Law enforcement agencies seem to want to be the Army. Not every interaction calls for overwhelming force, and use of it increases the chance it will be met with same. Why the no-knock? To preserve evidence, and increase the chances of a conviction. The conviction, IMHO, was not worth the life of an officer.
He was, essentially, killed by the prosecutors office.
Makes perfect sense, that all media is then pre-paid and essentially public domain. But, what about people who don't have smart phones? Are they barred from all entertainment through other venues? Does he want a levy on computers, televisions, cars used to drive to a theater?
Everyone wants to be a utility. Nice check comes in the mail automatically, no selling, no creativity - matter of fact, if they get paid automatically, what impetus to create anything other than crap?
And I DO mean unfortunately, Facebook is currently so much the market leader as to make other forums almost irrelevant. It's worse than saying don't buy on eBay or search with Google. The potential audience is dramatically curtailed.
In my mind, a search engine MUST be content agnostic if it's to be of any value. Once ANY type of content is allowed to be de-listed, the integrity of the whole thing goes in the toilet. personally, I think Google - as industry leader - has already gone way too far in this respect. As long as they don't filter at all they should have all the protections of a "common carrier" and these people should just buzz off.
Where have I heard something like that before? "We have been, and thanks. Now please continue to f*ck off."
Seems to me this AG doesn't like, or even understand bitcoins, and is primarily interested in making anyone involved with them jump through hoops and incur legal bills, primarily to produce properly formatted document that contain mostly repetitions of the word 'none.' Worst thing is, he can probably do it - they have to PROVE they never deployed their software and were never near NJ. And, we all know how hard it is to disprove a negative.
I was trying to type up a rational, logical policy to cover 'unapproved' logos, then realized the subject is not going to be addressed with either rationality or logic.
Make me king for a day, and the policy would be that logos could be freely displayed on items that 1. Were paid for by the owner, and 2. The owner did not and will not receive payment for displaying them.
You bought an Apple laptop - OK Apple gave you a laptop - Not OK You have an Apple sticker on your clipboard - OK Apple paid you to put a sticker there - Not OK
However, the Olympic Committee almost certainly accepted additional money to keep any other logo out of sight, so that's all out the window.
...or soccer, or whatever silly sport this is about, but I'm pretty sure there have been numbers of men between eleven and thirteen in the past. How could they get a trademark on "12th man" EXCEPT as specifically refers to sports events?
If they were worried about protecting their trademark, they could have licensed it to the guy for a token dollar; if they're worried about dilution, they're just wrong.
Frankly, I've always assumed warrants are pretty much rubber-stamped. To do it right might be hard, and would take a while - and so many are needed. Now, how did THIS one, out of the probable thousands of sketchy search warrants, come under the spotlight? Did they barge in on the "wrong" woman, meaning someone who knew the law and was willing to challenge it? Or was it something else? Just that her posterior was partially exposed?
"Then the commercial goes on to explain that all aspirins are not alike. Even though each tablet is the same exact active ingredient, somehow Bayer aspirin has magical qualities not found in generics."
And sometimes it's true. Two commercial preparations of a drug, with the same amount of the same active ingredient, may have different effects or effectiveness. For example, what binders are used and how quickly and completely the drug is absorbed. Or in the case of aspirin, coated or uncoated, buffered or not, etc. I know several people who have had bad reactions to ostensibly-identical generic versions of drugs.
"Want to see something more offensive: try the new safety wrapping from Vicks' Nyquil: We don't make generic brands."
I'm not sure what you find objectionable about that. It's a widely-held but almost entirely inaccurate belief that generic drugs are made by the same companies as name brands - the only difference being labeling. They're just saying that, in this case, it's not true.
I remember some years ago discussing how organized religion, unable to get the general public to follow their rules, always tries to get government to do it for them. It was true with the Blue Laws of my youth, it's true with abortion and Intelligent Design today. As I read about the undue influence of the "content industry" now, one wonders... is Media now God?
When they don't have anything else (and sometimes if they do) lawyers will present any and every wildly implausible scenario, just to obfuscate and slow things down. After everyone has slogged through all that - "No, he wasn't having fun. No, space aliens didn't make them do it." they're too sick of the process to evaluate the real facts. "Fine, whatever, let them go - or she'll just come up with something else."
"This is a highly hostile site for police. The lack of any insight into how police work actually happens often colors the articles. I can't really blame the authors if they don't know what police work really is, but in general, if you report the news, you should investigate all sides first."
Care to enlighten us, then, what local cops think they're doing - unofficially and uninvited - at a crime scene halfway around the world?
Back in the 80's, I worked at a computer retailer which used a rather awful terminal based point-of-sale system. Solely for my own convenience, I wrote a Macintosh-based front end for it. It not only looked much prettier, it let you do quotes, included leasing rates, auto selected and offered to add extended warranties, etc. After a while, other reps were asking for copies and eventually the whole office was using it.
When corporate found out, they first threatened to fire me (for "hacking") then decided they owned the software (it had been developed on my own time) and standardized on it. They assigned me to maintain the code, in addition to my other duties, at no additional pay.
I refused (this did not go over well). They got some other schmo to husband it, which did not go over well either.
Why can't it be both? Publicly traded companies aren't there to do things right; they're there to increase stockholder profits. If it cost $5 or took five minutes to increase security, it's off the table unless it makes that money back. And, if this negligence pleases the government, at whose pleasure the company exists, so much the better.