Yes, but there's no law against that. The worst that could be said is the implication the CONSUMERS of these products are associated with the negative terms. There's nothing derogatory or unflattering about the brands or products themselves.
"Well, first, was a telephoto lens in use? Second, you can (at least in my state) use a telephoto lens (or binoculars, or a telescope, etc.) to peer through windows -- you just have to be in a place you're legally entitled to be when you do it."
The focal length of the lens is irrelevant; you could as easily come closer while still staying on public property, or crop the image. I'm pretty sure your locality has peeping tom laws that would prevent you from photographing the interior of a house, even if some view could be obtained in an otherwise legal manner. Ditto, the secure area inside a police station or courthouse.
I am somewhat unimpressed by shenanigans like this. I'm all for exercising ones rights to demonstrate and reinforce them, I've been stopped from photographing in public myself, and didn't back down. But there's little reason to photograph this particular area other than to force a reaction.
If you listen carefully, the officer appears to be objecting to the fact that the interior of the building - as visible through the open doors - was being photographed. That may or may not have happened, but the possibility exists.
Just as you can photograph the outside of a house, but NOT use a telephoto lens to peer through the windows, this might have some validity.
There's another remote possibility that such photographs would be useful for planning a break when prisoners are being transferred - which is why our local courthouse closes the doors behind the vehicle before this is done. Jacksonville doesn't?
Agreed, this should not be a revenue stream. But, a general fund would remove MOST of the motivation for abuse. If you knew writing additional unjustified tickets would raise the shared pool of money by some minuscule fraction, instead of your town keeping the whole, what, hundred bucks or so?, you're not going at it quite so hard.
I used to drive route 13 through Maryland; there were several small towns along that mostly barren highway that seems to be set up solely for speeding ticket revenue. Multiple, rapid speed changes, partially obscured signs, dedicated hiding spots for multiple police cars.
I've always though there was a simple solution for this: Don't let the town keep the money. Put all ticket revenue (minus documented and audited costs) into a statewide highway fund. The town gets back it's share (based, perhaps, on miles of road within the town) and everything is fair.
This speaks as much to the unfairness of the plea bargain system as it does to cell phone location technology. Someone being sufficiently frightened (with false information) so as to take 15 years for a crime they didn't commit invalidates the whole process.
Yes, false information. Don't think law enforcement and prosecutors didn't know they were spieling nonsense. They knew exactly how inaccurate the information was; they just didn't care, as long as it yielded a confession.
I can't really fault the TSA on this one topic; I can't even disagree with their logic. To you and I, it's a joke - but note the metal pressure chamber, which could contain anything, and the fibrous "fuse". You couldn't know for sure it wasn't functional unless you tried to light it. Similarly, I'm quite sure they don't allow the non-firing replica firearms you can easily buy - it just takes too long to positively determine these things ARE harmless replicas.
Honestly, this is getting to be like a Futurama episode, only that's supposed to be funny. People (myself included) occasionally point out there have been no declarations of war, but we forget we haven't defined war in this context. Presumably, it's whatever the government says it is - today. Hey, didn't we have a "war on poverty" for a while?
I know how to make better coffee, but there are certainly times my Keurig (actually, a Keurig-licensed Cuisinart) gets used. Zero to decent coffee in two minutes is nice, as is accommodating guests with varied preferences.
As for the DRM, it's not that it's complex or difficult, it's that pesky circumvention clause on the DMCA. THAT will have to be tested in the courts, but on the face of it, circumvention - by ANY means - is illegal.
"If the length of the cable doesn't matter, then maybe the number of people connected to a single antenna shouldn't matter either. If so, then no cable company anywhere should be paying retransmission fees."
Agreed. The first cable company that paid a fee to "directly" connect, instead of using an antenna, dragged us all down a slippery slope.
Originally all TiVo boxes had this capability; it's been slowly phased out and is now only available on the entry-level unit. To differentiate further, Aereo essentially rented you the antennas, whereas with TiVo you connect your own.
So not that similar at all; only thing is that both can record off the air for later viewing - just like a 1976 VCR.
Record 24/7 Download at the end of the shift. Camera not working, docked a days pay. No recording of an interaction, citizen's word automatically wins over the cop's. Guarantee they'll take the "life-or-death" split second.
The Australian cops didn't beat him. Why didn't they beat him after he was down? Everyone knows you have to beat them after they're down.
The lack of this report reminds me of when it was discovered that the local groundwater was heavily contaminated with MTBE from an abandoned gas station. The local water authority actually made an announcement saying the water was safe, because there were no federal standards for MTBE. If there were no standards, they couldn't be exceeding them, therefore there was no problem.
That's how I read it. The quoted text was poorly framed; the less idiotic version would be to prohibit "reproduction from memory." The scary thing is, there just might have been a legal reason to word it the way they did.
" The equipment was long ago sold to the DOD. Perhaps someone more enlightened might be able to explain how the original seller receives income when the DOD gives away surplus equipment to domestic groups."
I realize your position in the industry doesn't allow you to see this, but it's very simple: The fact that some of the equipment is BRAND NEW indicates it was never needed for it's original purpose. Passing it along to local law enforcement allows the excessive purchasing to continue, rather than motivate the Feds not to buy it in the first place.