Yes I did watch the video. You can't tell from the video......If she was "stopped in the middle of the street" unless you are familiar with that particular street....if she was blocking traffic. No signs of honking, yelling, headlights from behind her car...if she was breaking traffic laws. As far as I know it's not illegal to stop in the middle of the street if you aren't blocking traffic and you're still behind the wheel.
But mainly because it's not just about this one situation. There have been many, many incidents where cops confiscated cameras or harassed people with cameras for no reason other than CYA. So I'll get my panties in a bunch if I damn well feel like it.
Heh, you're funny. Let the lawyers and the court figure it out. That worked out well for Eric Garner's family, the Ferguson case or almost any case where they try to get a cop indicted.
I like the pension fund suggestion. I had been thinking along the lines of forcing them to be personally liable by stipulating that any police departments/union/organization are strictly forbidden from assisting in their defense.
I realize a lot of things in the life of a cop suck. Dangerous situations/dealing with assholes/the petty stupidity of the public at large/etc. I even agree that they ought to be granted some measure of privacy. However, I've never heard of a case much less any outrage over when someone's phone was confiscated because they were filming a cop eating lunch or sitting around in their backyard when off duty. The only reason I can see that a cop wouldn't want their on-duty official actions filmed is because they are worried that they would get in trouble over something they did wrong.
I wouldn't like it if someone in my workplace was recording everything I do especially in a critical situation... Oh wait, I work in IT. We do record all that stuff. I wouldn't like it if someone in my work filming stuff I was doing especially in really busy stressfull situation... Oh wait, I used to work retail. They have cameras everywhere.
I keep circling back around to what makes cops special that they think they get to bully people, confiscate their stuff and tamper with them to cover their own (or other officers) asses?
You know, people probably wouldn't hate the RIAA so much if they changed their tactics from the "Trying to make a point/set legal precedent" to one of "trying to get the recording industries fair share"
Wander with me a moment if you will...
DRM - Change the DRM so that instead of trying to block copying of media it's more of a tattletale. Periodically it informs the RIAA what songs you have, when you copy them, whatever. I don't have this completely fleshed out but it would probably entail some sort of RIAA song registry.
Then the RIAA takes the same vague sources of data that they have now and instead of suing someone they send them a bill for a set reasonable fee for each song plus a 50% "You were being bad" fine. The consumer has several options upon receipt:
1. Pay the bill - Somehow a system of what music you have would have to be registered somewhere.
2. Refute the bill - Set up an arbitration process that doesn't actually involve a court. Some third party looks at the evidence and makes a binding decision. This process would have to have some mandatory fee to prevent everyone from clogging the system. Fee to be paid by the loser! So if you do have "stolen" music and you lose, you'd pay the cost+fine+arbitration fee. Ouch! But in the case of all these other people now being sued it'd be a lot cheaper. Ooo, and if they got their greasy hands on evidence that you tried to screw with the tattletale DRM then there would be an additional fine.
3. Ignore the bill - After a certain length of time the RIAA would have the option of pursuing it like any other debt. Black marks on your credit rating, "selling" the debt to third-party debt collection agencies etc. Or if it's some massive amount of songs/money then they could sue you in the appropriate civil court.
The end result of this? A new source of income for the recording industry. Potentially it could change the primary distribution model to one of mainly media downloads. (Why leave out the MPAA?)
For music the DRM could allow you to play the song a set number of times before you have to pay or delete it. I doubt the movie industry would go for that. Maybe a set number of minutes into the movie like hotel room pay-per-view used to be? "Warning! If you continue to view this movie you will be required to pay $XX.XX or you can stop now."
I think it's sort of sad. The switch to debit cards does reflect reality. On the other hand it eliminates all the practice counting that kids used to get by counting out the money.
The one advantage to paper money is it has more reality to kids than a debit card. To them (and many of us) using a debit card means we no longer have to pay attention to how much cash we have and how much money we spend because the bank keeps track of all that. Plus, it's just that much less imagination/mental effort kids have to expend to play the game.
Hmmm, could have sworn that the airplane was invented in the US.
Oh well, it's seems rather obvious that MS missed the truly glaring stupidity of the article and instead chose to vent his/her nationalistic low self esteem.
It must suck to be from a country that routinely gets plowed over by the great American marketing machine. (Canada, for instance.)
There's a basic assumption in this article that offends me. That being the only thing people use PC's for are email and games.
Ok, for the home environment there is an argument to be made for this. However, in the business environment I just don't buy it. In the future will we going to be doing software and database development on our cell phones? I don't think so!
As for playing games, can you compare playing a game on your cell phone's 2 inch LCD to a 19in high resolution monitor? Then let's look at the vaunted Sony Playstation. Sure it's a powerful computer in it's own right. However, to that powerful computer lets add a modem and some software so that you can access the internet. Hey, let's add a few more bells and whistles to it so that it can do even *more* things. What do you have then? Why, it sounds like a PC to me! (Fricken Brain trusts. This guy writes for the NY Times? Wow, must be a quality column.)
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I did watch the video. ...If she was "stopped in the middle of the street" unless you are familiar with that particular street. ...if she was blocking traffic. No signs of honking, yelling, headlights from behind her car ...if she was breaking traffic laws. As far as I know it's not illegal to stop in the middle of the street if you aren't blocking traffic and you're still behind the wheel.
You can't tell from the video...
But mainly because it's not just about this one situation. There have been many, many incidents where cops confiscated cameras or harassed people with cameras for no reason other than CYA. So I'll get my panties in a bunch if I damn well feel like it.
Heh, you're funny. Let the lawyers and the court figure it out. That worked out well for Eric Garner's family, the Ferguson case or almost any case where they try to get a cop indicted.
I like the pension fund suggestion. I had been thinking along the lines of forcing them to be personally liable by stipulating that any police departments/union/organization are strictly forbidden from assisting in their defense.
I realize a lot of things in the life of a cop suck. Dangerous situations/dealing with assholes/the petty stupidity of the public at large/etc. I even agree that they ought to be granted some measure of privacy. However, I've never heard of a case much less any outrage over when someone's phone was confiscated because they were filming a cop eating lunch or sitting around in their backyard when off duty. The only reason I can see that a cop wouldn't want their on-duty official actions filmed is because they are worried that they would get in trouble over something they did wrong.
I wouldn't like it if someone in my workplace was recording everything I do especially in a critical situation... Oh wait, I work in IT. We do record all that stuff.
I wouldn't like it if someone in my work filming stuff I was doing especially in really busy stressfull situation... Oh wait, I used to work retail. They have cameras everywhere.
I keep circling back around to what makes cops special that they think they get to bully people, confiscate their stuff and tamper with them to cover their own (or other officers) asses?
I tried it on verison 5.8 and it didn't work.
Golly, Microsoft wants all those users back who migrated to FireFox and are going about their usual methods to get them. I'm stunned.
You know, people probably wouldn't hate the RIAA so much if they changed their tactics from the "Trying to make a point/set legal precedent" to one of "trying to get the recording industries fair share"
Wander with me a moment if you will...
DRM - Change the DRM so that instead of trying to block copying of media it's more of a tattletale. Periodically it informs the RIAA what songs you have, when you copy them, whatever. I don't have this completely fleshed out but it would probably entail some sort of RIAA song registry.
Then the RIAA takes the same vague sources of data that they have now and instead of suing someone they send them a bill for a set reasonable fee for each song plus a 50% "You were being bad" fine. The consumer has several options upon receipt:
1. Pay the bill - Somehow a system of what music you have would have to be registered somewhere.
2. Refute the bill - Set up an arbitration process that doesn't actually involve a court. Some third party looks at the evidence and makes a binding decision. This process would have to have some mandatory fee to prevent everyone from clogging the system. Fee to be paid by the loser! So if you do have "stolen" music and you lose, you'd pay the cost+fine+arbitration fee. Ouch! But in the case of all these other people now being sued it'd be a lot cheaper. Ooo, and if they got their greasy hands on evidence that you tried to screw with the tattletale DRM then there would be an additional fine.
3. Ignore the bill - After a certain length of time the RIAA would have the option of pursuing it like any other debt. Black marks on your credit rating, "selling" the debt to third-party debt collection agencies etc. Or if it's some massive amount of songs/money then they could sue you in the appropriate civil court.
The end result of this? A new source of income for the recording industry. Potentially it could change the primary distribution model to one of mainly media downloads. (Why leave out the MPAA?)
For music the DRM could allow you to play the song a set number of times before you have to pay or delete it. I doubt the movie industry would go for that. Maybe a set number of minutes into the movie like hotel room pay-per-view used to be? "Warning! If you continue to view this movie you will be required to pay $XX.XX or you can stop now."
I think it's sort of sad. The switch to debit cards does reflect reality. On the other hand it eliminates all the practice counting that kids used to get by counting out the money.
The one advantage to paper money is it has more reality to kids than a debit card. To them (and many of us) using a debit card means we no longer have to pay attention to how much cash we have and how much money we spend because the bank keeps track of all that. Plus, it's just that much less imagination/mental effort kids have to expend to play the game.
Hmmm, could have sworn that the airplane was invented in the US. Oh well, it's seems rather obvious that MS missed the truly glaring stupidity of the article and instead chose to vent his/her nationalistic low self esteem. It must suck to be from a country that routinely gets plowed over by the great American marketing machine. (Canada, for instance.)
There's a basic assumption in this article that offends me. That being the only thing people use PC's for are email and games. Ok, for the home environment there is an argument to be made for this. However, in the business environment I just don't buy it. In the future will we going to be doing software and database development on our cell phones? I don't think so! As for playing games, can you compare playing a game on your cell phone's 2 inch LCD to a 19in high resolution monitor? Then let's look at the vaunted Sony Playstation. Sure it's a powerful computer in it's own right. However, to that powerful computer lets add a modem and some software so that you can access the internet. Hey, let's add a few more bells and whistles to it so that it can do even *more* things. What do you have then? Why, it sounds like a PC to me! (Fricken Brain trusts. This guy writes for the NY Times? Wow, must be a quality column.)