Maybe its just me but I don't really care for the ceremonies at all. After an event ends, if NBC doesn't cut to another event immediately, I usually change the channel or turn off the TV rather than watch the exact same medal ceremony AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN. Once i know who won, why do i need to see them being given a medal? the after event interview is really all i need to hear and for events like swimming, their reaction in the pool is enough for me. One medal ceremony is just like the next so they are a waste of precious event time to me. In my opinion the medal ceremonies are the perfect thing to put on the website.
I get they wanted to make a fan game but when blizard first shot them down they shouldve parted from the starcraft story and gone kickstarter independently then released the game separately for sale. I'm not buying Starcraft 2 for this mod even though i want to. That said, i'll keep an eye out for other titles by the company. I would recommend they tackle some star wars games from the good old days if they insist on building off existing works. Those were my fav and would love the nastalgia coupled with some new content. Knights of the Old Republic port is currently on my phone for same reason.
HuffPo has had maybe 5 articles i've found both original and interesting. But more than that, I cannot stand 98% of the comments posted there. That site has a terribly daft reader base and i cringe just thinking about some of the 'comment fights' i've read there based on completely irrelevant or false claims by one or more of the posters. Its a perfect example of why some news sites don't have commenting with every article.
a big part of why i go to one site over another is comments. Comments on this site or another site like Ars Technica tend to have at least a few threads of legitimate discussion and opinions i find new and/or interesting. Reporting is obviously the other big part, even when Ars Technica gets a story i still look forward to reading about it on TechDirt b/c the articles tend to have more insight and depth in addition to the superior comment quality.
i think this argument is skewed by the fact that we already know the identity of the troll and that he is a public official. Remove that aspect of the situation and the answer becomes clear: the anonymity of the author should be protected.
If the site says its comment system allows for anonymous comments, why was the real identity of the poster even sought? i know site moderators must get tired of ppl trolling their forums but exposing, or even looking for, the identity of said trolls violates the site's stated terms. Block them, mute them, ban them or even re-troll them but don't try to find out who it is unless they are issuing threats/attacks against the site and/or it's users.
Once the IP address was traced back to a public office address, the question sifts to one of 'public official, public comments?' vs the supposed anonymity of the site's users. 'supposed anonymity' b/c once the ip address was traced, actual anonymity went out the window and revealing the user's identity to the public was just another step, albeit an egregious step, down the path already taken.
Now say the forum moderator noticed the troll seemed to have limited support on his/her viewpoints that always appeared suspiciously after the trolls own comments and from hardly active accounts otherwise. the moderator, on a hunch, pulls the IPs of the suspect accounts and compares against that of the troll account and find a match. This is digital proof that the person is fabricating identities to support his/her own opinion and this voids some of the anonymity protection promised by the site's terms. Some being the key word in that the duplicate accounts have voided their right to remain anonymous and it is within the moderator's purview to out the false accounts as belonging to said troll. However, this still doesn't justify the tracing of the IP back to its source and revealing the identity of the public official most likely to be behind the troll account. That level of anonymity should always be protected short of threats of violence against others or mention of involvement in prior criminal acts. IMHO anyways.
Not that i'm defending the police or the kid but as to the statement about the kid's face looking like he was beaten or roughed up instead of just falling on his face, i disagree. My grandpa was an alcoholic and once passed out while walking to his car from the bar. He fall flat on his face, no hands in front to brace him as he was unconscious when he hit the ground. His face looked (a little) worse than the kid's, but with similar scraping and bruising, even around his eye, and he also had several broken bones and needed stitches. So in my opinion, its very possible that his injuries are a result from him falling on his face.
Was Lein's initial reaction unwarranted panic? the end of the video proves it was not. The gang was intentionally intimidating other drivers on the highway which is obvious by their blatant disregard for the lanes and other vehicles. Given this action, its reasonable to assume that this group would quickly escalate to violence in a high tension situation and Lein determined that almost immediately after he stopped on the highway. Driving off was his only means of self defense. Any single person that ends up on the opposing side of a mob that large is in a dangerous situation. I can't say i would have done exactly the same thing, i would like to think i would have tried to talk to them a bit more (and locked my doors) before deciding that it was too dangerous to stick around. I hope I am never in a similar situation but the results of this instance will certainly play a role in my decisions.
All of the police officers involved thru inaction should be terminated immediately. All of the bikers who struck Lein, his vehicle or helped stop his vehicle should face criminal charges and have to pay for his medical and vehicle bills as well as compensation for stress, time off work, etc. Lein should sue the police department as well.
He can get a job without his social security card. Other forms of ID accepted are: Birth Certificate, Passport...Death Certificate... nope, that's not on the list. I wonder if he could even request a copy of his Birth Certificate since the records should show him being deceased? what does a dead guy need his birth certificate for?
Don't the vast majority of police cruisers record audio and video anyways? Even if he wasn't in view of the cruiser's camera, if he was in the general vicinity, the audio recording capability would have captured the dialog. If he was being recorded by the cruiser, that recording is public record which makes the conversation public record as well.
Doesn't anyone else think that if others had looked up at the gunman before the train stopped and saw him holding the gun, the guy probably would've shot a bunch of people instead of just one? Not to mention that the security cameras are on the train for more than just reviewing the tapes, they can be actively monitored and apparently the 'monitors', if they were in place, didn't notice the guy with the gun either and that's their job.
I think he wanted people to look at him, that's why he kept getting the gun out. As if someone looking at him with his gun out would have been all the provocation he needed to start shooting. Its terrible that he shot and killed someone for no reason but if events had happened differently, a lot more people could've been hurt.
What were the people on the train supposed to do even if they had seen the gun?
I wish TechDirt would do an article on wedding photography specifically, or if there is one out there, someone please point me to it. I've been married for almost 4 years but in that short time the trend of photographers retaining the rights to the pictures taken seems to be going to extremes. My brother got married a year ago and his photographer retained the rights to the images, only providing him and his wife with a CD of all of the photos. I believe she told them that other people who wanted 'copies' of any particular photograph should order them through her website, which only provided a way to buy prints. From what they told me, she implied that they were not allowed to distribute the digital files on the CD to anyone else b/c she owned the copyright and the CD was just providing what they paid for (they didn't buy any prints from her). It seems to me that even though copyright ownership belongs to the person who took the pictures, when you pay a person to take those pictures, you are buying the copyrights up front, before the pictures are even taken. Is this correct or do photographers retain the rights to their photographs even if they are paid specifically to take them?