It also points to the killing of Walter Scott by South Carolina police officer Michael Slager, who stated Scott had reached for his taser, necessitating his shooting. Bystander video showed what actually happened, which was Officer Slager shooting Scott in the back as he fled and then dropping his taser near Scott's body.
While I'm all for complete protection for citizens and journalists alike being able to record public officers performing public duties in public, wouldn't Walter Scott's case been clearly established by forensics? Shooting someone reaching for your taser would be from a foot away in the front, not at a distance in the back.
Of course, I'm guessing the police could have just swept the autopsy under the rug...
Like decent toilet paper, the inanity of this tweet is two-ply.
The perfect double-entendre, since decent toilet paper is mostly what's needed to read Mr. Berenson's tweet.
They are both big companies with plenty of law talent on staff (I work for one of them). They also have plenty of incentive to avoid these trolls, because there are so many possibilities of such overbroad interpretations in the network space.
Sadly, my company years ago also settled with a lone engineer, the name of who's company (in a completely different space) conflicted with an acronym we wanted to use for a new platform. So we changed the name rather than spend even a day fighting it.
From the Live Free or Die state, one of my local State Representatives made the following tweet after the "incident":
"Wow. These terrorists need to be locked up, I want to know who is from NH besides the police chief from Troy, NH."
The police chief from Troy was in fact at the Capitol that day. Instead of lawmakers looking in to what other NH officials attended and what role they may have played, the rep was stripped of her committee assignments and censured.
I work for a decently mid-sized cutting-edge technology company that Elliott Management owns a stake in. For years they have been trying to tell us how to run our business. That advice is 99% of the time about quarterly returns and not about long term strategic investment in growth and technology. Half of the time, it is exactly about sacrificing long term growth in the name of scooping out money now.
I can understand that shareholders have an interest in how the company is working, but... if they don't like how we're working and don't think they'll make enough money, go buy some other stock! The people who run our company are knowledgeable and passionate about our technology and where it's going. Elliott doesn't have a clue, and that doesn't seem to matter to them.
So far, our company has managed to tell them to go pound sand (ever so politely, I assume). We've been hiring as opposed to laying off, and getting our engineering groups back into fighting shape to take on our technology challenges. Let's hope that can continue.
One interesting potential concern in this (beyond the obvious ones discussed) is that most cars now have the features shipped with it tracked via the VIN. I can give my dealer the VIN of my car and they can tell me the exact model including every option it was bought with. Mechanics use this to work on the car.
What happens when some mechanic relies on this and thinks one of these "de-featured" Teslas still has the applicable feature and does something wrong fixing the car?
Poor Scottsdale. If they are responsible for 5% of 2.5 billion piracies per day, that is 125 million per day. With a population of 250,000, let's assume half are pirates, that is 1000 images pirated per person per day every day. If only we could harness that productivity for good....
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
In what world is that okay?
This one apparently. Most governments have gone so far beyond "regulatory capture" that they don't even try to hide who's interests they represent now. And it isn't their constituents.
or more specifically, when "the party" became more important than "the candidate" or "the issues". Every single thing reported in the news today is always "which party supports it", and thus requires every single member of the other party to oppose it simply to be allowed to remain in the party.
It is BIG news when a member of one of the parties votes in opposition now, since it happens so rarely. And, god forbid, an intelligent politician (please, no snickering) researches actual facts and changes their mind about an issue, they are immediately tagged as flip-flopping and marked for defeat. This reinforces that the party itself is the most important thing and what the member thinks is irrelevant. And this feeds itself and brings increasingly extremist positions in an attempt to pander to the "base".
Second, maybe a handful of large corporate players (Google, Amazon, etc) should just publicly announce they will no longer service EU countries at all. I bet that would last about an hour before MEPs suddenly achieved enlightenment.
..."It would also affect US citizens -- the sort of people everyone agrees have Constitutional rights."
Have you guys not been reading the articles you've been writing these past years? Or any other news?