JustShutUpAndObey didn't define what "sea" this stretches to. It could stretch from the sea just west of Spain and the sea just East of Japan. I kinda wish it would stretch from the bottom of the Marianas Trench to the "sea" outside of the orbit of Pluto, or maybe anywhere except the set of null (so maybe not in a black hole,) but I can dream.
Re: Re: That infographic is incorrect, even discounting piracy...
And Hulu (Plus?) has everything else (ABC, NBC, Fox, CW) the next day for free or at most $8.
Along with commericals and a rapidly deflating list of "supported" set-top boxes. Want to use HuluPlus with your year and a half old LG Blu-Ray player, sorry, we don't support that stuff any more, upgrade to a modern player. Want to use a year old Vizio smart TV, sorry, that piece of junk is so ancient you need to upgrade in order to watch our service. Oh, and that week old Samsung won't work either. (Of course, with plex and a set-top box running linux, this isn't as much of an issue any more.)
Amazon Prime and Netflix surprisingly work on every device I own, and don't have commercials, so I gave up on HuluPlus and haven't looked back. If it doesn't exist on Netflix or Amazon Prime, it will probably exist somewhere else on the internets (or it doesn't exist.)
"Nothing will repeal a bad law like enforcing it" While usage caps are not a law, the sentiment is similar.
Unfortunately, as with most current laws, it is unevenly enforced, which is always the problem with the statement.
In a perfect society, all laws are evenly enforced (or not) and thus the Mayor, the police, the Senator, and the President all feel the pain of bad laws along with the 'little people' they serve. Unfortunately, most laws are written with exemptions and exceptions, meaning that the only people who feel the effects of a bad law are the once most sensitive to the effects of the bad law (the poor, the marginalized, etc.) Since those people don't have much say in the matter, enforcing the law does little to repeal it (although, with John Oliver and Jon Stewart, it certainly gives them good material for their shows.)
Certainly, the FCC taking a hard line stance of enforcing caps on everyone or no one would be ideal, but given the current stupidity from the ISPs, suing the FCC even when the FCC gave them all the exceptions they need and they've already admitted that the rules won't matter much, I suspect this would just result in more lawsuits and more of the same.
Re: Technology often has more community-friendly uses than abusive ones.
So it is possible that those emergency cameras could be upgraded to include a feed to ALPR collections at some point.
I don't think it would be easy, unless they add more equipment. These devices only are capable of detecting IR light (and while this is the most common, it certainly isn't the only way, as some TSP systems use radios or strobe detectors instead,) and only in a way that it matches a marker from the emitter. These emitters give off different markers, so what may work in one county may not work in others.
Depending on the lens and collector, seeing anything through these cameras would be difficult since they just aren't made to "see" anything other than IR light. Of course adding a mirror and a CMOS or CCD chip might be possible, but most of these devices are relatively small and putting those items in would be more difficult.
However, I am not sure why anyone would do this. It would be far cheaper just to add ALPR cameras in the same way that they added Red Light Cameras or Speed Cameras. In a matter of fact, here in California, there are a lot of cities which have removed the Red Light Cameras but have left the camera attachment points or stations behind. The problem will be running power and video cables to these devices, but I suspect they may still be there from when the cameras were running.
But technically those aren't service revolvers since they're not issued but privately obtained, even if a given handgun is used by a given officer only while on duty.
Technically, departments give officers, in the form of uniform allowances, the money to go and purchase a backup weapon, and at least in California, where pistols/revolvers require a 10-day waiting period, they provide an authorization letter to the police officer to obtain the weapon without having to wait the 10 days before they can pick it up (and it waives the normal safety brief people get when they buy their own.)
I don't have issue with a police force being well armed when they retain the ethics and fire-discipline that is appropriate to a law-enforcement position (such as those rare municipal SWAT teams that are called to handle hostage-barricade situations). My issue is that we have a running history of police officers abusing their power to excess and getting the benefit of the doubt in the courts.
I fully agree with you on this. I'd go further in saying that *anyone* with a clean record when it comes to violent crimes, and with some sort of standardized training (CAPC 832 lite?) should be allowed to be well armed when they retain the ethics and fire-discipline that is appropriate to have a firearm. We do have a long history of police officers abusing their power, and a well armed and responsible citizenry would help to fix some of this abuse.
It's kind of a catch-22. If it's not a big enough market to bother serving, why is it worth spending money on lawyers over? If it is a substantial market, why is it not worth putting out some minimal effort to capture it? It's almost like big media executives are stupid.
Yet another reason why, if the IP industry gets their way and IP is considered property, it should have property taxes. Once the company no longer wishes to pay property taxes, it should be considered abandoned, and should immediately fall into the public domain, available to anyone who wishes to use it for whatever reason they want.
I've noticed most street intersections in my home town have cameras installed up above the stop lights. I've thought to myself, "Where are all the video feeds from these cameras going? Is there rooms somewhere with 1,000+ TV monitors displaying all four cameras at every intersection?"
Most of those devices you are seeing are related to the Traffic signal preemption system, which detects the approach of an emergency vehicle (or in some places, even buses and other "special" vehicles) and changes the lights to allow that vehicle priority in an intersection.
The camera, usually infrared, detects a marker given off by an emitter which notifies the intersection control computer that a priority vehicle approaches. The camera doesn't produce an actual feed for anyone to monitor, and just detects and sends a signal to the computer controlling the intersection.
Re: Re: Since guns have been involved in incidents regarding ALPR false positives...
A footnote: I could be wrong, but I don't think that any U.S. police have carried service revolvers in about 25 years.
While most departments (I am not aware of any that don't) issue semi-automatic pistols as an officer's primary weapon, many police officers choose to carry a revolver in addition to their primary weapon as a backup, in case their primary weapon fails or is not usable. Revolvers still have their place in law enforcement, since they can be more compact, and are less prone to technical failures that semi-automatic weapons may have, particularly if they aren't kept in good working shape.
Unfortunately, when Congress decided to lock everything up in 1976, it forced those of us that don't want to lock anything up to specifically state that our stuff was in the public domain (or CC0.) I really wish Congress would fix this and once again we'd not have to specifically say that our work is public domain unless we actually wanted to protect it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bawk bawk: LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...
Wow. You (attempt to) defend property rights as being a "social construct" (which is by definition imaginary) yet accuse me of being "divorced from reality." That's some amazing cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.
With props to Douglas Adams, I believe we could turn this into some sort of improbability drive to power Mr. Musk's rockets in the future. If only cognitive dissonance could be harnessed for power, A/C and his ilk could save us from climate change and power our ships to the other planets and out of the solar system.
Which is easily, hands down, the stupidest way of addressing the issue. The non-stupid way would be to address it like liability issues are usually addressed: with clear warnings that using anything but official K-cups is not supported or approved and liability is waived if the customer does that.
Especially when the main company fighting the Keureg K-Cup DRM is San Fransisco Bay Coffee Company/Rogers Family Company, which doesn't use plastic to cover their K-Cups anyway, and instead makes a 97% bio-degradable cup that is missing the wasted plastic "cover".
They currently offer a device for free that blasts Keureg 2.0's DRM out of the water.
But I don't believe that was the reason for the DRM. I could believe that was the excuse, and that's what the engineers were told, but it makes no real sense.
They made this DRM solely to cut out the Rogers Family Company and others from producing cheaper, more environmentally friendly K-cups and thus cutting them out of mad-profits. That is the only reason that makes any sense.
Giving the hard-working, busy American people choices will distract them from the more important things in life. Things such as maintaining their households, taking care of their children and spouse and taking their focus away from their careers.
I agree. We should ban all restaurants with any choices on their menus. Hell, ban any restaurant that doesn't serve soilent green, since having restaurants that serve different types of foods causes too much choice. In fact, lets just set up a system where a single provider bids on each area to be the incumbent restaurant, incumbent supermarket, etc.
I hate going to a restaurant that has too many choices on their menu...it makes me take considerable time out of my busy life choosing what I want to eat.
Ahem, Government Relations team has made one of these mom-jokes and Wheeler took offense (remember, he's an ex-ISP representative).
I actually think the thanks goes to John Oliver and the Dingo bit. Not only did he attract everyone's attention to the issue (causing a lot more people to write FCC complaints,) but he also riled up Wheeler to prove him wrong.
I really wish HBO would kick Apple out and open HBO Now up to everyone....I'd love to pay $15/mo just to watch John Oliver's show.
Re: Re: The Cause Of, And Solution To, All Of Life's Problems
It's been too long since I read Childhood's End, but if I remember correctly, it ended with everyone being better off than they started.
If by being better off, you mean not human, than yes. Humanity is extinguished and those children of humanity that remain are transformed into aliens, but at least for sixty years, everyone is better off.
My point is that the underlying compositions were protected, and some courts considered sound recordings to be derivative works of those protected recordings.
And my point was that that was not always the case (as the US Copyright Office document I linked stated.) The Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't a derivative work in 1908, and Congress decided to change that (well, according to the Copyright Office survey, they tried to change it) in the 1909 Copyright Act.
The problem was, that Congress wasn't fully bought by the bribes that they were receiving from the Copyright Industry, and decided that maybe, just maybe, if they gave the Industry everything it wanted, that they would lock away everything, so they mandated compulsory licensing as part of the 1909 Act. The underlying compositions were protected, but as long as the company turning them into records or piano rolls paid based on statutory rates and requirements, they could copy them without protestation by the composition owner. Not a full copyright, but kinda one.
That was fixed in 1976, though some states fixed it sooner.