even more deader....deaderer, surely?
Either I completely missed the point, or it looks like you could have done with a /s tag there...
I hesitate to suggest regulation, because the inevitable result would be a hideous turd-like abortion-heap mostly bought and paid for by large incumbents to look fair while locking things down ever tighter, but that the only thing that I suspect would fix it. (In that mythical world where regulations are for consumer interest)
It just occurred to me that maybe what's needed (apart from actual net neutrality of course) is a mandated and limited "exclusives" window for this stuff:
The content creator gets to make an exclusive deal if they want (let's face it probably with themselves), but only for a limited time (maybe 6 months, maybe more, maybe less)... but after that mandated period, it becomes more like how I understand mechanical licenses to work for music. I.e. you don't have a choice, you have to grant a streaming license for a fixed (at least fixed per item) fee to anyone who wants it.
That way you still get to up-sell to the "must have it now"-types in the exclusive period and the everyday consumer gets the wide raft of reasonably priced and wholly inclusive services they really want while the content companies still get paid and discourage piracy at the same time.
Never happen, though.
The security agency, known as the FSB, argued in court that obtaining the encryption keys doesn’t violate users’ privacy because the keys by themselves aren’t considered information of restricted access.
Yeah, but that argument only works where the judges have been specifically chosen to agree with an authoritarian government and will ignore the rights and needs of the population at large and twist arguments to support the dictatorial desires of the government in its perceived need for total surveillance of its populace, whereas in America... Oh, wait... Never mind.
These EU laws are thinly veiled attempts to penalize American companies for their success.News flash; not everything is about America. Mostly these dumb laws are knee-jerk attempts to be seen "doing something" about "terrorism" (/hate speech/human trafficking/paedophilia - insert current newsworthy emotive topic here) without the bother of actually spending government resources and with the handy benefit of pointing at someone else and saying, "It's all their fault, not ours!"
Why would Google, Facebook and other have it?Why wouldn't they? Their interest is customers and money, not speech. If their customers aren't interested enough to see the censorship, why would they care?
If there are only idiots on the ballot, campaign yourself.And you hold what public office? However, I suspect that were I to campaign I would get little support. The sad truth of politics is that people want to believe the impossible promises politicians make rather than the cold, hard fact that, for example, you aren't going to get lower taxes and higher public spending. The Liberal Democrats over here tried the truth tack a few elections back and, predictably, got horrible pasted and lost a bunch of seats. Apparently, writing about a mythical, Utopian future on the side of a bus is the way to get votes...
Quite apart from the ridiculousness of the trademark claim, is not the factual naming of something and reporting opinion on said something not pretty much the definition of "protected speech"?
All that's really unsettled at this point is how much it's going to cost Sibley residents, who not only have to put up with fumes town leaders didn't want to address, but will soon be asked to cover the costs of the town's boneheaded First Amendment violations
If there were any justice, the court would direct that the 1st amendment violation was by the idiots in the town government rather than the government itself and order them to pay personally. I rather suspect the law does not allow for that, but it would be far more satisfying karma-wise.
I'd heard there was this crazy thing called "The Constitution" over there in the US and that it said something about citizens "effects" being secured from "unreasonable searches and seizures".
I'm pretty sure a truck would qualify as an "effect" and equally sure that "because we wanted it" is close to the textbook definition of "unreasonable". So can some clever lawyer explain how this sort of thing isn't exactly what they were thinking about when they wrote that?
it's been from the perspective of wonky knowledge of how "intermediary liability protection" laws work
Was that "wonky" a Freudian slip, or did you mean "working"?
again, it's no fault of the weapon itself, but rather the people getting their hands on them.Again, indeed. So your argument is that it's absolutely fine to have hundreds or thousands of unsecured nuclear weapons just lying around because you're going to be fantastic at deciding who gets to pick them up. Y'know, like Nikolas Cruz and Stephen Paddock, for example.
on the other hand, a rifle or handgun just sitting there isn't going arbitrarily decide to kill someone.Indeed. But to resort to hyperbole for a moment, neither does a nuclear weapon sitting there arbitrarily decide to kill someone, but most people seem to get fairly het-up about them lying around and anyone getting their hands on them, so I'm unconvinced that's a good standard to apply to the issue.
Trying to work out if this is sarcasm or not....
Like buying bread. Using public transport. Buying movie ticket.Yeah, last time I checked bakers don't try and insist that by buying bread you are agreeing that you are only allowed to eat said bread yourself and only in a private residence where no-one else can see you eat it. Trains rarely insist that your first class ticket pre-purchased becomes null-and-void because you showed up at the station wearing an ugly plaid shirt. Movie theatres do not try and insist that purchasing a ticket restricts you from using other cinema chains at a later date. The "implied contract" on these things tend to be relatively obvious and usually limited to the actual act of purchase or direct use of the purchase while on someone else's premises and rarely, if ever, try to set limits on future behaviour.
Firearm access doesn't seem to correlate to incidents.Does that mean that Americans are just naturally more homicidal than the rest of the western world?
if we start handing out firearms too carelessly, then we will start arming the wrong people, at some point.Statistics and indeed regular news reports would seem to suggest that "at some point" was quite a number of years ago.
Or this one:
"And the National Rifle Association says that, "Guns don't kill people, people do," but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, "Bang!" That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that-" - Eddie Izzard
Yeah, be sure to use a sword - they're often carrying less than the price of the ammo if you use a gun.Swords are expensive to buy and difficult to maintain. What you need is a Curry Mallet
You call it Yelling, I call it Syntax, Expression, Punctuation..Only if you're William Shatner...
Re: Re: