail, or car sales are not forbidden. By the same standard, there is no reason to forbid the use of encrypted phones, as long as the retailer and manufacturer don't have any knowledge that a specific buyer has criminal intent and also don't encourage it in some way.
(If they make a commercial saying "come buy my phone so you can sell drugs peacefully", then you argue that they have some responsibility. Then again, police departments get away with exactly that.)
Seriously, why would encrypted devices come with a presumption of guilt to begin with? Aside from the paranoia that some law enforcement agencies themselves try to instill, that is.
This is the same unfounded fears that politicians create, then use to justify stupid policies that tend toward authoritarianism.
This also mirrors a lot of the copyright industries propaganda against online data storage services. "Guilty because there is a possibility that it can be used in a way that we don't like." I knew this felt familiar.
Re: At least have the guts to own your sleaze Charter
That's basically the same way corruption works in politics in general.
Corporations pay politicians through PACs and other similar structures, the politicians coincidentally do their bidding... but it's not a quid pro quo because the corporations don't explicitly ask for anything in exchange.
The latter would be bribery and it's illegal, but the former is perfectly legal. It's even documented in freely accessible documents. Just so you can tell who is "not bribing" who. Because it's so much better when you know how you're getting scammed.
To be honest, this is a trend in multiple domains.
Business, politics, taxes... "mistakes" are ok when made by the people on top, and are unforgivable when made by common citizens.
And the very definition of "mistake" is on a whole different level based on who made it. You made a rounding error in your tax declaration and you get a full audit, with large penalty fees. A politician "forgets" to declare millions of dollar and they get a stern talking-to.
It was already adjudicated in court that running from the police is not a reasonable cause of suspicion, particularly when you're black, because the cops have already shown that they tend to racial profiling and harassment. Hence being afraid of the police is now a reasonable attitude. (Not to mention sometimes a question of life and death.)
Also, there have been a very large number of cases where cops beat and possibly kill even unresisting individuals. They sometimes do that on camera, entitled as they are. And many are innocent, not that it matters because they were suspected, disrespectful, sometimes both... in other words they displeased the high and mighty judge, jury and executioner all rolled in one blue-clad officer.
People, black people in particular, might stop running away from the police the day they see change in policing. They day when racial profiling and police abuse stop. They day cops are actually held accountable for their actions more often than on some extremely mediatic cases.
And no, even being a criminal doesn't mean cops have the right to shoot you down. (Particular if your "crime" is an expired tag.) Remember: if criminals have no rights, then neither do you. Because it means police suspicion is enough to get you killed, regardless of actual guilt.
the threat of harm must be “judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
Granted.
Now, this cop was obviously not a "reasonable officer" to begin with.
From the perspective of a reasonable officer, he was not in danger.
For the perspective of this specific cop, he was indeed in danger... only because he did something totally unreasonable.
Why does everything a cop do gets treated as "reasonable" by this court?
What need is there for the "reasonable officer" standard if you don't question the reason of the officer to begin with?
Should people start asking for police accountability and judge accountability now?
By showing them how difficult it can be to make split-second decisions in potentially deadly situations, the ATF is hoping to head off questioning of officers' actions during shootings by police officers.
Split-second decision...
Or in the case of George Floyd, split-569-seconds decision.
They kept pressing on the man's neck for more than 9 minutes. Several minutes past the point he was unconscious. If that's not long enough for cops to decide on a better course of action, they don't deserve to enforce the law. And there were four of them on the scene.
This is one rare case where they were actually convicted for their actions, but how many wrongful deaths are going unpunished because they didn't catch broad public attention?
The ATF is just one of many entities trying to white-wash the whole institutionalized police abuse. At the expense of its victims, since they're funded with tax money. This should be more widely denounced.
How many times does the officer have to shout, ‘drop the gun!’
That's another good one. How many times do officers actually shout "drop the gun" before firing? In some cases, zero. In some cases, they do... but the other individual doesn't have a gun to drop. (These cases are not mutually exclusive by the way.)
What are you supposed to do when a visibly nervous cop yells orders at you that you cannot physically obey?
"Drop the gun"? What gun?
"Get out of the car"? I'm paraplegic.
And the all-too-common: "Stop resisting"? I'm on the ground, face-down, handcuffed, with three grown men on top of me (possibly beating me bloody). What resisting?
These PR campaigns are absolutely horrendous as they do not address the concerns of the citizens. They just present obviously difficult situations when the citizens talk about situations where the cops were the ones creating the situation to begin with. Situations where things would have been fine had the cops been calm, unbiased... or not there at all. (Very questionable night raids.)
This is simply an insult to every victim of police abuse ever. And to the intelligence of the citizens who call for better policing.
Now, Intel has indicated that it will be patching this issue out and is working directly with game developers to do that.
Intel, please don't. Let this be a lesson to game companies, otherwise you will always have to limit creativity in order to accommodate these parasites of the video game industry.
DRMs are a plague and now we want the plague to decide how to develop new architecture to benefit them? My only option is to avoid DRM'ed games to the best of my ability, so I'll continue voting with my wallet.
(I imagine an actual plague making people not take precautions against contagion... Oh, wait. That sounds familiar.)
Canada is part of America. Just not part of the USA.
I knew that some people in the US think that their country is all there is to America, but they should learn that there are other countries on this continent. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, just to name a few. :D
Granted, there are many cases where people refer to "the USA" as simply "America", but that's just a figure of speech.
Now rubber-stamped mergers are not a problem unique to the US. Not even to the American continent for that matter.
I'm also amused at how some of these companies are trying to pretend that less competition is better for customers and the economy at large. They remind me of a tobacco company that tried to advertise cigarettes as actually good for your health.
There was a John Oliver piece on this kind of dubious evidence.
But this is overall the product of a competitive model of justice. One where victory is way too often more important to the law enforcement and the prosecution than the truth. Making cops lie in court (for any normal citizen, that would be perjury; for a cop, it's a Tuesday), fabricating evidence, ignoring exculpatory evidence, pretending that something is "established science" when it's just a guy speaking with confidence (e.g. bite marks), masking the uncertainty in an actual scientific evaluation of evidence (e.g. fingerprints and DNA),...
This is because, for them, the ends justifies the means, and neither the ends nor the means are right.
The ends is to win by convicting someone. Anyone. Being actually guilty matters less than looking guilty enough to be used as a target.
The means is literally anything going your way, including the most illegal things in the book. Anything that the average citizen would be jailed for, they can do with impunity or a slap on the wrist (99% of the time).
The US justice system has its incentives completely wrong, and a lot of outright criminals (by normal standards) manning the ship thanks to "qualified immunity" and other equivalents.
On the post: Video Game 'Hades' Makes History As First Video Game To Win A Hugo Award
Because this doesn't exist in other formats?
Books, movies... They often have plot holes. Sometimes it's so huge you could drive an alien mothership through them. Sometimes it's in the details. Nowadays in particular, movies are "great" as long as they are visually impressive. To paraphrase one of the most cynical movie commenter I know, you miss one special effect and the whole internet is after your blood; your story doesn't make sense and nobody notices.
(Here is a link to that website, but I'll warn you first: it's french, both in language and tone.
unodieuxconnard.com
Note that his specialty is to point out the inconsistencies. He has other subjects, such as interesting war anecdotes, but I linked straight to his movie spoiler section. Also... spoiler warning: the whole section is about spoilers. :D )
You see, games are not unique in that their narrative can fail. It's simply because the authors, regardless of the art form, are human. Imperfect. And so are their creations.
On the post: Video Game 'Hades' Makes History As First Video Game To Win A Hugo Award
Depending on the genre, games have visual art (both static and animated), music, narrative...
It's not only art, it's a combination of multiple previous art forms with the addition of interaction. (Interaction has featured in some art as previously defined, but it's basically central to the game format.)
It's high time they get the same recognition as other art forms.
But resistance to change is the heart of most existing awards, so it will take time to be fully integrated.
On the post: Canada Strikes Again: Allows Lawsuit Against Twitter To Proceed Over Speech Of Twitter Users
Re: Who is forum shopping here anyway?
No, you still have to prove you have standing in your venue of choice, meaning you have to demonstrate harm. Otherwise, I can buy a shack in China and sue anyone there even if my reputation in China is totally non-existent. That's not how this all works.
In this case, the plaintiff showed that 1. he has residence in BC and 2. he notified Twitter of his residence in BC (through letter with a heading that includes his BC address, which is pretty weak but might count if the judge is already inclined to accommodate the plaintiff). That's all. Nothing about how his reputation in BC will be harmed by deleted and geo-blocked conspiracy-theory tweets. Just "I live in BC (sometimes) and I told Twitter just that." Omitting that Twitter did act on this notice... even if it's not doing enough by Giustra's standards.
Maybe? No: definitely. Which wouldn't be a problem if he had proper standing in BC. Venue shopping is not evil in itself, unless it's based on legal standards rather than the merits of the case.
As for Twitter, as far as I'll admit that they're also trying to do their own venue shopping, I see them as having more standing in CA than in BC because everything points there: Twitter's location, Twitter's TOS, Giustra's residence in California, the content of the tweets being all about US, the posters likely being in the US (to be confirmed though), and Twitter's actions deleting some tweets and geo-blocking the other tweets from being visible in BC. (Not that geo-blocking is absolute, but it does limit the scope of their impact.)
If you allow venue shopping without clear standing, rich men will buy homes in countries with little to no free speech protection and launch their attacks from there. That is definitely not ok by any standard, except those of censorious thin-skinned rich guys. And that means the Internet will only be as free as the country with the least free speech protection will allow. Or worse if you consider that all the restrictions of all countries will apply. China's ban on Tiananmen history, Germany's ban on nazi symbols, etc. All will apply. That's why standing matters.
There are more debatable cases, but this one is pretty clear in comparison.
On the post: EUIPO Study Indicates It's Likely That Piracy Traffic Has Decreased Significantly, Even During The Pandemic
Not when we've seen them operate with the old "ever guilty" assumption: if piracy traffic goes up, obviously piracy is on the rise; if piracy traffic goes down, obviously pirates learned how to hide better.
There are other cases where this kind of reasoning is used. It's obviously flawed, but logic is not how they work. Assuming conclusions and working backwards from there is their SOP. They never doubt their own business model, they never doubt their own communication tone. They tell their lies, back them with sophistry and random stats ("lies, damned lies and statistics") and bribe politicians when all else fails. (Ah sorry, they "totally not bribe" politicians, they just speak to them in the dollar language. Thanks, SCOTUS.)
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
I still disagree with the statement that "guns don't kill people", but I understand your position better. I went through the debate above, but kind of lost track of your position in the regulation debate. Sorry about this one.
You don't use the expression to oppose regulation, but more to point to legal responsibility (judging the murderer, not the manufacturer), where I would agree with you.
My problem with this sentence is how it tends to be used to erase the gun itself from the chain of causality in the death of people. As if gun-related accidents or crimes have an equal chance of happening in the absence of guns. That's what I disagree with. And that's something that you seem to acknowledge since you do support better regulation. We just don't use the quote itself in the same way.
On the post: New Jersey Cop Facing Charges After Hitting A Man With His Car And Driving His Body To His Mom's House
Re: Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes
Nothing proves the victim died on the spot. Might have been alive for a little while. Calling 911 immediately might have saved his life. Might not, we'll never know for sure, but an autopsy might give hints. The charge is probably there because of this possibility.
I was also interested in this one, but this might have something to do with the fact that the suspect is a cop. Trying to game the system in ways normal citizens can't might result in additional charges.
First I hear of this one though. Would be pretty funny if the circumstances weren't so dramatic.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
Bad faith arguments. None of these items are as designed and efficient for the purpose of killing as guns. Read my anecdote about the school shooting vs school... "knifing".
And some of the items you mentioned have very strict regulations regarding their uses. Which leads to...
Not sure about you personally. I mentioned that's the view of a large enough population in the US. And since they use the same rhetoric you do, I consider that they are worth mentioning in my response to you.
If you don't have a problem with gun regulations, don't pretend that "guns don't kill people" because they absolutely do. And that's the reason they should be way more regulated. And also the reason people need to stop feeling entitled to guns without the responsibilities that go with them.\
All that to say that we should definitely blame and sue the actual murderer. Judicially, that's the prime responsible. If there were laws broken in the sale of the gun, then this should also be investigated and prosecuted. (nb: I don't think the website is responsible, unless it willfully circumvented any gun sale regulation.)
Overall though, legislative action needs to be taken to address the problem of guns in general. "Guns don't kill people" is just an excuse used by certain gun advocacy groups to prevent this necessary national discussion. To keep the US among the top nations in terms of gun-related death, accidental and/or criminal. And when you repeat their propaganda, you are part of the problem.
(You're free to do it, just don't complain about being criticized.)
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Totally without merit
We're advancing towards it.
We have unmanned drones doing the shooting and exploding abroad. They are still remote-controlled rather than fully automated, but there is a lot of automation involved already, and they are always pushing for more.
Also, a gun-based trap doesn't have a will, but it is setup to fire on its own. (That's illegal though. I remember a case on the subject.)
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Totally without merit
BS.
Pure and simple BS.
Granted, guns don't kill people by themselves, but the near omnipresence of guns in the US with little to no culture of responsible use of firearms does escalate situations. What can be a simple brawl turns into a deadly shooting.
I still remember an interesting coincidence a few years ago. It's anecdotal, but very illustrative.
On the same week, there were two violent incidents in two schools located in different countries. One in the US with guns, one in China with a knife. One of them had several deaths and several more people injured; the other ended with a few minor injuries. Can you guess which incident ended with each conclusion?
Guns kill people. They are designed to do so, even in the hands of someone weak and untrained. (Though it does so more efficiently with training.) They don't have their own will and the power to act by themselves (mostly), but they are not excluded from the chain of causality leading to death.
Denying that is just diversion from the simple fact that you have way more criminal and accidental deaths by firearms in the US than any other countries. Including some countries at war, and others that also have a pretty open gun culture. The US is the only country that actively defend the right to bear arms without the conscience that guns kill. Because of stupid rhetoric like yours.
Guns are considered by a large population in the US, and only in the US, as a right that must not have any restrictions. Funny enough, the same people accept restrictions on any other right, because that's what the law is: restrictions on your rights. You have a right to free speech, unless you threaten or libel someone. You have a right to drive a car, but you need a license. You have a right to sell food, but you must conform to regulations related to its storage and disposal... Nearly every single aspect of our lives has some law or regulation to make sure you don't harm others in some way. But strangely enough, the one thing that is designed to harm shouldn't be restricted in any way? Allow me to consider this the most stupid political view ever.
On the post: Encrypted Phone Seller Facing Criminal Charges Fights Back, Says Sky Global Isn't Complicit In Customers' Illegal Acts
The same goes for guns, hammers and nails, cars, etc. all of which can be used for criminal activities. The problem is that it's difficult to know when any specific sale is made by a criminal. (Though there are background checks that can be made, even this is not a 100% sure way to identify them.)
Despite that, gun, hammer and nail, or car sales are not forbidden. By the same standard, there is no reason to forbid the use of encrypted phones, as long as the retailer and manufacturer don't have any knowledge that a specific buyer has criminal intent and also don't encourage it in some way.
(If they make a commercial saying "come buy my phone so you can sell drugs peacefully", then you argue that they have some responsibility. Then again, police departments get away with exactly that.)
Seriously, why would encrypted devices come with a presumption of guilt to begin with? Aside from the paranoia that some law enforcement agencies themselves try to instill, that is.
This is the same unfounded fears that politicians create, then use to justify stupid policies that tend toward authoritarianism.
This also mirrors a lot of the copyright industries propaganda against online data storage services. "Guilty because there is a possibility that it can be used in a way that we don't like." I knew this felt familiar.
On the post: Charter Spectrum Funds Front Group To Try And Kill Small Maine Town's Plan For Better Broadband
Re: At least have the guts to own your sleaze Charter
That's basically the same way corruption works in politics in general.
Corporations pay politicians through PACs and other similar structures, the politicians coincidentally do their bidding... but it's not a quid pro quo because the corporations don't explicitly ask for anything in exchange.
The latter would be bribery and it's illegal, but the former is perfectly legal. It's even documented in freely accessible documents. Just so you can tell who is "not bribing" who. Because it's so much better when you know how you're getting scammed.
On the post: More Than 100 Hertz Customers Are Suing The Company For Falsely Reporting Rented Vehicles As Stolen
Re: Charming priorities
To be honest, this is a trend in multiple domains.
Business, politics, taxes... "mistakes" are ok when made by the people on top, and are unforgivable when made by common citizens.
And the very definition of "mistake" is on a whole different level based on who made it. You made a rounding error in your tax declaration and you get a full audit, with large penalty fees. A politician "forgets" to declare millions of dollar and they get a stern talking-to.
On the post: Rock Band Doomscroll Has Trademark App Opposed By id Software
Single-common-word trademarks, how can this ever be a problem?
Don't start me on common expressions either,
Otherwise I'll rant for hours.
Only when creativity is obvious,
Might I consider it legitimate.
Didn't we breach the subject earlier?
Often it's plain ridiculous.
Onerous it may be to corporate,
Maybe it's time to reclaim language as ours.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Awards Immunity To Cop Who Thought It Would Be A Good Idea To Jump On A Moving Car And Kill The Driver
Re: Ideas
It was already adjudicated in court that running from the police is not a reasonable cause of suspicion, particularly when you're black, because the cops have already shown that they tend to racial profiling and harassment. Hence being afraid of the police is now a reasonable attitude. (Not to mention sometimes a question of life and death.)
Also, there have been a very large number of cases where cops beat and possibly kill even unresisting individuals. They sometimes do that on camera, entitled as they are. And many are innocent, not that it matters because they were suspected, disrespectful, sometimes both... in other words they displeased the high and mighty judge, jury and executioner all rolled in one blue-clad officer.
People, black people in particular, might stop running away from the police the day they see change in policing. They day when racial profiling and police abuse stop. They day cops are actually held accountable for their actions more often than on some extremely mediatic cases.
And no, even being a criminal doesn't mean cops have the right to shoot you down. (Particular if your "crime" is an expired tag.) Remember: if criminals have no rights, then neither do you. Because it means police suspicion is enough to get you killed, regardless of actual guilt.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Awards Immunity To Cop Who Thought It Would Be A Good Idea To Jump On A Moving Car And Kill The Driver
Granted.
Now, this cop was obviously not a "reasonable officer" to begin with.
From the perspective of a reasonable officer, he was not in danger.
For the perspective of this specific cop, he was indeed in danger... only because he did something totally unreasonable.
Why does everything a cop do gets treated as "reasonable" by this court?
What need is there for the "reasonable officer" standard if you don't question the reason of the officer to begin with?
Should people start asking for police accountability and judge accountability now?
On the post: ATF Goes On Tour To Teach Journalists That Cops Are Usually Right When They Kill Someone
Split-second decision...
Or in the case of George Floyd, split-569-seconds decision.
They kept pressing on the man's neck for more than 9 minutes. Several minutes past the point he was unconscious. If that's not long enough for cops to decide on a better course of action, they don't deserve to enforce the law. And there were four of them on the scene.
This is one rare case where they were actually convicted for their actions, but how many wrongful deaths are going unpunished because they didn't catch broad public attention?
The ATF is just one of many entities trying to white-wash the whole institutionalized police abuse. At the expense of its victims, since they're funded with tax money. This should be more widely denounced.
That's another good one. How many times do officers actually shout "drop the gun" before firing? In some cases, zero. In some cases, they do... but the other individual doesn't have a gun to drop. (These cases are not mutually exclusive by the way.)
What are you supposed to do when a visibly nervous cop yells orders at you that you cannot physically obey?
"Drop the gun"? What gun?
"Get out of the car"? I'm paraplegic.
And the all-too-common: "Stop resisting"? I'm on the ground, face-down, handcuffed, with three grown men on top of me (possibly beating me bloody). What resisting?
These PR campaigns are absolutely horrendous as they do not address the concerns of the citizens. They just present obviously difficult situations when the citizens talk about situations where the cops were the ones creating the situation to begin with. Situations where things would have been fine had the cops been calm, unbiased... or not there at all. (Very questionable night raids.)
This is simply an insult to every victim of police abuse ever. And to the intelligence of the citizens who call for better policing.
On the post: DRM Breaking Games Again, This Time Due To New Intel Chip Architecture
Intel, please don't. Let this be a lesson to game companies, otherwise you will always have to limit creativity in order to accommodate these parasites of the video game industry.
DRMs are a plague and now we want the plague to decide how to develop new architecture to benefit them? My only option is to avoid DRM'ed games to the best of my ability, so I'll continue voting with my wallet.
(I imagine an actual plague making people not take precautions against contagion... Oh, wait. That sounds familiar.)
On the post: Canadian Telecom Giant Rogers Mired In Bizarre Executive Power Feud That Began With A Butt Dial
Canada is part of America. Just not part of the USA.
I knew that some people in the US think that their country is all there is to America, but they should learn that there are other countries on this continent. Canada, Mexico, Brazil, just to name a few. :D
Granted, there are many cases where people refer to "the USA" as simply "America", but that's just a figure of speech.
Now rubber-stamped mergers are not a problem unique to the US. Not even to the American continent for that matter.
I'm also amused at how some of these companies are trying to pretend that less competition is better for customers and the economy at large. They remind me of a tobacco company that tried to advertise cigarettes as actually good for your health.
On the post: Private Tech Companies Are Making Law Enforcement's Opacity Problem Even Worse
There was a John Oliver piece on this kind of dubious evidence.
But this is overall the product of a competitive model of justice. One where victory is way too often more important to the law enforcement and the prosecution than the truth. Making cops lie in court (for any normal citizen, that would be perjury; for a cop, it's a Tuesday), fabricating evidence, ignoring exculpatory evidence, pretending that something is "established science" when it's just a guy speaking with confidence (e.g. bite marks), masking the uncertainty in an actual scientific evaluation of evidence (e.g. fingerprints and DNA),...
This is because, for them, the ends justifies the means, and neither the ends nor the means are right.
The ends is to win by convicting someone. Anyone. Being actually guilty matters less than looking guilty enough to be used as a target.
The means is literally anything going your way, including the most illegal things in the book. Anything that the average citizen would be jailed for, they can do with impunity or a slap on the wrist (99% of the time).
The US justice system has its incentives completely wrong, and a lot of outright criminals (by normal standards) manning the ship thanks to "qualified immunity" and other equivalents.
On the post: Private Tech Companies Are Making Law Enforcement's Opacity Problem Even Worse
I was always amused by this kind of instructions.
"The jury will ignore that statement."
"Please strike this from the records."
etc.
As if we could rewrite the past by pretending to ignore it.
Next >>