What is this world coming to? We now have a country that literally wrote into their law "hurting national feelings". It makes me picture a little two year old having a fit because someone called them a mean name.
Is this really what world governments have turned into? Bunch of two year old babies throwing fits because they can't have things their way?
"that they use journalism as an excuse to further their own ends is."
Point is that First Amendment protects speech, period, full stop. There is no "unless your speaking to further your own ends". Your motives have NOTHING to do with the protection offered. Your allowed to say anything you want for any reason you want, so long as you are doing something in the very narrow list of exceptions. (Those being defamation and yelling fire etc.)
Well I think big issue is that the "punishment" for them braking the law is that tax payers get to pay the fine. Hard to convince police that they need to behave if you punish the tax payers instead on the police.
If every time I got caught speeding I would get a ticket saying someone else had to pay the fine, I would drive 100 mph everywhere I go.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Let us connect some dots.......
I think what is needed is an edit option that keeps and hides the original. So that way you can edit and fix typos but people can still see what you changed vs the original. This means trolls can't change their ramblings, but typos can still be fixed.
WTF is nano piracy? They seem to be tossing that term around like it is in common use yet when I did a search for the term "nano piracy" I found this page and the Forbes page. Other than that the results were about iPod nano.
So wait, a lawmaker who fought for the right to film police went out and intentionally tried testing how well his efforts paid off? It really is sad that police can't seem to understand, being a pain in the ass for a police officer is NOT illegal. It might very well be highly annoying, but if you can't handle some minor harassment then you really shouldn't be a police officer.
It is kind of funny, I did the same thing. I bought a copy of minecraft just because I liked the developer.
I am also one of the crazy guys who gave over $100 to Double Fine to make their adventure game. I did not hesitate one bit just tossing money at them when they said who they were and what they wanted to make.
On the other hand, I have gone to buy a game before only to see that it came with some especially annoying DRM. I promptly canceled the order and pirated it instead. I'm not going to pay for a game and then be required to install spyware to play it.
I love how they like trying to pick and choose things to get what they want. They want the best of all worlds. I really think they should wake up and realize they are pushing for something that is going to hurt them really badly.
They want to be able to charge more for people that use more, as an example they point to power and water. The thing about that though is those are purely by usage, and your not charged by the "speed". The power company is not putting a throttle on how fast I can use power, the only limit is the amount the wire can take without melting.
So the way I see it. They can charge by the speed like they have been doing, or they can drop the stupid throttles and charge me by my usage. They can't have both.
While I really really don't want them to go to a strict by usage model because it will hit me hard. I also know it would almost kill the internet companies. Just think how many people have the internet and use maybe only 100 MB in a month....
They are of course free to lock out other OS options. The place this gets really questionable is if Microsoft made a deal with them to place that lock. If so you suddenly are opening up some bigger questions about Microsoft abusing it's power to hurt competition. They kind of got in trouble for this exact kind of thing a few years ago........
Under this logic all speech coming from either Hillary or Trump should instantly be blocked. For that matter they should both just be locked up.
I can't think of anything that could cause more radicalization than the steady stream of stupidity that flows from those two. Some of the bombers are probably just happy knowing that by blowing themselves up they wont have to listen to any more news clips about those two bozos.
I have been thinking for the last several years that the internet is due for a major change. The mass spying going on around the world made me think that. Then also seeing how countries love turning off the internet to try and deal with revolts only makes that feeling stronger.
People need a communication platform that is out of the reach of governments.
"Of course i can't wait for the feds to identify who is doing this and charge them accordingly."
That makes two really big assumptions. 1) That the feds don't already know who is doing it and 2) that is isn't the feds themselves doing it.
I would say that NSA is pretty high on the list of possible suspects. The others on the list like China and Russia... Well, we are not very likely to call them on it. Even if we do call them on it, it is not like we really have the power to stop them.
That would be why I was saying there should be some options for someone to get their car back. Those options should be at least slightly painful, but nowhere near impossible. Such as having to go and swear in court you will not loan the car to the offender in the future. Then if car is taken a second time...
Much as I disagree with the idea of police just taking peoples property. This is one of the areas I have actually thought it would be fitting. Drunk drivers put everyone at risk.
Taking the cars used will cause a few cases like this where you take a car someone loaned out, but I actually think that is a good thing. You want people to think long and hard about loaning a car to someone if there is any risk at all that they will drive drunk.
I think a good fix for this might be allowing the cars owner to go to court to get the car back. In doing so they can pay for it, or testify they didn't know how it would be used. In the second case the fees of releasing the car get passed on to the drunk driver.
Perhaps your right..... But that is all the more reason why these things need oversight. Charging someone extra because your network sucks and is dropping packets left and right is a whole new level of corruption.
That is charging them extra for poor service, and we all know that Comcast would look at that and choose to make everyone's service worse instead of trying to fix it. They are not worried about network quality, they are only worried about income quantity.