Same here. I was looking at getting a ROKU -- I spent my free time last weekend looking at options.
But now I've decided that there's a ton of DIY guides to making your own media player appliance out of a $35 Raspberry Pi, a hard drive, a box to put them in and possibly a few accessories (not to mention a choice of several free, purpose-built, (media-player specialized) operating systems to load on the thing).
It's so easy that I'm aware of non-techies who've done it -- and been satisfied with the result -- so a for a regular Linux user it should be a snap.
This story will come back to to bite Erdogan in the rear (and Turkey's aspirations along with him).
Turkey's leadership has long been insistent that Turkey should be, and deserves to be recognized as a modern nation and suitable candidate for membership in the European Union -- and that any opposition arguments to Turkey's membership are based on mere Euro-centric or colonialistic prejudices.
But this sort of uncivilized and anti-democratic temper-tantrum (call it "flag-waving" or whatever) will be clear and embarrassingly public evidence that Turkey is nowhere near ready for such membership, and these incidents will be remembered (and readily appealed to) in any public discussion of the matter.
I'll bet a case of beer, that consistent use of these cameras would save significantly more, than the investigations and court-cases that the video records prevent or resolve in (relatively) short order, would have cost instead.
Don't be so obtuse -- it's digital data. Di-gi-tal.
Any somewhat sensible implementation will be date and time stamped, gps-location stamped, officer-ID stamped, etc -- and automatically indexed immediately upon being uploaded. If they're the least bit clever, they'll provide some sort of additional flagging for case/incident number (and the police union will probably insist on such flagging, to allow flagging bathroom breaks, anyways).
If the police are too stupid (or too recalcitrant) to have this set up properly, then the poor dears will just have to go by date, time and officer involved, when the incident in question becomes subject to a review -- and if that proves to be too difficult and onerous, then they clearly aren't suited to police work anyhow.
This is digital data -- it can be automatically stamped with time-stamp, GPS-data/location, officer ID, etc, and automatically indexed by time, date, location, and officer, plus optionally any appropriate additional flags (eg case/incident number).
I'd bet any reasonably competent programmer (or even a Linux-enthusiast) could whip up a Bash or Python script to do most or all of this automatically.
The mess around the Oracle vs Google / Java API debacle, isn't because of copyright law, but because of the CAFC's mulish insistence on misinterpreting the facts so as to allow themselves to misapply copyright law. (the pertinent section of the copyright act is actual quite sensible).
"-- including Pete Seeger admitting both that he didn't write the song and (perhaps importantly) that the people who did copyright it in the 1960s did so "to protect it from being turned into an insipid pop song (as happened to 'Wimoweh')."
> Half a century ago, here is a reformer, "trying to prevent Hollywood from turning famous lyrics into an insipid pop hit"! Isn't this copyright being used to censor a transformative fair use because he didn't like it?
You make a fair point But considering the object example provided, it's hard to decide whether Mr Seeger deserves censure -- or praise. :-/
One question: Was there an actual problem in the first place?
I can't help feeling rather sceptical about the whole rational behind the FCC's new regulations on this matter.
It smells like a mostly theoretical problem, and that the new rule is over-kill for something that rarely if ever actually occurs -- and most likely will still be a problem, after this regulation has allegedly dealt with it, because this is essentially a "scapegoating" and/or "band-aid" response, rather than an effective solution).
> "TP-Link isn't exactly a brand favorite for most router buyers anyway"
> Maybe for average consumers, but for those who use firmware like OpenWrt they're a great value. Obviously that market is too small to make financially sense in catering to though.
I have a basic philosophy for buying any computer products: *) Decent support for FOSS is a surprisingly good indicator of "under the surface" quality *) If it doesn't support FOSS (Linux, DD-WRT, CUPS, or whatever is pertinent, then I'm not buying it for myself, and recommending against it for anyone who asks my opinion.
Before buying (or recommending) any router, I confirm that the model in question has good, full-featured, alternate firmware (and that it can be installed without too much hassle).
(I might not even actually install it -- but not having the option is a deal-breaker. Some people laugh, or think I'm anal-retentive, but I've been burned too many times -- going back to the days of Win-modems and Win-printers.)
I currently have a couple of TP-Link routers in my home. I've been pretty satisfied with them. I've recommended them to others as well. Some people sneer at the brand, but I've found them steady, reliable, and thanks to 3rd-party firmwares, I've been able to place on-going confidence in them.
* * * * * * *
In this era where (a) "black hats" are known to hack routers as a "low profile" exploit that easily hides from the usual counter-measures (especially the measures typical for the home or small-business user), and (b) manufacturers are notoriously lax about maintaining and distributing security patches on this kind of "sell-and-forget" essential hardware, even though the security implications are significant, I consider this precaution to be simply your basic "smart consumer" knowledge and self-protection.
* * * * * * *
It looks like TP-Link has lost my future business -- and that of the friends and acquaintances that seek my advice or help on such matters.
Most people don't know and won't care -- but many of them will be getting advice from people who do.
I suspect the judge was less "corrupt" than disinclined to believe the the plaintiff was so blatantly scamming the system -- and him.
After all, judges tend to be hard on litigants who they find to be bald-faced, outright lying to them; they call it "perjury", and mostly respond rather badly to it (unless, perhaps, you're a police officer in an "excessive force" case).