yeah, amazing that the description on HIS OWN SITE says nothing about them being accidental. I mean it's not like he could have changed that at some point...
Quite at odds with his statements to press at the time which says
'One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy, said Slater, 46. 'At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. 'They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. 'The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it 'At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch. 'He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet. 'I wish I could have stayed longer as he probably would have taken a full family album.'
In fact, if you look at the wayback machine, his story first appeared on his sitesometime before Feb 6 2015, but AFTER August 16 2014. Funny that. Especially since guess what happened in August 2014? That's right, that's when the US Copyright office issed the new guidelines saying 'photos by a monkey' can't be copyrighted.
BTW, other reason we know the tripod story is crap? Because some of the original photos he released, would have required said tripod to be under 3 inches tall. Just look at the very last one on the Daily Mail page, you can see the camera is pretty much at ground level, no tripod (also arms length, not THAT heavy). They also have other photos ,including one of slater trying to get his camera back. Hell, even the famous selfie is heavily angled, which indicates, you got it, NO TRIPOD. You know, since they can be heavy in themselves, and they would drag the shot 'straight', or force a tip-over if on the ground at that angle.
Remember this, Slater's a nobody photographer who got lucky when the camera was taken. This photo is, in his own words, worth a lot of money. Yeah, can TOTALLY see why he has no reason to lie about things.
by the act of strapping the camera to the monkey, you're essentially dictating the framing of the shot as being a 'monkey-POV', thus you have creative input into the shot.
That was not the case here, as the camera was left unattended, and the monkey controlled both the framing (handled and pointed it at will) and the timing (the shutter operation)
Of course, later, after he was turned down by the copyright office, Slater went and changed his story, claiming he deliberately set the camera up to be taken (giving him the element of creative input needed to get a copyright interest)
You know Kar's been there since the beginning, right? She was in the second pilot, so she predates Scottie.
Disclaimer - I was the safety guy for what led to the first pilot (JATO car) which happened during filming for BattleBots S2. Adam and Jamie, and Grant were competitors. Whoda thunk a bunch of drunk/bored robot guys in the Vegas desert screwing around would have led to that?
Until about 18 months ago, I lived in the rural Georgia area of Jasper County. It's pretty unremarkable except for its Tv/movie references, specifically its main town and surroundings where the location where the 91 film "My Counsin Vinny" was filmed (a film where two city boys were arrested for murdering a clerk at a store, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses, and facing the death penalty. Marissa Tomei won an oscar for her role, also the last role of Fred 'Munsters' Gwinn)
For those wondering 'why should I care' is that much of the film consists of defence attorney Joe Pesci cross examining/testing the various witnesses on the stand, to accurately assess their ability to tell the truth. We need to start doing this for drug dogs. A basic competency test. 5 test cars, some, all or none of them may have one or more pieces of contraband on them. The drug dog and its handler do a 'sweep' on them, and note their suspicions down in specifics. Missed alerts (say rover alerting on the trunk of a car with no contraband) will go significantly against the credibility of the dog, as would missing packages. Miss more than half of them, toss any case involving the dogs alerts, as they're essentially useless.
Needless to say, the tests would have to be run by outsiders, no pre-arranging the stashes, or tipping the wink when they're close by 'friends' of the dog's handler.
It's time sniffer dogs were actually made to prove their competency in blind testing, rather than treated like 'psychics' (where their hits are based as much on reading people as competency, and misses are always forgotten/glossed over)
Not from this court (it's a joint operation between the department of the interior and the federal court system iirc)
Remember, Wright referred them to the IRS and Us Attorneys office back in 2013, so who knows.
Also with preclusion, if a points argued in one court, it'd done and can't be re-argued in another. So a lot of what's done here in this court may be binding on him in others in sanctions actions and appeals. House of cards will fall.
As I noted, if he did commit bankruptcy fraud, it'll be investigated by the US attorney's office and the FBI. His lawyer should know that, one of her previous clients is currently doing 10 years for it (a fact she raised in court)
The way they always go on about 'revealing' things, you get the impression they think these cameras are beaming the video feeds live, either to their control center to be hacked, or to some website they can then access.
They don't get that any 'names' or 'addresses' are going to be recorded anyway, on reports and forms.
It's as if they're looking for any excuse and leaning heavily on their reputation for being absolutely clueless on technology, so protect themselves from rouge actions
That's mainly because most "Second Amendment folks" are not all that well informed. The 2ndA was not brought about because of internal strife, or worry, but because the founding fathers did NOT 'support our troops', which is why they got rid of them; they got rid of the navy entirely, and almost all the army, except a battery of artillary to guard West Point armory, and a regiment of infantry to 'protect' the northwest frontier against "Indian attack". Instead of the army, they decided to go with a citizens militia self-defence force. That's what the first part of the Amendment refers to.
Of course, after 1100 members of the regiment with some militia backing lost 900+ men to an Indian force of 1000 (who lost ~35) in St Cloud's defeat, which led to the re-creation of the Army (just as the Barbary Pirates led to the Navy being started up again).
However, they couldn't exactly get rid of the 2nd Amendment (there's no means to remove one, as the 21st shows, and they'd spent most of their political capital on getting those 10 passed, with one of the other 2 presented with them not being passed until 1991 as the 27th), but they did add a lot of requirements as to what counted and what didn't.
Basically, it's not about self defence, or tyranny of your own government, it was about trying to save a buck and avoid a strong military, exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting they do.
we released a statement on that yesterday (http://uspirates.org/us-pirate-party-lessig-and-the-state-of-us-democracy/), the problem is the ballot access laws across most of the US are some of the strictest and most difficult to follow regulations, PLUS there's 51 of them - one per state (and DC) as well as federal funding (FEC) regulations.
Me and my kids just shout out 'product placement' every time we see something in a show/movie that looks like it. not only does it give them the awareness of what it is, but since it works by being innocuous, by loudly announcing it, it mostly takes away any marketable impact it has. They've gotten pretty good at it too!
There was the same issue with ComputerCop as Violynne pointed out, even down to the claims put out by law enforcement (as you can see in this video where the EFF first revealed the issue while showing some of the footage - https://youtu.be/RRDhuHBk3gY?t=2m12s)
I've a strong feeling this is going to be a focal point in a panel called Journalism in the Post Snowdon Era I'm doing on Friday with the EFF's Dave Maass, and AccessNow's Amie Stepanovich. There will (should!) be video.
It's utterly unacceptable to constantly demonise encryption, just because it makes it harder to prop up police states.