Not wanting to defend this "H" person, but Google probably should look at their algorithm. Quite often I'm looking threw Google news and see pictures that seem to be associated with the article, but actually have nothing to do with it. I click on the article to see what that picture's about, but the picture isn't anywhere in the article. I click on the picture directly and get the same exact, unrelated article.
It's quite annoying. Not enough for Google to get sued or anything, but enough that they probably should fix it.
"Proxies are easy to circumvent, but they requires an action to be circumvent. And such actions can be targeted by law. That's the point."
I'm not sure that's really as easy as you think it is. Traffic can travel all over the world threw the Internet. Who's to say that the IP address you connected to isn't a legitimate website giving you a lot of data. Proxies act as web servers downloading the data to their own internal storage and forwarding it off as if the data came from them.
Besides, a proxy block would be bypassed with only minor difficulty. Tor is encrypted, can't inspect a packet if it's just gibberish. There's VPN software that activates with a click of the mouse and is also encrypted.
Well, I think the real terrorists got their wish. The cops are so afraid, their mind instantly goes to "bio-terrorism" instead of "the flamboyant banner". Not only that but the people who chose to make the flamboyant banner are now being charged with willful simulation of a terrorist attack.
If this is how those in power are starting to think, then it's only a matter of time before we, the people, have to force ourselves to think different. Will what I'm about to do look like a terrorist attack to some cop who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Should I go outside in this outfit, will it be misunderstood as covert? Will this collection of plumbing parts I just got from Home Depot look like bomb parts?
Re: Re: Re: Open question to the non-religious here
Looking at what caused the debate, then yes. But if we just look at the debate, the important part when it comes to law, it is about the First Amendment vs. anti-discrimination. Two laws that I wholeheartedly agree with, but are in conflict.
So the question comes down to: Should she be forced to violate her own speech just so that she doesn't discriminate, or should she be allowed to discriminate so that she doesn't violate her freedom of speech?
Since she is not preaching hate speech (unless silence is hate speech), inciting a riot, or inciting panic, then freedom of speech should trump anti-discrimination.
You're trying to force a religious debate into a debate of law. The two should not meet, separation of church and state and all that. This is a debate between anti-discrimination laws and freedom of speech laws.
Let's continue this argument since religion is the center of the entire debate.
Reverend John won't perform the service to marry two gay people because it's against his religious beliefs.
There we go. Same exact thing. The Reverend won't perform the service of marriage because he thinks gay people are icky. But there are two aspects to this, the service of marriage and the speech of religion. The laws for service say you can't discriminate, but the laws of speech say you can.
So which laws take priority? Should the reverend be forced to disobey his religion or the anti-discrimination laws?
So which aspect of this article takes priority? The service of photography or the speech of photography?
I honestly don't know where I stand with this. I expected to read the article and polarize, but now I don't know. I think I'm on Mike's side, but not by much. The First Amendment trumps all other laws. Or would silence qualify as hate speech?
Not to defend 60 minutes (too much), but maybe they did something good here. It is so blatantly obvious that the NSA was pulling the strings, maybe that was intentional. Trying to put in a grain of truth (or a warning) for those who can see.
"You were either about to post something fairly stupid, controversial or just ranty... and realized that, after taking a few breaths, life would probably be better for everyone if no one ever saw your words."
More people need to do this. Before you hit submit, breath.
I was going to point this out along with an extra little bit. It doesn't work like one would expect. It can, and does, cause apps to become non functional. This is probably why Google pulled the update. It's not ready yet, at least not ready for those who don't know how to use it properly.
She was putting on a show long before she knew she was being recorded. I saw that in the first 5 seconds of the video, the cop saw that even before the video started. She was intentionally screaming and acting out to draw this exact kind of attention.
Anyone with first aid experience will tell you that if someone is screaming "I can't breath" they can breath just fine. It stems from: if the subject is coughing, do not perform the Heimlich Maneuver. By extension, if the suspect is screaming "I can't breath" then the cop can continue the arrest.
Twitch and Youtube are in two different markets. Twitch is for live streaming and Youtube is for play on demand. Yes, one may make inroads into the other's market, but one cannot replace the other as it stands. Twitch isn't going to take anything from Youtube. It'll have to be another site.