There also need to be rules for overturned requests.
If Company A issues a takedown request against something on my website, and I successfully appeal the claim, that needs to be a strike against Company A.
Three strikes and Company A is barred from making DMCA requests (either permanently or for some set timeframe). This would instantly stop these companies from issuing mass auto-generated takedown requests.
There's no good reason for curling in the first place, let alone gender divides within curling.
Interesting, but it was the 2nd question that bears more relevance to the actual issue.
If someone sells masks (i.e. outdoor/hiking stores, Halloween stores, etc) is the seller liable if someone wears the mask to commit a crime?
TOR is just a mask. A means to obscure yourself
Should we arrest anyone we see wearing a mask? Should we arrest people who sell masks?
Agreed. That is my "in a perfect world" version of what cops are. I probably just didn't phrase it well enough.
No. I want the right to decide to do something for pay.
Looking into the oldest profession, are you?
Just because you WANT to do something for money doesn't mean that it's legal to do so.
IMO, you're conflating the roles of Police and Judges. A judge should be impartial and neutral. They determine if laws are broken or if certain acts even violate laws (for any of the myriad events that aren't spelled out to the exact letter in writing, such as TFA) and mete out proper punishment when laws are broken
Police are boots on the street, and need to be more personal and empathetic. Their role is to keep everyone safe, even if that does occasionally mean keeping people safe from themselves and their own actions.
And at the end of the day, even if cops and judges were 100% True Neutral, that would be viewed as an overall positive by Joe Public. They're enforcing laws, catching bad guys, not harassing law abiding citizens, keeping us all safe, etc. The filter on my water pitcher isn't inherently good or evil. It simply does what it's designed to do: impartially filter out the crud I don't want to drink. And I appreciate this action. I like my water filter.
But as with all things, money infects the proceedings. Police chiefs need money for brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions, to ensure whoever gets elected lets them keep their cushy job. Elected official like to run with campaign puffery like "we caught 10x more criminals during my term, as compared to the previous mayor." So the order of the day becomes less about protecting people, and more about gotta catch em all. Get as many tickets as possible. Invent some new illegal-thing so that we can arrest people. Install red-light cameras, despite the fact that they increase accidents and endanger the people. Who cares about that, they practically print money.
Add in the War on (Drugs, Terrorism, etc) and we've built a very hostile relationship between police and civilians. Police and judges are no longer performing the actions for which they were designed.
Highly doubtful. Too easy to circumvent (not that current cuffs are impossible to beat)
If they wanted to get high-speed with handcuff locks, it would most likely be a physical dongle with a complete enshrouded NFC device. It would have some kind of spring-loaded trap door type mechanism. Sticking the key into the cuffs pulls back the door, NFC does it's magic and the cuffs open. Something like that
Welcome to the new paradigm. The Earth plus plastic
Honestly, while I always agreed with the premise, it seems to have taken much less time than I would have thought.
They code part has given way to monetary transactions.
Instead of typing idkfa to get all the weapons, you can buy those guns for a dollar each as DLC.
Instead of typing the Konami code to get extra lives, you have to buy them with micro-transactions.
The "code" is now your credit card number. Type that in, and get extra power.
The ruling actually spells it out "imminent threat" as a physical threat.
Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape. Law enforcement officers remain free to examine the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon—say, to determine whether there is a razor blade hidden between the phone and its case. Once an officer has secured a phone and eliminated any potential physical threats, however, data on the phone can endanger no one.
Simple solution: Require every uniformed officer to wear a Go-Pro (or similar device) with very VERY strict guidelines and harsh punishment for data that "just happens to go missing."
While I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, I'll go ahead and respond. Maybe someone else will read through it and learn something.
Really? Two people working together lose their freedom of speech just because they happen to be working together? You will next suggest shutting down the NYT editorial department, I suppose?
It's funny that you mention strawman later, because that's exactly what this is. You're setting up a false argument on my behalf (that would be the "completely fabricating" part), so that you can beat that straw man down. No where did I ever say that the people working together would lose their freedom of speech. In fact, I said quite the opposite in my previous reply, and will say it again here. The people (that is, the actual human beings) still have all the rights that any individual has. They can still speak freely. Their rights are not abated in any way.
You don't own the company you work for, so this is irrelevant. The rights of the company to freedom of speech should be equivalent to the rights of the owners of the company, since the company does what they say and speaks for them.
Who cares? Private companies are owned and run by people. Those people should decide what the companies do and say. If you want the company to do or say something different, start your own business and spend your own money. What is this, communism?
Speaking of logical fallacies : That communism snark is full of Appeal to Emotion and Ad Hominem, with just a touch of Bandwagon. Or maybe communism is just a red herring
As for the rest of that comment, how does lack of ownership make my opinion irrelevant? For instance: I support Net Neutrality, should I quit my job at Comcast? I'm just a cable tech, but the Corporate guys are using the revenue I generate for the company to fight against Net Neutrality. Not their own inflated salaries. They're not opening their personal wallets to fight for something they personally believe in (which is fully within their rights) but instead, they're spending the corporate revenue that I help generate to fight on behalf of their personal issues.
And therein lies the real rub. Even if I wanted to ditch these guys and go self employed or work for a competitor, I can't. I'm a cable/wire tech, and Comcast has a lock-tight monopoly in the area. They've already leveraged corporate revenues to establish an illegal business practice (in clear violation of antitrust laws) Now they're layering illegal practices on top of illegal practices on top of illegal practices.
Truth be told though, I'd much rather attack the problem from the other side, as proposed and discussed way back in TFA. Limit the total revenue that a politician can spend on campaigns, from all sources, and more strictly monitor gifts/bribes. Not only will this solve the root problem of Corpos buying politicians by the bucket, but it will allow the politician to actually do their jobs and legislate, instead of spending their entire terms fundraising to compete with the challenger who has nothing but free time to fundraise.
Suing a corporation has nothing to do with them being people, and everything to do with them being deflector shield for the criminals in charge.
Case in point: General Motors. GM knowingly allowed a defect pass into production, and that defect killed over a dozen people. Somewhere along the line someone (Director, VP, or CEO) decided that it was cost effective to just let people die, rather than issuing a recall and fixing the defect. But that person is legally NOT culpable for negligence or any malfeasance. The corporation "GM" will get sued, will probably pay out some wrongful death suits, and back to business as usual.
That's not to say that corporations as legal targets is an entirely bad idea. Suing the corporation ensures a somewhat speedy resolution to the case for the victims. If we had to wait and dig through emails and history to see who approved the defect, nothing would ever get solved. Just look at what's going on with the IRS inquiry. "Oops, we lost that drive
Corporations are legal targets for litigation. Still doesn't make them people, persons, citizens, or any other such thing.
NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater
