Further comments about the distinction between public and private:
The purpose of a shield law is to allow people to speak privately to journalist ( and BTW, I'll agree that Wolf qualifies as a journalist ). If he has private interviews of the rioters, they should be protected. If he personally knows the rioters - and there are reasonable claims that he does - that information is private and should be protected.
But the riots were a public act. Wolf taped them as anyone - including the cops - could have.
The real question here is: should a journalist should be allowed to take something that is public and make it private, and then claim protection under privacy laws?
I think that parent has erroneously joined together two separate issues - cops collecting private information and cops collecting public information. I wish to try to separate them:
For those of us still in the world with free thinking and actually use the rights afforded to us by the Constitution, this is a worrisome trend. Since 9/11, local, state and federal officers in both uniforms and plain clothes have been monitoring protesters. In particular, they want to know who the leaders and most vocal of the bunch are. This is then followed by the creation of dossiers outlining the activities of these people who exercise their right to dissent against mainsteam political opinions.
This is simply cops doing their job. When the non-mainsteam opinion is linked with violent crimes, a cop should be able to keep track of public actions and expressions. ( If the crime were, say, the gay-bashing and subsequent death of the guy in Wyoming, shall we deny the cops the ability to keep track of public anti-gay statements? Or when some black guy gets dragged to death behind a truck, should the cops have been allowed to keep tabs on public statements and acts of avowed rascists? )
With the advent of the PATRIOT act and various other "terrorism" related laws, wiretaps, probing of bank records, etc. are used not only to intimidate but silence anything that Big Brother doesn't agree with. Now this is different. It is not public.
While I am as concerned as anyone about the government intruding into my privacy, I have no problem with the cops keeping track of public acts. The TFA is about public acts.
...the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them from the beginning that that was the case. That may be true, but it does not get to the guts of the issue, which is who gets to make that decision? Are we really going to grant a journalist the ability to say "I don't think it is relevant to your case, so you can't have it" ?
Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries.
Informant? What informant? As GP said: "It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in." If there was an informant - a fact I don't recall even though I RTFA - it is a completely separate issue. Sorry, but it is parent post that is relevacy challenged.
1. get rid of the crown. It's long over due. Join the post-medieval world.
2. GET A CONSTITUTION.
3. TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS While I agree with parent on the first two, I suggest leaving the cameras up, but make them netcams with no passwords so that anybody can see what is happening, not just the government. And get rid of the speakers.
Except for the computer, it sounds like most of the jobs that I had during college. Thinking back, a lot of the bosses I had could have been replaced with comuters and everyone would have been happier.
The problem with the X-prize was that all the money was in first place. When Space Ship One won it, there was no financial incentive for the others to keep going. ( I've seen the same thing in chess tournaments - the lower prizes are significant enough to keep people from dropping out )
It should have been something like 1st = 10 mil, 2nd = 5 mil, 3rd = 2.5 mil, 4th = 1.5 mil, 5th = 1 mil. Yes, it costs twice as much, but it gets more than twice the benefit: instead of one company producing results, three or four, maybe five do.
An AC said something that I think deserves a ride on my karmic coattails...
Frankly, it's amazing that it even took this long to get a bill that's at least partly decent, since the previous electronic voting bills (both passed and proposed) were so weak on common sense and good functionality. Like LBJ said,
You [should] not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered. This bill at least reduces a lot of the possible bads
Correction on the news: Americans are ok at math, but slashdotters don't RTFA.
From RTFA: 48% don't believe in evolution, and 82% consider themselves christians. 48% is, of course, not a majority, but 82% is.
Ok, there's a mislabeling of vitamin C, and NY politicians are posturing about something, and a majority of Americans are christians. THIS IS NEWS????
C'mon editors, what happened to news for nerds, etc?
...The more success they have, the more ammunition they have. The more loss they endure, the more ammunition the defendants are given. The law is not like playing football; nobody counts your wins and losses at the end of the season.
What matters is can it hold up under appeal? The RIAA doe not want to let an appelate or SCOTUS decicion go against them. Then it affects all cases. They are choosing their battles carefully.
It's like none of us (including me) knows how to navigate the territory between those two extremes. Heck, I don't even know whether or not there is any territory in between. It looks like there is no territory between, because if you do something effective ( stronger than 'a' ) and non-violent ( not quite as strong as 'b' ) you get squashed. Examples of this range from the Whiskey Rebellion to Selma to Waco. The only way to do something effective for very long is to be armed so that you can shoot back. And sad to say, they will force you to quit or shoot back.
the people that need to be in Iraq and Afghanistan are the NYPD and the LAPD So when the NYPD catches Bin Laden, they'll sodomize him with a baton? And then give him to the LAPs who beat up Rodney King? Hmmm...I'm beginning to like your idea.
Has Linden guaranteed in writing that they will never expand the world? If not, then Coldwell Banker buyers are idiots.
What is to keep Linden from increasing the amount of land? ( They did it back in 2003, IIRC ) Not only would this give them more space for more players, but it decreases the power of land barons. And having a 'new world' to explore would add more interest to the game. Anyone want to be Magellan? Or Columbus? There seems to be no downside for Linden to increase the ammount of land.
There definitely is a downside to NOT increasing the ammount of land: competition. If SL gets too crowded, that just helps up-and-coming competitors.
As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.
I predict that Coldwell Banker will lose their shirts on this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Further comments about the distinction between public and private:
The purpose of a shield law is to allow people to speak privately to journalist ( and BTW, I'll agree that Wolf qualifies as a journalist ). If he has private interviews of the rioters, they should be protected. If he personally knows the rioters - and there are reasonable claims that he does - that information is private and should be protected.
But the riots were a public act. Wolf taped them as anyone - including the cops - could have.
The real question here is: should a journalist should be allowed to take something that is public and make it private, and then claim protection under privacy laws?
For those of us still in the world with free thinking and actually use the rights afforded to us by the Constitution, this is a worrisome trend. Since 9/11, local, state and federal officers in both uniforms and plain clothes have been monitoring protesters. In particular, they want to know who the leaders and most vocal of the bunch are. This is then followed by the creation of dossiers outlining the activities of these people who exercise their right to dissent against mainsteam political opinions.
This is simply cops doing their job. When the non-mainsteam opinion is linked with violent crimes, a cop should be able to keep track of public actions and expressions. ( If the crime were, say, the gay-bashing and subsequent death of the guy in Wyoming, shall we deny the cops the ability to keep track of public anti-gay statements? Or when some black guy gets dragged to death behind a truck, should the cops have been allowed to keep tabs on public statements and acts of avowed rascists? )
With the advent of the PATRIOT act and various other "terrorism" related laws, wiretaps, probing of bank records, etc. are used not only to intimidate but silence anything that Big Brother doesn't agree with. Now this is different. It is not public.
While I am as concerned as anyone about the government intruding into my privacy, I have no problem with the cops keeping track of public acts. The TFA is about public acts.
...the footage this guy was withholding did not contain the alleged crimes authorities are investigating, and he had told them from the beginning that that was the case. That may be true, but it does not get to the guts of the issue, which is who gets to make that decision? Are we really going to grant a journalist the ability to say "I don't think it is relevant to your case, so you can't have it" ?Somebody has to decide if the footage is relevant, and it should be an impartial party - not the jounalist, not the cops. This is why we have grand juries.
Informant? What informant? As GP said: "It's a court asking to see video of a crime so that they can arrest some people for bashing an officers head in." If there was an informant - a fact I don't recall even though I RTFA - it is a completely separate issue.
Sorry, but it is parent post that is relevacy challenged.
...then kill them.
2. GET A CONSTITUTION.
3. TAKE DOWN THE CAMERAS
While I agree with parent on the first two, I suggest leaving the cameras up, but make them netcams with no passwords so that anybody can see what is happening, not just the government. And get rid of the speakers.
Except for the computer, it sounds like most of the jobs that I had during college. Thinking back, a lot of the bosses I had could have been replaced with comuters and everyone would have been happier.
The problem with the X-prize was that all the money was in first place. When Space Ship One won it, there was no financial incentive for the others to keep going. ( I've seen the same thing in chess tournaments - the lower prizes are significant enough to keep people from dropping out )
It should have been something like 1st = 10 mil, 2nd = 5 mil, 3rd = 2.5 mil, 4th = 1.5 mil, 5th = 1 mil. Yes, it costs twice as much, but it gets more than twice the benefit: instead of one company producing results, three or four, maybe five do.
YOUR
Correction on the news: Americans are ok at math, but slashdotters don't RTFA.
From RTFA: 48% don't believe in evolution, and 82% consider themselves christians.
48% is, of course, not a majority, but 82% is.
Ok, there's a mislabeling of vitamin C, and NY politicians are posturing about something, and a majority of Americans are christians.
THIS IS NEWS????
C'mon editors, what happened to news for nerds, etc?
As I recall, people's hearing tops out at about 25 KILOhertz
1) Offer backup services for a modest fee 2) Mail them to my yahoo account 3) profit
...The more success they have, the more ammunition they have. The more loss they endure, the more ammunition the defendants are given. The law is not like playing football; nobody counts your wins and losses at the end of the season.What matters is can it hold up under appeal? The RIAA doe not want to let an appelate or SCOTUS decicion go against them. Then it affects all cases. They are choosing their battles carefully.
Parent just got added to the list.
The list is at: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/sd n/sdnlist.txt
I can't figure out if it means we'll have more republicans or more democrats, but either way it worries me.
It's like none of us (including me) knows how to navigate the territory between those two extremes. Heck, I don't even know whether or not there is any territory in between. It looks like there is no territory between, because if you do something effective ( stronger than 'a' ) and non-violent ( not quite as strong as 'b' ) you get squashed. Examples of this range from the Whiskey Rebellion to Selma to Waco. The only way to do something effective for very long is to be armed so that you can shoot back. And sad to say, they will force you to quit or shoot back.
Has Linden guaranteed in writing that they will never expand the world? If not, then Coldwell Banker buyers are idiots.
What is to keep Linden from increasing the amount of land? ( They did it back in 2003, IIRC ) Not only would this give them more space for more players, but it decreases the power of land barons. And having a 'new world' to explore would add more interest to the game. Anyone want to be Magellan? Or Columbus? There seems to be no downside for Linden to increase the ammount of land.
There definitely is a downside to NOT increasing the ammount of land: competition. If SL gets too crowded, that just helps up-and-coming competitors.
As supply increases, price decreases. There is not even the real-world parallel of "location, location, and location" to uphold property value in Second Life because of teleportation.
I predict that Coldwell Banker will lose their shirts on this one.
Not when it's wet.
Ahhhh...that's why my wife says that my clothing never matches!
I, for another, will eek out a living in their service.