I had a 12 hour delay at Gatwick (UK). They gave us a single £2 voucher and nothing else. Had to wait in the terminal. If I had to guess, they would be required to provide accommodation in another hour or two... because after 12 hours they made us board the plane. But then we didn't leave the gate for another 2 hours (and they wouldn't let us back off to sit inside). Total 14 hours. Also British Airways, back in 2000.
If you're with your friend, sure. But if your friend comes up to you and says 'hey, I just robbed a store and killed someone!', you are not legally responsible for the act nor obligated to tell the police. With drunk driving, if you're just a bystander, you're not liable if you know your buddy is drunk driving if you're not with him and not providing him with alcohol. You must act in furtherance of an illegal activity after you have knowledge to be liable.
You're wrong on a couple points. First of all, it's not entirely about stopping violent crimes. If that was the case, it would simply end after a determination that the person didn't have weapons. But in the majority of instances, they rifle through every little thing in your pockets looking for drugs and interrogate you about your activities. Even the small percent of stops that lead to an arrest are overwhelmingly for petty drug possession charges. And further, they wouldn't engage in the despicable tactic of telling people to empty their pockets and then elevating the charge to public display of marijuana, something that continued after Ray Kelly "ordered" them to stop.
Second, calling them "terry stops" is not accurate. Terry requires them to be able to cite "specific and articulable facts" that give them reasonable suspicion to believe the individual was involved in a crime. Also, Terry limits the search to the outer garments solely for the purpose of checking for weapons for officer safety. As noted above, this is not the case. 780 guns from 685,724 (2011) isn't limiting themselves to this standard.
Also, the evidence is quite clear that they have quotas on how many of these stops they have to make. How fair do you think an officer struggling not to get reassigned to traffic duty is going to be? Is he really stopping people to help end violent crime?
And just to add an anecdote, I used to routinely conduct business on a block with one of the highest stop and frisk rates in Manhattan, in East Harlem. But I'm white and clean cut and well dressed. I was never been stopped in over a year of just standing there for 20-30 minutes 3 times a week. And the majority of white people in the neighborhood are there for a particular reason, but I wasn't profiled.
It's perfectly legal to record things with your VCR, and something the average person is able to do. Ripping streams violates the DMCA and the TOS of the providers, and is not something the average person can do. Pretty big difference.
This is the same Scalia who believes the federal government has the authority to arrest and jail you for a plant grown in your own home for your own consumption and never transferred to anyone else. He's just as selective as anyone else about what the original meaning is. You'll never convince me the founding fathers intended the commerce clause to be interpreted the way Scalia did in that case (Gonzales v. Raich).
New front? Where have you been? That's all the drug war is unless you or a loved one is actually the one arrested. If a dealer is busted, it's a minor inconvenience to find one of the 10 dealers who took his spot. If a trafficker loses a major shipment, it's a minor inconvenience since it's a cost of doing business. If a mule goes down, it's a minor inconvenience for everyone else. Hell, Mexico seized a lab with 15 tons of pure meth worth $4 BILLION dollars. That was a minor inconvenience- they didn't even bother to defend it, and there was virtually no impact on availability or prices.
And that's the totality of accomplishment for spending billions and billions every year for decades trying to stop it, while eviscerating the constitution and running a mass incarceration policy that sees higher per capita imprisonment than any nation on earth, so-called 'oppressive' countries included... not to mention all the collateral damage, like an epidemic of forcing people to live in pain, torturing them and being a drain on the economy; or the complete loss of trust in a now profoundly corrupt law enforcement sector which views citizens as an enemy.
While a significant portion of plea bargaining is an abusive deprivation of rights, in certain circumstances it's actually useful. For like, when you know there's absolutely no way you'd be found innocent. And there's other issues around this, but speed matters too. Say you can't make bail or were denied bail on a charge you're clearly guilty of. You can either plea out to probation and community service and be out of jail in a few weeks, or take it to trial and stay in jail for 6-12 months and be highly unlikely to get a lesser sentence anyway.
Take vice crimes off the books and we could improve a lot of this.
That being said, I highly doubt that these things will be tamper proof in the slightest (manufacturers will simply pick the cheapest possible way to comply with the law). Black boxes will be easily hacked so it's a bit of moot point for people who are bad drivers and dont want the proof hanging around (however for good drivers, it does help clear them of fault in an accident).
Because everyone would have the knowledge and skills to do it? The world isn't like/. - only a tiny minority of the general population would be able to do it, just like with the many other things that are so easy to us; we lose sight of what normal people are actually like.
You missed the other thing responsible for nearly as much civil rights loss as terrorism:
- Fighting drugs
The constitution has been gutted in the name of stopping people from voluntarily ingesting certain substances since even before 9/11. I guarantee someone is going to stand up and say, 'Why can't we use this information to stop those evil drug traffickers?' and no one will object.
This is about the Facebook version. The Android version, already run by EA, has neither changed dictionaries nor dropped scores and ratings (I just logged in to check).
Also, I'm a bit confused about the dictionaries. Isn't the Collins/Chambers list for international play? Doesn't the US version still use OWL2+Long Words from NASPA? Or is there only 1 version? I don't play on FB, and TFA doesn't clarify.
This is about the Facebook version. The Android version, already run by EA, has neither changed dictionaries nor dropped scores and ratings (I just logged in to check).
Also, I'm a bit confused about the dictionaries. Isn't the Collins/Chambers list for international play? Doesn't the US version still use OWL2+Long Words from NASPA? Or is there only 1 version? I don't play on FB, and TFA doesn't clarify.
Originalist only where he deems fit. This is the same guy who voted that a plant grown in your own home, consumed only by you, entirely within a single state, where no state law had been broken, was something you are rightly arrested and incarcerated for under federal commerce clause powers (Gonzalez v. Raich). Consistent with his praise of Wickard v. Filburn. You can't possibly think they would have found that acceptable in 1791.
Terrorism or homeland security is just the pretext. I suspect that NSLs are mostly used for non-violent drug offenses. This suspicion is of course based on the fact that one of the other post-9/11 powers, conducting searches and not telling the target until much later (if at all), has been revealed to be used for mostly for non-violent drug offenses and almost never for terrorism (the report I refer to, 65% were for drug cases and well under 1% for terrorism--5 of 763).
Good for you. Not everyone would want it. My use case is different.
I sit 2-3ft away from a 27" screen, and would absolutely love to have a 4K screen in a 27-32" form factor in front of me. I have a second monitor and a laptop to form a 3 screen setup, but the single large screen in the center is my preference for primary tasks. Even though there's limited video content for 4k right now, being able to display more information on the screen would be awesome. And I'm sure 4K content will become more prevalent in the coming years.
Not everyone likes sitting 2ft away from a 27" 1080p screen either, but I do. Use cases vary. Bring on the 4K.
What are you talking about? Of course it can be stolen. If I put a gun to your head, and say "Sign over the rights to your IP in perpetuity or else!" and you comply, I have stolen your IP. Obviously not what we're talking about, but technicalities used to matter around here goddammit, and IP can be stolen.
Its really pretty striking that these are allowed at all. Its not even clear why a judge would issue a warrant for something this unreliable.
Really? It's pretty clear to me. It's just another technical loophole to allow cops to do anything they want to catch [druggies|terrorists|pedophiles]. Or do you really think the Supreme Court says dogs are ok- if the police say they passed a police-administered certification with no real ability to challenge the methods or conduct independent tests, or even know the dogs actual field record (all you can do is ask the dogs handler if his dog is certified, and they can just say they can't talk about field records, and of course they don't have to prove the dog to an independent expert with sound methods)- because they're too dumb to know dogs fail more often than not? Read the decision for Florida v. Harris; it's a complete farce, how they ignored real evidence in favor of 'well the cops say the dog is good'.
I mean seriously, here's how the argument went:
a) Independent testing shows the dog clearly responds to the handlers wishes, both in test courses and the field. In these tests the handler did not know where the drugs were.
b) Police say in their testing with their methods the dog is very accurate. The handlers know where the drugs are in each test. And the field results don't matter, because the dog is so right if drugs arent there now they obviously just moved them.
Supreme Court says (b) is now the law of the land, and sound legal grounds to justify probable cause under the 4th amendment.
As I understood it, people died because they didn't have an adequate supply of naloxone on hand. The need for it would be obvious to anyone who knows even a little about opioids, but assuming you have that on hand (and administer it quickly enough) the risk of fatality is extremely small.
Fire, swimming pools, hot tubs, lava, shotguns, Gallagher, cannons, M80s, trebuchets, toddlers, flame throwers, tanks, grandmothers, that fat gamer dude, gorillas, tornadoes, ninjas, wood chippers... well, you get the idea. In fact, when it comes to destroying a computer kittehs are not anywhere near the top ten.
You tell them, "look, here's the improved level of service and quality we can provide you for a reasonable price."
That statement needs to be true before it's effective. Pirated content provides a better experience. You don't always need to be online and the selection is almost always better. And quality? These days I just download the 1080p streams they post on the web. Personally I hate being at some companies whim and fancy about what seasons they can or cannot carry, can or cannot offer in HD, and when they may just up and discontinue the service.
Although the technical barrier to entry is somewhat higher than simply streaming your shows, no legitimate offering can compete with my 70-show library served up by a couple NAS devices. Sure it's 8TB (and another 3TB for 320 movies, 200 of which are in HD), but it's a complete replacement for TV on any device on my network. Local copies are better than streams for almost every situation (unless you and everyone in your family never want to watch it again).
Also there's a reason for pirating that you forgot to mention: I pay for cable TV. As far as I'm concerned, since it's my right to record anything that airs and edit out commercials and format shift, I have every right to simply download it instead.
By 'action is being taken' I presume you mean something along the lines of "Please don't do this again, or else... or else we'll send you an even more harshly worded letter!"
Slashdot Mirror
I had a 12 hour delay at Gatwick (UK). They gave us a single £2 voucher and nothing else. Had to wait in the terminal. If I had to guess, they would be required to provide accommodation in another hour or two... because after 12 hours they made us board the plane. But then we didn't leave the gate for another 2 hours (and they wouldn't let us back off to sit inside). Total 14 hours. Also British Airways, back in 2000.
If you're with your friend, sure. But if your friend comes up to you and says 'hey, I just robbed a store and killed someone!', you are not legally responsible for the act nor obligated to tell the police. With drunk driving, if you're just a bystander, you're not liable if you know your buddy is drunk driving if you're not with him and not providing him with alcohol. You must act in furtherance of an illegal activity after you have knowledge to be liable.
You're wrong on a couple points. First of all, it's not entirely about stopping violent crimes. If that was the case, it would simply end after a determination that the person didn't have weapons. But in the majority of instances, they rifle through every little thing in your pockets looking for drugs and interrogate you about your activities. Even the small percent of stops that lead to an arrest are overwhelmingly for petty drug possession charges. And further, they wouldn't engage in the despicable tactic of telling people to empty their pockets and then elevating the charge to public display of marijuana, something that continued after Ray Kelly "ordered" them to stop.
Second, calling them "terry stops" is not accurate. Terry requires them to be able to cite "specific and articulable facts" that give them reasonable suspicion to believe the individual was involved in a crime. Also, Terry limits the search to the outer garments solely for the purpose of checking for weapons for officer safety. As noted above, this is not the case. 780 guns from 685,724 (2011) isn't limiting themselves to this standard.
Also, the evidence is quite clear that they have quotas on how many of these stops they have to make. How fair do you think an officer struggling not to get reassigned to traffic duty is going to be? Is he really stopping people to help end violent crime?
And just to add an anecdote, I used to routinely conduct business on a block with one of the highest stop and frisk rates in Manhattan, in East Harlem. But I'm white and clean cut and well dressed. I was never been stopped in over a year of just standing there for 20-30 minutes 3 times a week. And the majority of white people in the neighborhood are there for a particular reason, but I wasn't profiled.
You don't turn the computer on and it just starts streaming porn to your desktop
Clearly you weren't around during the days where plugging in a stock Windows machine resulted in just that if you didn't update it fast enough.
It's perfectly legal to record things with your VCR, and something the average person is able to do. Ripping streams violates the DMCA and the TOS of the providers, and is not something the average person can do. Pretty big difference.
This is the same Scalia who believes the federal government has the authority to arrest and jail you for a plant grown in your own home for your own consumption and never transferred to anyone else. He's just as selective as anyone else about what the original meaning is. You'll never convince me the founding fathers intended the commerce clause to be interpreted the way Scalia did in that case (Gonzales v. Raich).
That's definitely just for you. Just look at all the places that have the death penalty for drug offenses. Doesn't stop it one bit.
New front? Where have you been? That's all the drug war is unless you or a loved one is actually the one arrested. If a dealer is busted, it's a minor inconvenience to find one of the 10 dealers who took his spot. If a trafficker loses a major shipment, it's a minor inconvenience since it's a cost of doing business. If a mule goes down, it's a minor inconvenience for everyone else. Hell, Mexico seized a lab with 15 tons of pure meth worth $4 BILLION dollars. That was a minor inconvenience- they didn't even bother to defend it, and there was virtually no impact on availability or prices.
And that's the totality of accomplishment for spending billions and billions every year for decades trying to stop it, while eviscerating the constitution and running a mass incarceration policy that sees higher per capita imprisonment than any nation on earth, so-called 'oppressive' countries included... not to mention all the collateral damage, like an epidemic of forcing people to live in pain, torturing them and being a drain on the economy; or the complete loss of trust in a now profoundly corrupt law enforcement sector which views citizens as an enemy.
While a significant portion of plea bargaining is an abusive deprivation of rights, in certain circumstances it's actually useful. For like, when you know there's absolutely no way you'd be found innocent. And there's other issues around this, but speed matters too. Say you can't make bail or were denied bail on a charge you're clearly guilty of. You can either plea out to probation and community service and be out of jail in a few weeks, or take it to trial and stay in jail for 6-12 months and be highly unlikely to get a lesser sentence anyway.
Take vice crimes off the books and we could improve a lot of this.
That being said, I highly doubt that these things will be tamper proof in the slightest (manufacturers will simply pick the cheapest possible way to comply with the law). Black boxes will be easily hacked so it's a bit of moot point for people who are bad drivers and dont want the proof hanging around (however for good drivers, it does help clear them of fault in an accident).
/. - only a tiny minority of the general population would be able to do it, just like with the many other things that are so easy to us; we lose sight of what normal people are actually like.
Because everyone would have the knowledge and skills to do it? The world isn't like
You missed the other thing responsible for nearly as much civil rights loss as terrorism:
- Fighting drugs
The constitution has been gutted in the name of stopping people from voluntarily ingesting certain substances since even before 9/11. I guarantee someone is going to stand up and say, 'Why can't we use this information to stop those evil drug traffickers?' and no one will object.
This is about the Facebook version. The Android version, already run by EA, has neither changed dictionaries nor dropped scores and ratings (I just logged in to check). Also, I'm a bit confused about the dictionaries. Isn't the Collins/Chambers list for international play? Doesn't the US version still use OWL2+Long Words from NASPA? Or is there only 1 version? I don't play on FB, and TFA doesn't clarify.
This is about the Facebook version. The Android version, already run by EA, has neither changed dictionaries nor dropped scores and ratings (I just logged in to check).
Also, I'm a bit confused about the dictionaries. Isn't the Collins/Chambers list for international play? Doesn't the US version still use OWL2+Long Words from NASPA? Or is there only 1 version? I don't play on FB, and TFA doesn't clarify.
This is exactly why we need more awareness of jury nullification.
Juries are perfectly free to refuse to convict because they think the law is wrong, even if they know the defendant broke it.
Originalist only where he deems fit. This is the same guy who voted that a plant grown in your own home, consumed only by you, entirely within a single state, where no state law had been broken, was something you are rightly arrested and incarcerated for under federal commerce clause powers (Gonzalez v. Raich). Consistent with his praise of Wickard v. Filburn. You can't possibly think they would have found that acceptable in 1791.
Terrorism or homeland security is just the pretext. I suspect that NSLs are mostly used for non-violent drug offenses. This suspicion is of course based on the fact that one of the other post-9/11 powers, conducting searches and not telling the target until much later (if at all), has been revealed to be used for mostly for non-violent drug offenses and almost never for terrorism (the report I refer to, 65% were for drug cases and well under 1% for terrorism--5 of 763).
Because drugs are bad, mmkay?
Good for you. Not everyone would want it. My use case is different.
I sit 2-3ft away from a 27" screen, and would absolutely love to have a 4K screen in a 27-32" form factor in front of me. I have a second monitor and a laptop to form a 3 screen setup, but the single large screen in the center is my preference for primary tasks. Even though there's limited video content for 4k right now, being able to display more information on the screen would be awesome. And I'm sure 4K content will become more prevalent in the coming years.
Not everyone likes sitting 2ft away from a 27" 1080p screen either, but I do. Use cases vary. Bring on the 4K.
What are you talking about? Of course it can be stolen. If I put a gun to your head, and say "Sign over the rights to your IP in perpetuity or else!" and you comply, I have stolen your IP. Obviously not what we're talking about, but technicalities used to matter around here goddammit, and IP can be stolen.
In other news, some files merely describing the color and arrangement of dots on your screen are illegal too... and in every country.
Not that banning those helps achieve the result they want either. But this isn't really wholly unprecedented.
So nothing in the past few decades. Got it.
Its really pretty striking that these are allowed at all. Its not even clear why a judge would issue a warrant for something this unreliable.
Really? It's pretty clear to me. It's just another technical loophole to allow cops to do anything they want to catch [druggies|terrorists|pedophiles]. Or do you really think the Supreme Court says dogs are ok- if the police say they passed a police-administered certification with no real ability to challenge the methods or conduct independent tests, or even know the dogs actual field record (all you can do is ask the dogs handler if his dog is certified, and they can just say they can't talk about field records, and of course they don't have to prove the dog to an independent expert with sound methods)- because they're too dumb to know dogs fail more often than not? Read the decision for Florida v. Harris; it's a complete farce, how they ignored real evidence in favor of 'well the cops say the dog is good'.
I mean seriously, here's how the argument went:
a) Independent testing shows the dog clearly responds to the handlers wishes, both in test courses and the field. In these tests the handler did not know where the drugs were.
b) Police say in their testing with their methods the dog is very accurate. The handlers know where the drugs are in each test. And the field results don't matter, because the dog is so right if drugs arent there now they obviously just moved them.
Supreme Court says (b) is now the law of the land, and sound legal grounds to justify probable cause under the 4th amendment.
As I understood it, people died because they didn't have an adequate supply of naloxone on hand. The need for it would be obvious to anyone who knows even a little about opioids, but assuming you have that on hand (and administer it quickly enough) the risk of fatality is extremely small.
Fire, swimming pools, hot tubs, lava, shotguns, Gallagher, cannons, M80s, trebuchets, toddlers, flame throwers, tanks, grandmothers, that fat gamer dude, gorillas, tornadoes, ninjas, wood chippers... well, you get the idea. In fact, when it comes to destroying a computer kittehs are not anywhere near the top ten.
You, sir, have obviously never owned a cat.
You tell them, "look, here's the improved level of service and quality we can provide you for a reasonable price."
That statement needs to be true before it's effective. Pirated content provides a better experience. You don't always need to be online and the selection is almost always better. And quality? These days I just download the 1080p streams they post on the web. Personally I hate being at some companies whim and fancy about what seasons they can or cannot carry, can or cannot offer in HD, and when they may just up and discontinue the service.
Although the technical barrier to entry is somewhat higher than simply streaming your shows, no legitimate offering can compete with my 70-show library served up by a couple NAS devices. Sure it's 8TB (and another 3TB for 320 movies, 200 of which are in HD), but it's a complete replacement for TV on any device on my network. Local copies are better than streams for almost every situation (unless you and everyone in your family never want to watch it again).
Also there's a reason for pirating that you forgot to mention: I pay for cable TV. As far as I'm concerned, since it's my right to record anything that airs and edit out commercials and format shift, I have every right to simply download it instead.
By 'action is being taken' I presume you mean something along the lines of "Please don't do this again, or else... or else we'll send you an even more harshly worded letter!"