Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.
Then how do you justify the statement, "as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more." ?
I don't follow your reasoning. How does anything that becomes a part of the public record stop being public? I can understand correcting the record if there are errors, corrections add to the record. But, I don't see how subtracting data is ever a good thing.
Google takes data and makes it searchable - that's not public record, as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more. That's why Google lost this case, and quite rightly so.
You don't "take" data from the public record, you "share" data from the public record. It doesn't stop being part of the public record just because it gets republished.
One, she made minimum wage, any loss of pay due to unavoidable fees on top of taxes, etc. would reduce her pay below that legal rate. Two, the state she worked in has a requirement that “The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check." Three, there appears be have been no notice given that she would be paid in a non-standard way.
I hope she wins and this predatory practice ends before it gains too much momentum.
I welcome this trend, a few extra confirmation boxes would help.
Can we also get rid of excessively long sigs, embedded graphics, comic sans and outlook stationary too? Or at least made them more difficult to automate.
I agree the analogy does not quite fit. He should have compared blocking BitTorrent to closing freeways because people might exceed the posted speed limit.
Sure a lot of people do it, but we only care about the ones that really abuse it.
I don't know about other countries, but in the US, employers may not ask about the following.
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status
Let the person asking the question know that by asking for the Facebook information, they are using a back door approach to gather information they are not entitled to ask and that you object to giving that information.
Any reasonable employer would not want that legal liability.
Their only option would be to ask the photographer to leave and put them on trespass notice. They would not gain any control of the images taken, those become protected property of the photographer as soon as the image is recorded. Malls are restaurants are treated the same way.
It sounds like they are trying to Trademark the floor itself in an attempt to prevent photographers from photographing it. That is BS, even if the Trademark is upheld, using it in a news story is an acceptable use of the Trademark.
Other trademarked structures are photographed all the time, there are guidelines on how they may be used, but news organizations are given a lot of latitude.
Remember that Trademarks are primary designed to protect consumers and to prevent confusion in the marketplace.
But the Star Wars props aren't original designs. The early ones were Graflex flash guns with very minor modifications. They evolved slightly over the years, but the design didn't originate with Lucas.
Basically George is mad that someone ripped off a design that he ripped off already.
Actually it's not. According to the story, they make no mention of any Star Wars property. Third parties have gotten on the bandwagon and made comparisons, but not the manufacturer.
Besides, the props in the movies were just modified Graflex flash guns. I don't know if Lucas licensed those are not, but his designs are far or original.
What you are getting in the mailbox is most likely a TMC (Total Market Coverage) product. These products exist only to serve as a vehicle to deliver the advertisements. They may be part of the local paper, but they are not the main product, they only exist to generate revenue by giving the advertisers deeper penetration into the market.
The real local newspapers are the ones that cover the activates of the local government, police and schools. They are the ones that play watchdog on local officials, and while they are by no means perfect, they serve a very valuable purpose that won't be easily replaced by your average bloggers. The signal to noise ratio in the blogosphere is just abysmal. Even a poorly run a newspaper provides better information than every local blogger I've read. There may be exceptional bloggers out there, but they only cover a fraction of what needs to be covered.
We don't necessarily need newspapers, but we do need journalism. The problem is that newspapers provide more journalists in more local areas than any other medium. The local TV and radio stations in my area only report on 2 things - What the hear on the police scanner and what they read in our local paper. The same is true with the "news" bloggers. We may think that online news exists independent of newspapers, but that's just not true yet.
I honestly don't care if the companies that own the newspapers die, but if the papers themselves are allowed to die then democracy will certainly suffer for it. A conversion to non-profit might serve us well while we wait for the next big thing to emerge that will successfully replace newspapers.
I believe a re-trial would violate double jeopardy. Someone should look at the cases one and a time and look for abuses. There are bound to be a few cases where the kids were actually guilty of something worth punishing them for. The hard part will be determining what is fair.
So does anyone know if the judges are immune to civil actions? What would it take to strip them of that if they are?
At the risk of feeding a troll. There is no reason to provide any special protections to a "professional" journalist. Anyone that keeps a record of events should enjoy all the protections allowed by law. Having a press card does not make you immune from making mistakes or from being unethical or incompetent. Trust me, I've worked in newspapers for 17 years. I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
The judge and jury.
The better question is who IS suggesting that he made such an offer?
Off the top of my head, I can only imagine a situation where a phone is strongly suspected to contain information relating to a kidnapping, bombing, etc where the information may lead to the rescue of a victim or victims. In other cases they can collect the phone while they wait for a warrant from a judge.
Then how do you justify the statement, "as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more." ?
I don't follow your reasoning. How does anything that becomes a part of the public record stop being public? I can understand correcting the record if there are errors, corrections add to the record. But, I don't see how subtracting data is ever a good thing.
Google takes data and makes it searchable - that's not public record, as soon as you take data from public record and make it searchable then it's not public record any more. That's why Google lost this case, and quite rightly so.
You don't "take" data from the public record, you "share" data from the public record. It doesn't stop being part of the public record just because it gets republished.
If this were true the first amendment would make copyright void.
There are several key issues with this case.
One, she made minimum wage, any loss of pay due to unavoidable fees on top of taxes, etc. would reduce her pay below that legal rate.
Two, the state she worked in has a requirement that “The wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."
Three, there appears be have been no notice given that she would be paid in a non-standard way.
I hope she wins and this predatory practice ends before it gains too much momentum.
This one makes the point well.
http://consumerist.com/2013/06/17/ex-mcdonalds-employee-sues-because-she-doesnt-want-her-paycheck-on-a-prepaid-debit-card/
Maybe Android phone users have better things to do.
I'm am also 46, and it was required reading for my 6th grade daughter this year.
I welcome this trend, a few extra confirmation boxes would help.
Can we also get rid of excessively long sigs, embedded graphics, comic sans and outlook stationary too? Or at least made them more difficult to automate.
She's a Christian. No surprise there; those types are always quick to judge...
So by that definition, I guess you are a Christian too.
Intermediate Black Masshole? Sounds racist.
He should have compared blocking BitTorrent to closing freeways because people might exceed the posted speed limit.
Sure a lot of people do it, but we only care about the ones that really abuse it.
I agree the analogy does not quite fit. He should have compared blocking BitTorrent to closing freeways because people might exceed the posted speed limit.
Sure a lot of people do it, but we only care about the ones that really abuse it.
I don't know about other countries, but in the US, employers may not ask about the following.
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability
Marital/family status
Let the person asking the question know that by asking for the Facebook information, they are using a back door approach to gather information they are not entitled to ask and that you object to giving that information.
Any reasonable employer would not want that legal liability.
Video of the Information Design Lab electronic newspaper.
http://youtu.be/JBEtPQDQNcI
Their only option would be to ask the photographer to leave and put them on trespass notice. They would not gain any control of the images taken, those become protected property of the photographer as soon as the image is recorded. Malls are restaurants are treated the same way.
It sounds like they are trying to Trademark the floor itself in an attempt to prevent photographers from photographing it. That is BS, even if the Trademark is upheld, using it in a news story is an acceptable use of the Trademark.
Other trademarked structures are photographed all the time, there are guidelines on how they may be used, but news organizations are given a lot of latitude.
Remember that Trademarks are primary designed to protect consumers and to prevent confusion in the marketplace.
You get what you pay for.
But the Star Wars props aren't original designs. The early ones were Graflex flash guns with very minor modifications. They evolved slightly over the years, but the design didn't originate with Lucas.
Basically George is mad that someone ripped off a design that he ripped off already.
Actually it's not. According to the story, they make no mention of any Star Wars property. Third parties have gotten on the bandwagon and made comparisons, but not the manufacturer.
Besides, the props in the movies were just modified Graflex flash guns. I don't know if Lucas licensed those are not, but his designs are far or original.
Sure, they misspelled the word "low". They stared it with an "n" instead of an "l" and forgot the final "w".
What you are getting in the mailbox is most likely a TMC (Total Market Coverage) product. These products exist only to serve as a vehicle to deliver the advertisements. They may be part of the local paper, but they are not the main product, they only exist to generate revenue by giving the advertisers deeper penetration into the market.
The real local newspapers are the ones that cover the activates of the local government, police and schools. They are the ones that play watchdog on local officials, and while they are by no means perfect, they serve a very valuable purpose that won't be easily replaced by your average bloggers. The signal to noise ratio in the blogosphere is just abysmal. Even a poorly run a newspaper provides better information than every local blogger I've read. There may be exceptional bloggers out there, but they only cover a fraction of what needs to be covered.
We don't necessarily need newspapers, but we do need journalism. The problem is that newspapers provide more journalists in more local areas than any other medium. The local TV and radio stations in my area only report on 2 things - What the hear on the police scanner and what they read in our local paper. The same is true with the "news" bloggers. We may think that online news exists independent of newspapers, but that's just not true yet.
I honestly don't care if the companies that own the newspapers die, but if the papers themselves are allowed to die then democracy will certainly suffer for it. A conversion to non-profit might serve us well while we wait for the next big thing to emerge that will successfully replace newspapers.
I believe a re-trial would violate double jeopardy. Someone should look at the cases one and a time and look for abuses. There are bound to be a few cases where the kids were actually guilty of something worth punishing them for. The hard part will be determining what is fair.
So does anyone know if the judges are immune to civil actions? What would it take to strip them of that if they are?
At the risk of feeding a troll. There is no reason to provide any special protections to a "professional" journalist. Anyone that keeps a record of events should enjoy all the protections allowed by law. Having a press card does not make you immune from making mistakes or from being unethical or incompetent. Trust me, I've worked in newspapers for 17 years. I've worked with people who are considered processional journalists and with citizen journalists in my community, and there is no reason to legally distinguish between the two.
There is an OSX client also.