I'm guessing this is a (laughably obvious) attempt to demonstrate that he can show 'mercy' to those that oppose him as well as brutality, an attempt to disguise his tyrannical, thuggish nature. That it comes at the same time as he's busy purging 'his' country of those that might have stood up to him makes it a pathetic attempt, but I suppose he figures no-one will be willing to stand up and call him on it at this point.
You're saying that an American's civic duty includes: • Voting • Jury duty • Cooperating with police.
My focus wasn't on the 'civic duty' part so much as the absurd idea thrown out by the police chief, but addressing your questions I'd probably say yes, yes and no respectively.
The first two are (theoretically) how the public makes sure that the 'right' people are representing their interests and acting as a check against unjust laws and overzealous prosecutors who care more about convictions than seeing justice done, while the third has a chance to negate the first two if applied blindly or poorly.
If someone chooses to be cooperative or helpful to police rather than the absolute minimum required that's up to them, but I don't feel in the slightest that it should ever be seen as an obligation or duty to do so, especially when it comes to actions that are violations of a person's rights. The police are intended to serve the public and society, not the other way around.
If police want people to want to help them then they need to work on doing something about their toxic reputation, and the idea that people should feel obligated to help, even at the cost of their rights just because a cop feels like doing something isn't exactly helping that.
You only have one counterargument, and because it is quite flawed "it is not a human being" you have to put it in bold letters and act as if this answers everything.
Because it does. The grounds for the lawsuit is copyright infringement, monkeys are legally incapable of owning a copyright, and the picture is in the public domain as a result, meaning there's no violation possible. As such the lawsuit is without merit.
When the core concept behind a lawsuit is that flawed you don't really need to spend much time analyzing or considering the merits beyond that.
When you say "The monkey has no fucking clue about the copyright" you have to give some proof for that assumption on your side, instead of trying to ridicule those who think differently.
Umm, no, you've got the burden of proof dead backwards there. Monkeys not understanding copyright law in particular, or any law in general is, I would imagine, fairly well settled at this point.
While certain legal antics can certainly seem to be done by monkeys it's generally accepted that there are few if any monkeys with the knowledge of law and/or copyright, so the idea that the monkey in question has no idea that any of this is occurring, and even less knowledge of what any of it means can be fairly safely assumed to be the default position.
(That said I am absolutely open to a demonstration that the monkey in question understands the law in question and knowingly chose these particular lawyers to represent them in court, as such a demonstration would almost certainly be downright hilarious.)
WATERBURY — Police Chief Vernon L. Riddick Jr. brought a message of cooperation with police to a mostly African-American crowd of more than 200 people at Mount Olive A.M.E. Zion Church on Wednesday night.
If an officer stops your car, if they ask to search your person or vehicle, if they demand entry into your home, comply and then complain later to the department’s internal affairs office and police chief’s office if you feel your rights have been violated, Riddick said.
Yeah, no. That argument/threat might make at least some sense if he was phrasing it as a matter of safety('You don't want to make the police mad, they can make your life all sorts of unpleasant/short purely on a whim.'), but 'cooperation'? Not even close.
That's not 'cooperation', that's rolling over and letting your rights be violated, potentially screwing you over later on('The accused willingly let us perform the search, and as such any evidence found should not be suppressed.'), under the idea that (barring the police union) the two groups least interested in punishing police for violations will do something about it at some point down the line.
It's amazing he can travel anywhere safely with blinders as large as the ones he seems to be wearing.
I'm really hoping this is an honest question by someone who's not read the previous articles on the subject, and in case it is...
A camera trap is specifically set up to take pictures under certain conditions, conditions decided on and created by a human(in other words someone capable of owning a copyright), meaning the human involved has at least some creative input over the picture. The camera is positioned at this position, pointed in this direction, and so on.
In this case however there was no 'creative input' on the part of a human at all. Slater, by his own words(originally, before he realized the impact of them), screwed up and left a very valuable piece of equipment in reach of several monkeys. Thanks to a high amount of luck on his part they ended up taking a bunch of pictures rather than taking the camera and/or smashing it to pieces, but by no stretch was he involved in the creation of the pictures, meaning no one capable of owning a copyright had any creative input in the creation of the pictures, hence no copyright.
If the white hats don't find it the black hats will, and if the white hats are scared off from reporting by threats of what happens to anyone who exposes system/security vulnerabilities then the first a company is likely to learn about a vulnerability is when someone exploits it maliciously, rather than just for research/investigation purposes.
What is the difference, apart from more hot air on the Hill?
'All or nothing', which is what is comes down to with FTA makes it much harder to kill off an 'agreement' without a politician opening themselves up to a PR nightmare as their opponents pick out the few good bits and use the fact that they voted against the entire thing against them.
"They didn't vote against it because of the 'Kick an orphan every tuesday' clause, they voted against improving the economy and increasing jobs."
Crap to be sure, but effective crap given most politicians think first and foremost about maintaining their position, now and in the future. If that means voting for kicking a few orphans in order to be able to boast about how much they care about jobs, so be it.
'No' as a protest vote sounds all well and good, but on something like this there is enormous pressure to pass it from those that bought it and those in office who want to use it for PR/'legacy' purposes, no matter how many toxic clauses are scattered inside, and FTA means they don't even have a chance to do something about those clauses.
Or put another way, politicians are an inherently lazy lot, they wouldn't have spent nearly as much time and effort pushing for FTA if the difference between having it and not having it was that negligible.
The problem comes about because diseases, like any other organism have the capacity to mutate/evolve, but if they are 'killed on sight' as it were by a body already prepared for them via vaccination then they don't really have the chance to do so.
An un-vaccinated host on the other hand gives the disease time to stick around and potentially mutate, to the point where there's a chance that a vaccination against a particular strain won't work against the 'new' strain, leaving everyone right back at square one.
There's also herd immunity and protecting those that legitimately can't be vaccinated for one reason or another, meaning their only defense is to have those around them act as a buffer. They don't get sick because those surrounding them can't get sick basically, a protection that goes away when those around them don't vaccinate, leaving holes in the buffer that a disease can slip through.
Awesome, so you should have no problem whatsoever telling me ahead of time which promises a given politician will and will not uphold, what they'll do should they be elected that differs from what they claimed they would do, how the influence of the system will affect their actions in specific way and so on.
It gets repeated with people like you.
Oh by all means, feel free to explain just what kind of person you think I am that leads you to make such a statement.
You hate the fact that I am right about citizens never being blameless and attack the messenger.
Nice strawman there, make sure to keep it away from open flames.
Citizens have some blame, but when the system itself is corrupt barring extreme actions there's only so much that can be done, with 'vote better next time' coming in towards the bottom of the list.
I am just informing those looking to escape blame, that there is no escape.
No, you seem to be more interested in shifting the blame from those that actually do something to a group for not being able to tell the future, and who are working with an extremely corrupt system that makes changing things just a wee bit more difficult than 'Vote for the right person next time'.
But I can say with 100% certainty that politicians are blamed too much.
Complete and total crap. It doesn't matter if people aren't voting in the 'right' people, politicians are still responsible for their own actions, unless you are going to claim that somehow the public is forcing them to screw over the public for personal gain? You seem to have no problem blaming the public for not being held responsible for their actions, while putting for the idea that politicians aren't responsible for their actions.
For all the claims of personal responsibility on the part of the public you sure don't seem to think that politicians should be held to much if any.
What manner or sanity is this? To abdicate your responsibilities while simultaneously holding others to theirs!
Like, oh I dunno, saying that people get the government they deserve, ignoring the question of how the citizens are to blame when the politicians lie and act contrary to how they claimed they would act? How the citizens are to blame when the government lies to them and hides it's actions, and it basically requires a whistleblower willing to sacrifice their career and often liberty for the public to know what's being done by their own government?
No really, continue to blame the citizens for not being able to tell the future and not being informed when they've been deliberately kept in the dark.
Corporations really have to learn that they don't own the world without even bothering to keep up their part of the deal.
The problem is that they have learned, in particular they've learned that if you have enough money and/or the right connections you can pretty much do whatever you want without repercussions, and at most you might have to throw some sod to the wolves and pretend to be so very sorry that you got caught doing something.
There will be a settlement with confidential terms. It will still set up a model for other litigants but at least not for other judges.
Ah right, can't believe I forgot about the ultimate 'Get out of unwanted precedent' ploy of settlements.
Company does something that might get them into hot water. Someone takes them to court over the matter. Rather than risk a ruling that might be actually damaging and/or set a precedent they don't like, they throw money at the problem and watch it disappear. And like that, ruling and precedent avoided, and all it took was some pocket change.
A 'guided tour' of the facility I imagine, for a nice little 'chat' regarding your actions.
The FBI, much like many other government agents/agencies operates under a 'One rule for me, another for thee' mindset, meaning just because they've been given the clear to bug public areas to listen in to conversations of members of the public it doesn't mean they would accept anyone doing the same to them.
You may not realize this but most people are incapable of seeing the future and/or being able to listen in to the backroom deals involved with this sort of thing, so it's only when it's a done deal that the public is finally able to find out just how they've been screwed.
'Vote for someone better the next time then!' I hear you say, to which the response is great, nice idea, now what happens when the next guy is voted in and finds out that yeah, contract the previous person agreed to means they're stuck, they can't do squat unless they want to trigger massive penalties?
Or they find out that hey, the ones who wrote this contract are much more generous than what they get from serving the public, and since the public can at worst only replace them every few years, and being 'fired' will likely lead to a lucrative 'retirement' offer if they make themselves valuable enough to the ones buying politicians, the public can get bent?
Stop tripping over yourself to blame the public for not knowing the future, and start applying that blame to those actually responsible and who know full well what they're doing, the politicians.
"Oh uh... we just... share the building... not the rent of course, but the building. Also we had no idea who they were before you told us, we had been wondering who those strangers were that were wandering in and out of the building."
Sounds like they expected Ars to just take their claims at face value and repeat them without any fact checking like the 'good' news agencies would have, and had no idea what to do when the lie was called.
Do you like chocolate? No? You must like vanilla then.
Dogs? No? Oh then you must like cats then.
Black? No? Then you must like white.
This may surprise you but it's entirely possible to believe that both are terrible choices, to believe that just because putting one is in charge is a terrible idea doesn't mean that you believe that putting the other in charge would be any better.
When I see people saying that they want to see Trump in office specifically because they think he'll make things worse in the hopes that that will be the tipping point... yeah, that's a stupid idea, and a stupid reason to vote for someone for the reason I noted above.
Yeah, as much as I'd love to see Getty absolutely hammered here for blatant and flagrant commercial copyfraud, they're a big company, so I don't see more than a wrist-slap handed out for their 'accidental mistake', certainly not anything even remotely in the range anyone asked for, whether just a few hundred million or the higher amount of one billion.
Meanwhile individuals will continue to be slammed with insane fines for accidental or intentional copyright violations, because those that violate copyright must pay!
Yet another case where I'd love to be proven wrong, but fully expect to showcase once again high-court/low-court treatment.