'Through our systems and analytics, we focus on the greatest and most active threats in an effort to avoid negatively impacting customer experience.'
Oh by the way look at this other shiny pretty stuff we've been doing to divert your attention from this major fuck up, which we kinda did on purpose to save on customer service costs when you idiots try to use your unactivated cards.
Not that they are perfect but I've been much happier with my credit union than any commercial bank I've used in the last 20 years...
It's not about imagery of the system. The guy in charge of security told them that they could take photographs. It's about the police not wanting people to photograph them abusing their positions and power.
They didn't go there to photograph the police, they went to photograph the system. Clearly the word has gone down from someone to stop people from photographing anything. From what I read they didn't start recording the rent-a-cops until confronted them, which should never have happend in the first place. This may seem like a silly thing to do, but the only way to maintain your rights is to exercise them once in a while - apathy is a friend to tyranny and all that...
Hey, I left after moving there as a kid and living there for over 20 years. California is a beautiful place for the most part but the government really sucks. So I'll make you a deal. We'll all leave, but when you state goes bankrupt and cannot pay it's bills, don't ask us for any money - suck it up and fix your own problems. Deal?
Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.
Yep. The key to this is to behave calmly and rationally (although one might argue that telling the cops to fuck off is the rational thing to do), and to have someone document the incident on video with a hidden camera from a distance, then post that video on Youtube and other places ASAP. A perfectly reasonable response by the photographers, along with the written assurance, the video and a decent lawyer should go a long way towards getting this shit fixed.
Something similar happend to a good friend of mine in Canada of all places. He was taking pictures of some properties that were for sale to review with his business partner, and the local police pulled him over and general police fuckery ensued, and the harassment continued after he idintified himself and explained his business and what he was doing. He had to call a lawyer.
Sometime the authorities can be stupid beyond belief. Do the think that there isn't any imagery of their precious system? Or perhaps that detailed satellite imagery doesn't exist with convient, detailed maps of all potential routes of escape and schedules even? Holy shit, look at that! Better go arrest Google.
Whether copyright law still benefits society is a debatable point
It may be debatable, but many things are debatable. If the law was such that all works were public domain the moment they were created then companies like Microsoft wouldn't exist to produce things like Windows. Oh, wait...
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this. My personal thoughts and beliefs on the matter run counter to the general population on/., but here goes.
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
First, you are completely, absolutely wrong. Copyright is, (quoting Wikipedia which has is right): "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work."
Copying someone else's work is not a right. period. While I disagree strenuously with the *AAs and other assorted fuckery surrounding this issue, your position is one of hey, you can't stop me so I can do it. This is wrong. I especially support the copyrights of individuals like Brown, and myself. I work my ass off creating applications for companies and I absolutely prohibit them from selling my works or distributing copies, and I will sue anyone that violates that agreement. They do not have the right to copy my work, because I did not grant them that right. End of story.
When you get right down to it, while not exactly the same as stealing or shoplifting, copying someone else's work without permission is still a bad thing, but of course there are degrees. If I download a song to listen to, that is one thing. If I'm doing it because I don't like it enough to pay for it, that's one thing, as arguably I haven't cost the owner anything since I wasn't going to pay for it anyway. If I download it, burn discs and sell it for a profit that is the other end of the scale. Both are wrong, but the latter is much, much worse. This is where I get really pissed off at the *AAs, because they apply the law meant for the latter to the former, which IMO is an abuse of the civil law system, but I digress.
only physical force can stop that person from making copies
So what? This is a lame ass excuse for poor behavior on your part and nothing more. To carry your analogy to it's ludicrous extreme, the only way you can stop me from dragging someone into an alley and slicing their throat is by physical force. Is copying something as bad as killing someone? No, of course it isn't, but excusing behaviors because they can only be prevented by physical force is just fucking stupid.
In general I support the rights of an individual or a company to protect the copyrights of their works. Creating software, writing books, making music and movies is, in realty, a lot of work, and the people involved should enjoy the fruits of their labors, and if you don't want to pay the price, then don't. This does not change my position on the *AAs - they can fuck off and die in a fire.
In short I find your position self-centered, childish and utterly incorrect.
Since there is no year zero, even though years ending in zero are commonly perceived to be the start of decades and centuries, technically, 1901 was the first year of the 20th century, and 2000 was the last year, with 2001 being the first year of the 21st century. This is all based on the Georgian calendar which is what most of the world uses today.
Regardless, even based on popular perception, 1998 is in the 20th century no matter how you slice it. Referring to them as the 1900s is also correct, but the two methods are different.
Of course it's not... now. You still have to be pretty smart to understand all the physics involved, but it's one thing to have to create all that stuff from nothing via experimentation, and another to be fortunate enough to have the existing body of work to build upon.
Slashdot Mirror
In a case similar to Apple iPhone 4/Gizmodo fiasco
Similar except for the fact that in this case that no one really cares...
Apple fan or Apple hater, no one can deny Apple's ability to generate free PR, even inadvertently.
http://www.twttrpoop.com/
Walk in the forrest, and carry a .50 Desert Eagle then...
Will this computer be named Landru?
'Through our systems and analytics, we focus on the greatest and most active threats in an effort to avoid negatively impacting customer experience.'
Oh by the way look at this other shiny pretty stuff we've been doing to divert your attention from this major fuck up, which we kinda did on purpose to save on customer service costs when you idiots try to use your unactivated cards.
Not that they are perfect but I've been much happier with my credit union than any commercial bank I've used in the last 20 years...
It's not about imagery of the system. The guy in charge of security told them that they could take photographs. It's about the police not wanting people to photograph them abusing their positions and power.
They didn't go there to photograph the police, they went to photograph the system. Clearly the word has gone down from someone to stop people from photographing anything. From what I read they didn't start recording the rent-a-cops until confronted them, which should never have happend in the first place. This may seem like a silly thing to do, but the only way to maintain your rights is to exercise them once in a while - apathy is a friend to tyranny and all that...
Hey, I left after moving there as a kid and living there for over 20 years. California is a beautiful place for the most part but the government really sucks. So I'll make you a deal. We'll all leave, but when you state goes bankrupt and cannot pay it's bills, don't ask us for any money - suck it up and fix your own problems. Deal?
Unfortunately, the only way to really fix this is to go ahead and get arrested. That's what it's going to take to turn this crap around; a lot of journalists getting arrested and writing passionate articles about the experience while hopefully being exonerated.
Yep. The key to this is to behave calmly and rationally (although one might argue that telling the cops to fuck off is the rational thing to do), and to have someone document the incident on video with a hidden camera from a distance, then post that video on Youtube and other places ASAP. A perfectly reasonable response by the photographers, along with the written assurance, the video and a decent lawyer should go a long way towards getting this shit fixed.
Something similar happend to a good friend of mine in Canada of all places. He was taking pictures of some properties that were for sale to review with his business partner, and the local police pulled him over and general police fuckery ensued, and the harassment continued after he idintified himself and explained his business and what he was doing. He had to call a lawyer.
Sometime the authorities can be stupid beyond belief. Do the think that there isn't any imagery of their precious system? Or perhaps that detailed satellite imagery doesn't exist with convient, detailed maps of all potential routes of escape and schedules even? Holy shit, look at that! Better go arrest Google.
Bunch of fucking retards.
In almost every orchestra I've seen, the players usually have sheet music in front of them or used it to learn the piece.
Because when the composer was writing and arranging the piece he had the sheet music all done for all the instruments, right?
Whether copyright law still benefits society is a debatable point
It may be debatable, but many things are debatable. If the law was such that all works were public domain the moment they were created then companies like Microsoft wouldn't exist to produce things like Windows. Oh, wait...
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this. My personal thoughts and beliefs on the matter run counter to the general population on /., but here goes.
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
First, you are completely, absolutely wrong. Copyright is, (quoting Wikipedia which has is right): "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work."
Copying someone else's work is not a right. period. While I disagree strenuously with the *AAs and other assorted fuckery surrounding this issue, your position is one of hey, you can't stop me so I can do it. This is wrong. I especially support the copyrights of individuals like Brown, and myself. I work my ass off creating applications for companies and I absolutely prohibit them from selling my works or distributing copies, and I will sue anyone that violates that agreement. They do not have the right to copy my work, because I did not grant them that right. End of story.
When you get right down to it, while not exactly the same as stealing or shoplifting, copying someone else's work without permission is still a bad thing, but of course there are degrees. If I download a song to listen to, that is one thing. If I'm doing it because I don't like it enough to pay for it, that's one thing, as arguably I haven't cost the owner anything since I wasn't going to pay for it anyway. If I download it, burn discs and sell it for a profit that is the other end of the scale. Both are wrong, but the latter is much, much worse. This is where I get really pissed off at the *AAs, because they apply the law meant for the latter to the former, which IMO is an abuse of the civil law system, but I digress.
only physical force can stop that person from making copies
So what? This is a lame ass excuse for poor behavior on your part and nothing more. To carry your analogy to it's ludicrous extreme, the only way you can stop me from dragging someone into an alley and slicing their throat is by physical force. Is copying something as bad as killing someone? No, of course it isn't, but excusing behaviors because they can only be prevented by physical force is just fucking stupid.
In general I support the rights of an individual or a company to protect the copyrights of their works. Creating software, writing books, making music and movies is, in realty, a lot of work, and the people involved should enjoy the fruits of their labors, and if you don't want to pay the price, then don't. This does not change my position on the *AAs - they can fuck off and die in a fire.
In short I find your position self-centered, childish and utterly incorrect.
And most people don't have issues with the iPhone 4 either. What's your point? That if you don't have any issues no one will?
You didn't try very hard then. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nexus+one+antenna+issues
I smell an Apple hater who likes to avoid unpleasant facts
Since there is no year zero, even though years ending in zero are commonly perceived to be the start of decades and centuries, technically, 1901 was the first year of the 20th century, and 2000 was the last year, with 2001 being the first year of the 21st century. This is all based on the Georgian calendar which is what most of the world uses today.
Regardless, even based on popular perception, 1998 is in the 20th century no matter how you slice it. Referring to them as the 1900s is also correct, but the two methods are different.
Note that the Nexus One suffers from the same problem with 3G reception if you grip the phone along the metal strip at the back.
Of course it's not... now. You still have to be pretty smart to understand all the physics involved, but it's one thing to have to create all that stuff from nothing via experimentation, and another to be fortunate enough to have the existing body of work to build upon.
if (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE') !=-1)
{
alert("Please get a browser that doesn't suck.");
window.location = "http://getfirefox.com";
}
I sleep with mine under my pillow
at "Secure"
CRTs respond quite well to a 30-06 or a dear slug...
I've seen Jersey Shore. I'd have to say that Jersey is full up.
What the fuck do you want, emotionless robots?
Actually, yes; That's EXACTLY what I want. Even better if the robot speaks with a proper British accent.
the organization will attempt to present material in a way to maximize impact
Pretty sure this applies to the WSJ, too, and for that matter every other commercial "news" agency.
Touche. I'd forgotten about this one.
The awards list [pbs.org] alone should be enough to counter your argument that there is a comparable alternative.
Industry mutual masturbation is not a counter argument, but the rest of your point stands.