They don't care. They just want the ISPs to do their work for them.
Technology is making it so that business models that revolve around copyright protection need to come up with a new paradigm. They don't want to, for the obvious reasons. They happen to exist in a country with a corrupt political system so rather than change their business model they're just going to buy a law.
What they don't realize it that it's impossible to stop copyright infringement if the cost of the 1+n copy is almost zero.
I also imagine that they're going to push for penalties for the ISPs. Suing the average person is pointless as they don't have money and it generates an enormous amount of ill will.
However making ISPs liable is nonsensical and goes against decades of precedent. It would make it impossible to to run an ISP. What they're asking is the same as making the phone/cell company responsible for any crime that uses the phone system. People tried that with gun companies and it failed.
The problem is that they are so out of touch with reality they think these are good ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's impossible for the barrier to be lower to raise a child as there's currently no barrier.
Why do you think it's fair to be loaned money with no collateral? If you want then talk to someone who can accept your word rather than someone who cares nothing about you.
Regardless car insurance is apples and oranges. You don't get auto insurance to protect yourself. You get auto insurance to protect others. You having not having auto insurance directly effects the person you crash into. Not having health insurance only directly effects you.
The phone system is government NN. Please give an example of a problem with the NN on the phone system? How did the government cause this problem? How would the private sector have done it better?
What the fuck are you talking about? Who invited the States in to Iraq and Afganistan? The local governments invited them in? What about the Okinawans that want them to leave?
If it's client side how are they going to get it installed? Keep it installed?
Even if they mandate that all computers sold must have it preinstalled it won't matter. It's trivial to remove.; just reinstall the OS. What about people who build their own? People who buy in other countries? People who run other operating systems?
This is just nonsensical. It can't possibly work. I can't believe no one pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
I disagree with your premise. Driving reckless and expecting to get pulled over are in conflict not harmony. You only drive reckless when you don't think you're going to be pulled over. For example when he pulls the wheelie while shielded by the bus. To think that anytime you break a traffic law you expect to get pulled over is delusional. Murder, assault, robbery sure but breaking traffic laws is the normal state of affairs.
Ok I'm confused will saying "police" help or hurt compliance? You've said both at this point.
It's two separate incidents. His driving is irrelevant. It's an unmarked car and nonuniformed officer. The first word out of his mouth should have been police. Period. There is nothing to gain by not saying it.
I agree that he should have identified himself first, but if the situation was really one that appeared to be a carjacking, as you insist, then I disagree that adding the word "police" would have changed anything. Do you really think carjackers never claim to be police?
That's nonsensical. You're saying that since one human killed someone somewhere you have to assume all humans are actively trying to kill you.
The first reaction to someone cutting you off, brandishing a gun, and demanding you release control of the vehicle is car jacking.
The first reaction to someone yelling police is compliance. That's why the carjackers in your example would yell it. Your example is counter to your point.
I can't look at the video right now to double check but I only saw the marked at two points. When he passed while it was on the median. I assume this is the same car. We have no way to tell. At the end of the video when he turns around and we can see it.
I never saw the marked car while he was moving. I remember one section where he looks left and then moves left. Looked like he was checking to make sure he could lane change. Why look behind you at the car when you have two mirrors? Much safer than turning your head all the way around. How often do you do that when driving or do you just check your mirrors?
I contest that he was stopping for the marked car. There is a line of cars in front of him where he pulls off. It also goes from multi lane to single lane. He remains in the middle of the lane. Looks like an exit not a pull over to me.
Regardless cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing and gun and yelling "get off the bike" is a car jacking not a traffic stop. It's two fucking syllables to add Police as the first word.
If the cop had just said, "Police. Get off the bike." All of this would have been a null issue.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
Tech savvy people with disposable income won't pay for it on the web but they will pay for it on the iThing?
To reword. Group A doesn't want this so we should spend more money to create an alternate product and sell it to Group B which is just a subset of group A.
These people have already declined the product. Don't spend money to reinvent the wheel and then try and sell the product to an even smaller but identical market.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you can't attack the position you attack the poster.
They don't care. They just want the ISPs to do their work for them.
Technology is making it so that business models that revolve around copyright protection need to come up with a new paradigm. They don't want to, for the obvious reasons. They happen to exist in a country with a corrupt political system so rather than change their business model they're just going to buy a law.
What they don't realize it that it's impossible to stop copyright infringement if the cost of the 1+n copy is almost zero.
I also imagine that they're going to push for penalties for the ISPs. Suing the average person is pointless as they don't have money and it generates an enormous amount of ill will.
However making ISPs liable is nonsensical and goes against decades of precedent. It would make it impossible to to run an ISP. What they're asking is the same as making the phone/cell company responsible for any crime that uses the phone system. People tried that with gun companies and it failed.
The problem is that they are so out of touch with reality they think these are good ideas.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's impossible for the barrier to be lower to raise a child as there's currently no barrier.
Why do you think it's fair to be loaned money with no collateral? If you want then talk to someone who can accept your word rather than someone who cares nothing about you.
Regardless car insurance is apples and oranges. You don't get auto insurance to protect yourself. You get auto insurance to protect others. You having not having auto insurance directly effects the person you crash into. Not having health insurance only directly effects you.
Are you trying to make a point? If so what is it?
You had me up to mandating insurance. That's just crazy talk. It's the definition of fascist.
The phone system is government NN. Please give an example of a problem with the NN on the phone system? How did the government cause this problem? How would the private sector have done it better?
The posting says, in effect, that you committed a crime. If found not guilty you may have a libel and/or slander case since you didn't commit a crime.
What the fuck are you talking about? Who invited the States in to Iraq and Afganistan? The local governments invited them in? What about the Okinawans that want them to leave?
That's right. Insult the poster because you can't address the points made in their post.
Claiming the States does not have an empire is delusional.
To point out the obvious flaw here:
If it's client side how are they going to get it installed? Keep it installed?
Even if they mandate that all computers sold must have it preinstalled it won't matter. It's trivial to remove.; just reinstall the OS. What about people who build their own? People who buy in other countries? People who run other operating systems?
This is just nonsensical. It can't possibly work. I can't believe no one pointed out that the emperor has no clothes.
In a country where money is speech who ever has the most speaks the loudest.
Kill the corporate income tax and forbid corporations from donating to campaigns and pacs.
Why would they be restricted?
And now we've come full circle.
Cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing and gun and yelling "get off the bike" "get off the bike" does not look like a traffic stop.
Thank you for your time.
I disagree with your premise. Driving reckless and expecting to get pulled over are in conflict not harmony. You only drive reckless when you don't think you're going to be pulled over. For example when he pulls the wheelie while shielded by the bus. To think that anytime you break a traffic law you expect to get pulled over is delusional. Murder, assault, robbery sure but breaking traffic laws is the normal state of affairs.
Ok I'm confused will saying "police" help or hurt compliance? You've said both at this point.
It's two separate incidents. His driving is irrelevant. It's an unmarked car and nonuniformed officer. The first word out of his mouth should have been police. Period. There is nothing to gain by not saying it.
I agree that he should have identified himself first, but if the situation was really one that appeared to be a carjacking, as you insist, then I disagree that adding the word "police" would have changed anything. Do you really think carjackers never claim to be police?
That's nonsensical. You're saying that since one human killed someone somewhere you have to assume all humans are actively trying to kill you.
The first reaction to someone cutting you off, brandishing a gun, and demanding you release control of the vehicle is car jacking.
The first reaction to someone yelling police is compliance. That's why the carjackers in your example would yell it. Your example is counter to your point.
I can't look at the video right now to double check but I only saw the marked at two points. When he passed while it was on the median. I assume this is the same car. We have no way to tell. At the end of the video when he turns around and we can see it.
I never saw the marked car while he was moving. I remember one section where he looks left and then moves left. Looked like he was checking to make sure he could lane change. Why look behind you at the car when you have two mirrors? Much safer than turning your head all the way around. How often do you do that when driving or do you just check your mirrors?
I contest that he was stopping for the marked car. There is a line of cars in front of him where he pulls off. It also goes from multi lane to single lane. He remains in the middle of the lane. Looks like an exit not a pull over to me.
Regardless cutting someone off, leaping out brandishing and gun and yelling "get off the bike" is a car jacking not a traffic stop. It's two fucking syllables to add Police as the first word.
If the cop had just said, "Police. Get off the bike." All of this would have been a null issue.
Amen.
If assault of a police officer is an elevated offense then assault by a police officer needs to be an elevated offense.
Lie:
It wasn't 82.
The video clearly states 69 mph on the cop pass.
Misrepresentation:
The cop didn't pull him over.
An out of uniform cop in an unmarked car cuts him off. Gets out. Draws the gun. Tells him to get off the bike. It appears to be a car jacking. Only when Anthony starts trying to back away does he identify himself as state police.
If that were true they would be paying for the web site right now. They're not.
Just like news they don't buy those. They download free ones.
But you still are missing a major point.
If they won't pay for it on the web why would they pay for it on the iThing?
I still don't understand.
Tech savvy people with disposable income won't pay for it on the web but they will pay for it on the iThing?
To reword. Group A doesn't want this so we should spend more money to create an alternate product and sell it to Group B which is just a subset of group A.
These people have already declined the product. Don't spend money to reinvent the wheel and then try and sell the product to an even smaller but identical market.
They might find more revenue with premium content only available thru subscriptions using dedicated, well designed iPhone/iPad apps.
Why limit yourself to such a small market?