As almost any seriously invested gamer can tell you, looking good is the real endgame to most any game that has costume options. The game that I have the most hours in (over 2500 hours) I have on more then one occasion spent an entire nights worth of time working up my outfit as well as that of my entire bridge crew.
They are going to try and push it through on Thursday, the day before everyone breaks and goes home for 4th of July weekend counting on some possible opponents not being present to begin with.
But then you would have the Unions screaming their heads off about "being too intrusive to their privacy" or "causing the officer to double think themselves during an incident and having it go bad".
Personally, I think the officers should have no control over the camera. If they call in to Disptach saying they are doing xyz, dispatch turns the camera on when they respond and log it in and the camera stays on till the officer calls back in and reports the incident over. This way only official logged actions are on record, if something happens and there is no log of them calling in or camera footage then the officer was possibly acting out. Camera turns on automatically if their weapon is drawn or they go full lights and sirens on their cruiser.
And while we are at it how about we sue gun makers. They have to know that their guns will encourage people to go out and shoot someone. Since they haven't done enough to stop that they should be held responsible also.
So. NBC Universal and National Geographic are about to get hit with a copyright abuse suit right? Doesn't matter if the ContentID system pinged it without user input, they are still responsible for any actions it might take on their behalf.
When someone violates the law, sure. But again, if SCOTUS would step in when the other two branches try and pass a law (passes both houses of Congress and the President has signed it) that is patently unconstitutional it would stop a lot of bullshit from happening in the future.
The Courts are supposed to be the third leg of the checks and balances. They really should be directly involved in doing just that instead of waiting around till someone gets hammered.
I really hope we get some kind of response from SCOTUS without having to wait for a lawsuit. With the childish bickering going on between the Legislative and Executive branches (and the stupidity happening inside Congress..) they really need to have their peer slap some sense into them.
When a law or executive order is plainly unconstitutional SCOTUS need to stand up and say No. Waiting until someone brings a suit showing harm is a disservice to protecting the rights of the people they are supposed to be serving.
These rules and regulations aren't really things that can be changed overnight. Any change to laws has to get published with enough lead time before enforcement for those effected by it to make process changes to comply. The FCC can just drag their feet on when the enforcement date is.
So.. they finally hand over the logs and people comb through them and do find a proof. Then what? "We found bad acting going on, you need to undo the changes you made and hold another comment period." "OK, that will take about 3 years or so to undo."? I mean it is pretty much a fait accompli at this point, it is easier for them to beg for forgiveness then it is for them to fix the issue.
55 vehicles, 2 helicopters, 1 mobile command center, 2 swat teams and who knows how many officers.. for one guy. Did they think they were storming a fortified militia compound with a company of men armed with automatic heavy weapons or something. This is not a proportionate response.
As happy as I am to see this happen, I have to wonder if the fine is even going to be a fraction of the amount they earned selling the information. It is all well and good to censor and punish them for the violation of the law, but when the payoff is many times the value of the fine it doesn't act as any kind of real deterrent.
This was my comment from one month ago when the article saying the FCC was going to fine them was published. I am relieved that my expectations were not set that high so as to be disappointed by the amount of this fine. The fact that someone is actually contesting this amount vs the amount they likely made off the practice is ludicrous.
For example, regulators could say that internet platforms must publish annual data on the “prevalence” of content that violates their policies, and that companies must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the prevalence of violating content remains below some standard threshold. If prevalence rises above this threshold, then the company might be subject to greater oversight, specific improvement plans, or—in the case of repeated systematic failures—fines.
Is he really suggesting that if your site happens to attract more trolls and ITGs the government should step in because you have had to nuke too many of their posts? All that is going to lead to is LESS moderation because they dont want to run the risk of crossing that "prevalence" line.
Do these people never watch the news? When a security researcher goes public (after likely having told you privately) about some pretty basic and glaring flaws in your process, what makes you think that insulting and corporate denying is going to make any of what they said untrue?
The impression I got was that this app is a halfassed job. What do you want to bet that if you looked real hard into that contract you would find something that wasn't on the up and up or some kind of backroom deal.
If you are showing those movies as the actual event to draw the crowds for your fundraiser, no you can't do that. This is a case of one of the parents bringing something to keep the kids occupied out out of the way while they were working. The showing of the movie was incidental to the actual fundraiser and the kids had no way of influencing the outcome of the fundraiser.
The parents are going to complain about this and the kids are going to hear it. Disney running roughshod over copyright laws like this causes people to ignore said laws and their kids pick up on that and do the same.
And car makers when a drunk driver plows into a crowd and kills a dozen people, or gun manufacturers when a mentally disturbed person goes full auto in a school and kills a bunch of kids.
If a maker of a physical good can't be sued for the actions of a user, why should Facebook and Google be held responsible for the postings of users of their digital goods?
As happy as I am to see this happen, I have to wonder if the fine is even going to be a fraction of the amount they earned selling the information. It is all well and good to censor and punish them for the violation of the law, but when the payoff is many times the value of the fine it doesn't act as any kind of real deterrent.
On the post: WoW Alters Its Character Creation System to Add Diversity
As almost any seriously invested gamer can tell you, looking good is the real endgame to most any game that has costume options. The game that I have the most hours in (over 2500 hours) I have on more then one occasion spent an entire nights worth of time working up my outfit as well as that of my entire bridge crew.
On the post: Senate Waters Down EARN IT At The Last Minute; Gives Civil Liberties Groups No Time To Point Out The Many Remaining Problems
They are going to try and push it through on Thursday, the day before everyone breaks and goes home for 4th of July weekend counting on some possible opponents not being present to begin with.
On the post: Police Memo Says Officers Raiding A Journalist's Home Were Instructed To Turn Off Their Body Cameras
Re:
But then you would have the Unions screaming their heads off about "being too intrusive to their privacy" or "causing the officer to double think themselves during an incident and having it go bad".
Personally, I think the officers should have no control over the camera. If they call in to Disptach saying they are doing xyz, dispatch turns the camera on when they respond and log it in and the camera stays on till the officer calls back in and reports the incident over. This way only official logged actions are on record, if something happens and there is no log of them calling in or camera footage then the officer was possibly acting out. Camera turns on automatically if their weapon is drawn or they go full lights and sirens on their cruiser.
On the post: Cars, Guns, Cider, And Snapchat Don't Cause Crime
And while we are at it how about we sue gun makers. They have to know that their guns will encourage people to go out and shoot someone. Since they haven't done enough to stop that they should be held responsible also.
On the post: Just As The Copyright Office Tries To Ignore The Problem Of Bad Takedowns, NBC & Disney Take Down NASA's Public Domain Space Launch
So. NBC Universal and National Geographic are about to get hit with a copyright abuse suit right? Doesn't matter if the ContentID system pinged it without user input, they are still responsible for any actions it might take on their behalf.
On the post: The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proactive Supreme Court?
When someone violates the law, sure. But again, if SCOTUS would step in when the other two branches try and pass a law (passes both houses of Congress and the President has signed it) that is patently unconstitutional it would stop a lot of bullshit from happening in the future.
On the post: The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
Re: Re: Proactive Supreme Court?
The Courts are supposed to be the third leg of the checks and balances. They really should be directly involved in doing just that instead of waiting around till someone gets hammered.
On the post: The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless
Proactive Supreme Court?
I really hope we get some kind of response from SCOTUS without having to wait for a lawsuit. With the childish bickering going on between the Legislative and Executive branches (and the stupidity happening inside Congress..) they really need to have their peer slap some sense into them.
When a law or executive order is plainly unconstitutional SCOTUS need to stand up and say No. Waiting until someone brings a suit showing harm is a disservice to protecting the rights of the people they are supposed to be serving.
On the post: Judge Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Fake Net Neutrality Comments
Re: Re:
These rules and regulations aren't really things that can be changed overnight. Any change to laws has to get published with enough lead time before enforcement for those effected by it to make process changes to comply. The FCC can just drag their feet on when the enforcement date is.
On the post: Judge Orders FCC To Hand Over Data On Fake Net Neutrality Comments
So.. they finally hand over the logs and people comb through them and do find a proof. Then what? "We found bad acting going on, you need to undo the changes you made and hold another comment period." "OK, that will take about 3 years or so to undo."? I mean it is pretty much a fait accompli at this point, it is easier for them to beg for forgiveness then it is for them to fix the issue.
On the post: Ninth Circuit Says Man Can't Sue Officers Who Destroyed His Home To Capture An Unarmed Homeless Man
55 vehicles, 2 helicopters, 1 mobile command center, 2 swat teams and who knows how many officers.. for one guy. Did they think they were storming a fortified militia compound with a company of men armed with automatic heavy weapons or something. This is not a proportionate response.
On the post: Volunteers 3D-Print Unobtainable $11,000 Valve For $1 To Keep Covid-19 Patients Alive; Original Manufacturer Threatens To Sue
I know it isn't in the US, but if the manufacture is impeding the progress of (medical) science with their patent then it should be revoked.
On the post: T-Mobile Cares So Much About Consumer Privacy, It's Fighting The FCC's Flimsy Fine For Location Data Sharing
This was my comment from one month ago when the article saying the FCC was going to fine them was published. I am relieved that my expectations were not set that high so as to be disappointed by the amount of this fine. The fact that someone is actually contesting this amount vs the amount they likely made off the practice is ludicrous.
On the post: Mark Zuckerberg Suggests Getting Rid Of Section 230; Maybe People Should Stop Pretending It's A Gift To Facebook
Is he really suggesting that if your site happens to attract more trolls and ITGs the government should step in because you have had to nuke too many of their posts? All that is going to lead to is LESS moderation because they dont want to run the risk of crossing that "prevalence" line.
On the post: Surprise! MIT Study Claims Voatz E-Voting Technology Is A Security Dumpster Fire
Do these people never watch the news? When a security researcher goes public (after likely having told you privately) about some pretty basic and glaring flaws in your process, what makes you think that insulting and corporate denying is going to make any of what they said untrue?
The impression I got was that this app is a halfassed job. What do you want to bet that if you looked real hard into that contract you would find something that wasn't on the up and up or some kind of backroom deal.
On the post: Disney's Licensing Dogs Charge Underserved School District A Third Of Fundraiser Money For Playing 'Lion King' DVD
Re: Disney's Side
If you are showing those movies as the actual event to draw the crowds for your fundraiser, no you can't do that. This is a case of one of the parents bringing something to keep the kids occupied out out of the way while they were working. The showing of the movie was incidental to the actual fundraiser and the kids had no way of influencing the outcome of the fundraiser.
The parents are going to complain about this and the kids are going to hear it. Disney running roughshod over copyright laws like this causes people to ignore said laws and their kids pick up on that and do the same.
On the post: The Plot Against Section 230 Is Being Run By Big Legacy Companies Who Failed To Adapt To The Internet
Re:
And car makers when a drunk driver plows into a crowd and kills a dozen people, or gun manufacturers when a mentally disturbed person goes full auto in a school and kills a bunch of kids.
If a maker of a physical good can't be sued for the actions of a user, why should Facebook and Google be held responsible for the postings of users of their digital goods?
On the post: 1 Year Later, FCC Finally Admits Wireless Carriers Broke The Law On Location Data
As happy as I am to see this happen, I have to wonder if the fine is even going to be a fraction of the amount they earned selling the information. It is all well and good to censor and punish them for the violation of the law, but when the payoff is many times the value of the fine it doesn't act as any kind of real deterrent.
On the post: Facebook Pays $550 Million Settlement In Illinois Facial Recognition Lawsuit, Which Could Pose Problems For Clearview
Re:
Because buzz words sell!
On the post: Facebook Pays $550 Million Settlement In Illinois Facial Recognition Lawsuit, Which Could Pose Problems For Clearview
Which,as we all know, have databases that are the most secure things in the world.
/s
Next >>