1) Typically the systems monitoring, if not the systems themselves, is dumped on the police along with the funding. I agree in principle that police data systems should be handled by an arms-length agency without ties to any particular police service. I also believe this should include their body cams, interview room video, and even their fleet and weapons/ammo tracking. They should not have any oversight over their own data because that leads to the potential for abuse.

2) At least where I am... officers can query, but queries of federal databases are audited and monitored. You've never seen someone walked out of a building faster than when they are caught with their hand in that particular cookie jar. And yes, charges happen for the serious incidents. However, that still leaves a lot of room for abuse of non-federal data.

And that title is backed by the fact that a decade ago or so I was implementing proper auditing to track cops because they were... abusing video systems and it made it into the news.

Cops are just people, the badge doesn't confer ethics or strength of character. It often does confer a sense of superiority to the general public and a belief that they're above some of the rules the rest of us abide by.

Even the best, most upright cop should never be taken at their word - there should always be some form of oversight. Because they're humans.

You also have to give them achievable parameters. "You are always responsible" is not realistic. In some cases someone else is, in fact, responsible. And that's the rub of regulation, not that I think this means we shouldn't regulate, but it's going to always be true that doing it well takes effort. You can only ever reasonably expect that people are moving forwards (at best) and doing what is reasonably and humanly possible, and hopefully advancing the state of the art. Determining whether or not they are doing that is inherently complex.

That's how it used to work here in the USA. Then the subsidies were terminated in favor of forcing students to get loans. Then a US senator led a campaign to prevent those students from discharging that debt through bankruptcy. That senator's name was (and is) Joseph R. Biden.

The boomers got the handout. I don't want anything they didn't get.

I don't expect to get it. I do expect to immediately discount any bullshit from the hypocrites who got it and think I shouldn't get it.

You didn't get it, and you're insisting nobody deserves it because you didn't get it, which is sad. You're sad.

OK, how do we provide this feedback? The article is chock-full of links, but not one for that. It gives strong "get fucked" energy.

Since it's not worth putting out the effort to figure out where to submit some comments they definitely won't give a fuck about anyway: In no way is it a "first class" anything when it's only for GNOME and only in a snap. Let us know when it's ready for prime time so we can test it out and decide if we care. There's a 0% chance I'm going to use GNOME or snap.

So, "People With Disabilities Don't Exist" then?

My father was recently paralyzed by Guillain-Barré, so I'll let him know, thanks.

Yes.

So you moved the goalposts and declared victory? Good work, clown.

HFDWHhwHAHQAHHAHAHAHAHHAHa HA HAHAHHAHAHAH ahHAHAHAHAH HA AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAH

Theres a bit of a magic trick with a lot of it.

These things are *realy* good at drudge work. Shitty reactjs sites. wordpress themes. The kind of stuff you give to the fresh recruit from university, whos still got enough vigor in him to tolerate working on mind numbing web shit all day. But you give it a hard problem, race conditions in a multithreaded code, cache chaos, or worse mashing it all together and debugging memory leaks in a cached multithreaded system across multiple language translation layers in a system designed by insane architecture astronauts on meth, and they fall to pieces. I mean, its impressive, but its not going to be replacing senior devs anytime soon.

Probably one of the most brilliant people of the century who we lost due to bigotry.

Sadly, one of so many. Recently found out my best friend in highschool had suicided likely because he had been outed as gay. All I can think of is he should have told me, I'd have supported him, he's hadly the only gay friend I ever had. And in retrospect it should have been bleedingly obvious, the man would practically run from any woman who showed him affection, and he was pretty dandy. Singing in a hair metal band and being kinda..... camp with all the frizzed hair and leather tassles and shit. Think motley crue or poison or whatever. But it was the 1980s and people where pretty brutal to young gay people back then.

Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
The real issue here is the gamers being sold software whose functionality is tied to third-party servers and denied first sale doctrine (the ability to transfer/resell their license if they want to someone else).

Thats always been a gross simplification of the rights generally involved with a software sale. While yes, technically its a license to use software, rather than the software itself, license sales have always had a series of expectations associated with them in law, common law and in user expectations. And those expectations matter in a courtroom.

Most of the world consumer law is very clear that if you give a license to use something, and its sold as "buy" rather than "rent" or "time limited" , its not revokable and its subject to the same sort of consumer protection laws buying a toaster or a car has. Most importantly that it remains fit for purpose for the natural lifetime of the product, and that term "lifetime" is absolutely not "until we tire of letting you use that thing you paid for" but rather "How long would a reasonable consumer believe they can use this before its basically bitrot". To simplify that, assume it means "as long as the physical software is capable of running without a rewrite" and NOT "until we send the kill-command to the DRM".

The tension here is that software is attempting to move to a service model whilst trying to retain the language of a product model. You dont purchase a pool cleaning man, you hire a pool cleaning man. Well, unless your in a southern state during a terrible time in history, I suppose.

And thats where cases like this the complainant stands a good chance of winning. Because if California law has strong protections (A lot of america *doesnt* , but europe* and australia but apparently not canada for reasons that are mystifying to me, have strong protections) then if it can be shown that at the point of purchase it was not made clear that this product was time limited or was going to be made unavailable to people who purchased it, then the complainants have a strong case for deceptive advertising.

* I am aware europe just voted down a 'stop killing games' law. I am surprised by that, because honestly, it should have been the default anyway. I smell the acrid stench of industry lobbyists foul deeds

The difference is that it's not mass transit. It arguably should have been regulated more though, because and only because it cost The People money to chase after the dead.

What is this devilry?

Never seen one before! Is that basically a filter coffee thing with the filter around all sides for convenience?

My main filter (it's the one at work) is one of these:

https://www.nisbets.co.uk/novo...

It takes a rather large paper filter. Less convenient for one cup, but it'll crank out 12, and keep them warm while cranking out 12 more.

Your solutions don't solve anything. e.g. "The department can't evade the bits they're actually able to do" means only that the argument will be over what they are able to do.

It still can be, if you've got a couple hundred bucks.