@95 you are so many levels of wrong, its not even funny. Were you listening to the same recording I was? Every step of the way, Fiorino was calmly asserting his rights. Fiorino only resisted in the slightest when the officer made unreasonable demands, and every step of the way was trying to defuse the situation. He attempted to educate the officer because the officer was clearly ignorant about the situation. He attempted to produce documentation showing his legal right to carry a firearm. Considering that Fiorino allegedly had a weapon pointed at him, I think he handled the situation rather well.
I'm sorry, but calmly asserting your rights and refusing to abide by unreasonable orders made by a clearly overzealous and ignorant officer is not a free license for the officer to overreact, draw his weapon without cause. It simply isn't.
We cannot defend police officers who are so clearly in the wrong. We cannot make excuses for them. We must hold them to the same standards that citizens are held to, and when they react inappropriately, they must be penalized.
In contrast, if the officer would have responded just as calmly said "sir, I understand that you are telling me you have a permit. For my own safety, I would like to disarm you. Place your hands on your head and walk backwards towards me." this whole situation would have played out differently. Hell, if the cop wanted to handcuff Fiorino at that point, it would have been acceptable IMO. I totally understand that police need to protect themselves, and when faced with an uncertain scenario, I'm okay with them taking precautions.
It's called situational awareness. Many officers are capable of making rational decisions regarding the situation they are faced with. Those who can't need to be retrained, penalized, or fired - in that order.
I'm sorry, but I don't trust people like Sgt. Dougherty or ANY of the backup officers to protect citizens. Cops like that do more harm than good.
Why does it matter that the product is effectively dangerous? People want it. People voluntarily consume it. There are perceived benefits, so the product isn't entirely without merit.
Let people use products and substances as they choose (so long as they aren't hurting others). Stop trying to force people to follow the ideal that smoking is bad. People don't care, they just want to smoke.
And no, the tobacco companies should absolutely not be held liable. They didn't force you to consume their products, and currently, it's practically impossible to claim that you didn't know they would hurt you. I don't care if they're used as directed or not.
Warning: Using a car as directed may result in a lethal traffic collision. Do we hold auto manufacturers liable? No. We know and understand the risks by choosing to purchase and operate a car.
I have to lean the other way on this one. Sure, the application of trademark law is wrong, and that part of the article I agree with. But using trademark law in order to push back on an overly oppressive government... I'm okay with in an ends justify the means sort of way.
Any grown adult knows tobacco is bad for you these days. Over regulating and forcing companies to carry super-sized warning labels and change their packaging is just as bad. And if there's something that has been pointed out time and time again on TechDirt, it's that you can't legislate behavior.
Personally, I'm offended any time I hear that the U.S. government is pissing away time and money on tobacco company issues. I'm not saying that the industry shouldn't be regulated at all, but quit wasting my tax dollars on it. There are so many bigger problems to tackle. People VOLUNTARILY purchasing and consuming cigarettes knowing full well that they regularly cause harm DOES NOT CONCERN ME.
No more changes to labeling requirements. No more marketing restrictions. Let the companies operate like any other company. And let the people decide what they're going to do - because they will regardless of all this wasted time and legislation.
I normally agree with alot of what is written on TechDirt, but I have to disagree with this article.
There's a difference between practice tests and the test bank. The test bank is a tool provided to instructors (not to students) by publishers. As a former teacher, I had to jump through a few hoops just to get my hands on them.
For any student to claim that they didn't know they were cheating by using the test banks is either a ridiculous attempt to absolve themselves of their wrongdoings, or a sad sign of ethics today.
Any student today knows the intent behind tests is to determine how much of the material the students were able to learn, and most tests do this by spot checking. If you happen to know all the spots that will be checked, and you only memorize the answers to those spot checks, you're skewing the results to your own benefit. Further, you're not only improving your own score, but you're devaluing the degree. Students who graduate from a university program by cheating instead of learning the material graduate with a degree that they can't live up to. That short sighted self serving attitude is ethical, or rather not cheating?
I don't agree with the professor 100%, but I don't agree with your defense of the students at all.
I think you just about hit the nail on the head here. I was honestly content paying $2 or so a song for rock band 2 - the entertainment I got out of it was worth it. I never owned a music game before that, and only purchased Guitar Hero: World Tour after that - mainly because I needed a second guitar. The primary reason I've lost interest in the genre? Both of my guitars flaked out, and I've seen many more do the same. I refuse to pay that kind of money to continuously replace hardware. I've never had a $60 xbox 360 controller go bad, so why should a $60 controller shaped like a guitar? I refuse to pay for the costly upgrades and replacements.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jon.