I quit counting the number of so-called news sites that I have stopped reading because they shutdown comments. Worse are the ones that require the use of a 'verified' Facebook ID. Verified means that I had to volunteer my phone number so they could resell it to a 'business associate'. My giving it up lets them ignore the do not call list. Slimy weasels.
Yes, I avoid sites where the noise level is too high, but usually there was nothing there in the first place.
The phones were the property of Capital One. When they were fired they returned the phones to Capital One. If they did not delete the 'personal' information from the phone does that information now belong to Capital One?
Can the government compel them to turn over the passwords to inspect Capital Ones property. How would this be different that if they knew the only password to a data server?
I can imagine a few things that are more stupid than suing Marc Randazza over something like this. Even if he is widely no for his soft spoken and tolerant demeanor it is a bad idea to sue. Similar to walking up and kicking a bear cub with its' mother near by.
They determined that it was not an immediate danger so they did not evacuate the school. But Ahmed was so dangerous that they put handcuffs on him.
He brought it to show his teachers. Are the teachers so ignorant that they did not recognize what the components were? Maybe in elementary school, but this was high school; and the junior high has a robotics program. Or did the principal freak out and not even bother to have a science teacher even look at it.
This kind of over reaction cannot be tolerated. With this type of thinking some of the stuff my buddy George built in high school (1967) would have had half the town evacuated.
And when the family and friends start taking pictures of the homeless I hope they won't mind too much if someone else takes pictures of them doing it. We could post them to a Flickr account. Maybe name it 'Stabbing the wounded'.
Scenario: 1. Man annoys his neighbor, who has serious anger management issues. 2. Angry neighbor hacks into his new car because manufacturer failed to proactively upgrade known security flaw. 3. Man begins to back out of his driveway but hits the brakes when he sees a school bus on the street. 4. Brakes do not function due to the angry neighbors' hack and he T-bones the bus. 5. Children are injured, some seriously. 6. Bus driver says he saw the brake lights come on but the car did not slow down. 7. Investigation discovers the hack and the perpetrator. 8. Parent sue angry neighbor, who has few assets, and the manufacturer. Lawyers find during discovery that manufacturer was aware of the problem but decided not to fix it. 9. County Attorney tries to determine if criminal charges could apply to the case and if so who to charge.
Call him a 'cabildero'. That is the Spanish word for lobbyist. More words of Spanish origin are becoming commonly used every day. No reason not to contribute. Besides, if we start using it some people will actually look it up and as a result actually think about what was said.
There are other words that come to mind, but my mother would not have approved of me using them. We could just use 'varmint'. She would not mind that one and it does imply the proper level of disdain.
All these content-ID schemes sound great. But like many solutions, especially when using software, they don't create a complete solution. They work to shutdown the bad, sometimes, and take a lot of the good with it.
When they do take down the wrong things there Must be a way to disagree and override the take down. The current YouTube system is not adequate. The should also be a way for the operators to lock out repeat offenders, including an appeal process if they disagree.
Any system that has an automated take down should have shield setting. This would prevent content that has been determined to be 'acceptable' from being taken down automatically. This would cover fair use or repeated bogus take downs on content that someone finds disagreeable.
This is not a problem that will be quickly solved, if ever. What I don't understand is why Google has not made improvements in YouTube. They must not be making any money off the thing and have a tight budget.
A terrorist is someone whose actions are intended to undermine the stability of society. This can be done with indiscriminate bombings or by subverting the public's confidence in elected leaders. Cameron falls in the second category.
Any invasion of privacy must have 'a compelling government interest'. There must be a reason other than 'because we can'.
Hitler must be laughing in his grave, wherever it is, to see what Britain has become.
@coward I wish there was a timeout device on this blog. One that would limit comments after the first three. 1/2 hour delay on #4, one hour on #5, and so on. Allow Mike to override the delay if there was actually a reasonable discussion.