The producers was supposed to be a joke citing an egregious example of exploitation
The same way, I suppose, The Shield was supposed to be a gritty story about bad cops in a bad precinct.
Both were supposed to be extreme, outrageous examples. One for humor, one for edge. It just turns out Hollywood writers don't research enough or understand reality.
In the Gotham pilot, in a precinct that is supposed to be corrupt from the lowest beat officer to the commissioner, Gordon and Bullock fret over shooting an innocent man and getting fired for it. That is, a man innocent of the Wayne murders, but still a guy with a rap sheet who bolted, fired shots and fought.
Gotham debuted after Ferguson and the epidemic of unconvicted murders by law enforcement officers in the news. For a cynic like me it was hilarious naivete on part of the scriptwriter.
it surprises me that binding arbitration clauses and NDA have any legitimacy.
This reminds me of an old thief-finder scam (in which they got paid by the execution). He'd hire his marks, make them swear an oath (at risk of eternal Hellfire, which they believed) not to discuss the nature of their work. He'd then have them commit some crime (e.g. minting counterfeit coin) and then turn them in.
For sake of their souls, they'd stay silent to the gallows. It took the intervention of a clever bishop to crack the scam after countless victims.
NDAs are the same thing.
And binding arbitration pretty much assures you're going to be betrayed by the one forcing the clause. By signing into such an agreement, you're essentially stating you are doing so out of legal necessity, which should not only void the binding arbitration clause, but the entire contract.
People don't sign away their rights unless they have no choice but to do so. Morally its the same realm as extortion.
This is why piracy gets to retain its jolly reputation...
Of crime on markets of dubious legitimacy. The recording industry has similarly been screwing artists despite their You wouldn't steal a bear anti-piracy campaign and their repeated pronouncements that they support the artists from which they profit.
As pirates preyed on the Spanish silver train and supplied restaurants with low price but quality oysters, media and software pirates are one for all for one. We'll share share and share alike with you and love you like a son.
About eight years ago, two investigators, spitting images of Friday and Webb, came to my door. I invited them in and we talked about an incident I'd never heard about. And they said they had videos of me instigating the incident.
They left. I never saw them again.
Is that what a knock raid looks like?
I've not heard of any situation since the 70s in which the police serve a warrant or conduct business without a SWAT team blasting the front door with C2.
Your notion that copyright law cannot be understood outside the legal system raises an interesting thought.
If laws exist that cannot be understood by the laity (or that can only be understood by legal experts) how is this different than an intrinsic corruption of the DoJ?
I would argue that laws have to be comprehensible by us 100IQ idiots to be valid, otherwise ignorance of the law becomes the norm.
Worse yet, ignorance of the law becomes (is) the norm for law enforcement officers, who have to guess at whether something someone is doing is illegal. Or rather, assumes it is / isn't based on the cuts of their respective jibs.
Now that we know that our phones and internet services betray us regularly to a predatory government, it will raise the deductive leap that this applies to anything else that uses telecommunications until it is standard policy to install robust security (e.g. encryption).
I mean, c'mon world, we did this for wireless telephones and garage-door openers thanks to illicit listeners and burglaries. I'm pretty sure that a mayor didn't have to get his house invaded for those technologies to be developed.
It would be a nice touch in a contemporary spy/action thriller for an abduction team to use a remote-access service hack to disable their target's vehicle and unlock the doors.
James Madison used recently in another thread, but it's a good quote
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. -- James Madison
This quote seems to speak specifically to click-wrap contracts that have word counts exceeding Macbeth or Hamlet.
The question this raises is why in sixty years it hasn't happened already.
We've not exactly been tidy or super secure when it comes to either Soviet or American nuclear weapons. It's difficult to process non-weapons-grade fissile material into weapons-grade, but not all the material that is available is entirely accounted for. And the Nth Country Experiment noted that the design of nuclear weapons is easy to come by.
I tend to speak with wiggle room because I tend to like to stick to stick to the realm of certainty. (I won't even commit to denying Russell's teapot, generally.)
But I do know that since the WWII endgame, particularly since Castle Bravo, when things went from atomic to nuclear, not a single device has been used in hostility. Yet, granted, but that's been seventy years. So either we've been very lucky, or we have had a dearth of madmen actually willing to nuke someone.
This is one case where I hope we haven't just been really lucky, because pure luck always runs out.
And a weapon that can blast a planet to smithereens can be set at a lower level and crack it up a bit so that it can be harvested for minerals (after it was evacuated, of course)
I tend to point out the conflict between India and Pakistan, both armies of which have high ranking fanatics who hate the enemy, and none of the safeguards that the US and USSR adopted to prevent a madman first-strike scenario. And nukes in the hands of mid-ranking officers.
Not one has been launched in aggression.
So, while I agree with you it is possible to find wackos who would use a nuke, I can say with some confidence that they aren't commonplace. That holding the ability to kill a million people -- even a million of the most despicable enemy -- seems to have enough of a palpable gravity to give most of us pause.
Re: Re: Looking forward to confirmation of the K9 being put down
I'd certainly debate that guard or attack animals are dubious, since they obviously cannot be always controlled by the handler. In a world where police were actually disciplined for inappropriate use of service weapons, I'd figured we could address dog attacks similarly to if a police officer used a taser or handgun.
But I'm sure the dog's handler feared for his safety from the incapacitated man.
Plenty of dogs are used for non-aggressive purposes, such as drug- and bomb-sniffers. While there have been ethical questions raised about a dog being used to justify probable cause for a given civilian (say a car pulled over for a traffic violation), the use for more general scans, such as stacks of airline luggage, seem to be a reasonable use.
My aunt pointed out the best dogs she's seen for attack / guard duty were search and rescue dogs who were trained to immobilize targets (knock them over and keep them prone) since they were meant to find and arrest disoriented civilians (often children), not suspects of crimes. Maybe we shouldn't train our attack dogs to attack per se, unless we're prepping them for military assault.
An attack dog is essentially a weapon. We should regard them as such which considering when they should be used and how well they can be controlled.
That is to say, the implication of an outside corrupting influence, such as a unified military-industrial complex or dark deities that feed on the tears of widows and orphans, is that the human species would be just fine if left alone.
I'm certain that those powers that would organize to shape human affairs are not so organized and not so malevolent, and that it is human nature is what drives our misery.
My own hypothesis is that we strive for a lifestyle more comfortable than the one for which are instincts are modeled, but I'm only an armchair anthropologist at best.
My preference would be some conspiracy of elder gods and shadowy societies
It is far more frightening to me that human nature for what it is shambles like mindless zombies towards the rise of oppressive dystopian nightmare-states, since the implication is that left to our own devices we would develop happy, symbiotic communities.
I suppose it's true in the long run, that misery and outrage of injustice and social inequality drives us towards efforts to tweak our societies and strive for utopia, but it's frustrating to discover that it's a long road and we are not as far along as we'd previously believed. More selfishly, that my generation won't see such idealistic fruits.
I remember when Microsoft had to re-device Windows 95 because Internet Explorer was overly integrated (as part of Windows Explorer). At the time Netscape was the primary competing product, and there was concern about how given hardware was only accessible through specific software, when the company developing the software had an investment in limiting how the software was used.
As was noted by the folks of Digital Research, people who make hardware shouldn't make software, and people who make operating systems shouldn't make applications, in both cases due to the moral hazard that arrises. Sure enough Microsoft Windows is full of hidden features that are intentionally included yet concealed to give licensed developers an edge over those coding on their own. And some are reserved for the in-house developers such as those who make the Office suite.
If there's a separate license for vehicle software vs. vehicle hardware, then it should be possible to run the hardware with third-party software. That, or the software should be required to be open-source and licensed for life. To do any less creates a moral hazard in which the company creating the software will be tempted to optimize the software as best suits the company and not the end user, lest it run the engine to wear out faster, or just stop running at all after the one-hundred-thousanth mile.
Of course, the courts may be so deep in the pockets of the manufacturers that this is moot. So these are thoughts for the next iteration of civilization, once we re-invent the motor vehicle.