Looks like the ads were streamed from the internet, somewhere around 20-30 minutes into playing content off the local network. Not entirely sure how it was done other than they have some agreement with Yahoo! for streaming ads. Given that they control the entire TV with very little user control, it's not much of a stretch for them to be able to insert ads anywhere they feel like.
Here's how it went. People were using the Plex app on their TV to stream from a computer on their network. They were using the "smart" portion of their TV. In fact, that's probably the main reason they bought a "smart" TV, for native Plex streaming. Seeing as it was all local content, really the only unexpected ads could have come from the internet connected TV itself.
If you feel like you need playgrounds and tennis courts for your community in particular, then an HOA is probably the only solution.
In regard to the streets, do you live in the city limits of any town? If so, what the hell does your city actually do if they're not maintaining your streets? Around here, even the small towns maintain their own streets, neighborhoods don't have to do it for them.
Huh. Rereading that, you know what words I don't see? I don't see "acceptable" or "justified" or anything even remotely related to that. You know what word I do see though? Effective. Apparently, that's the only measurement for a law enforcement technique that is worth anything. So, I guess these days you don't even have to try to justify your methods. All they need to do is "work", in whatever loose definition you want to apply to that word.
"That's a justified fear, but that's purely speculation, even though we know it will happen."
If you know something, it stops being speculation. The general rule is, you don't give the people with the motivation to do something bad the authority to do it. That's why many countries constitutions (in countries that have them) expressly limit their government's powers. That's why new laws need to be narrowly defined. This law is no where near narrow enough to limit abuse (note that I said limit, not eliminate, I know full well that all laws are abused). A law like this, written as broadly as it is, will be abused in every way possible. This will have chilling effects on speech, and not just harassing speech (especially if the punishment is raised to two years). Calling it an attack on free speech doesn't seem too out of line to me.
I assume you're talking about the story in the last link of this story. As I understand it, rape threats were the biggest problem with that situation. This would fall under threat of bodily harm. If they feel threatened they can go to the authorities, the same way they can in real life. If the authorities are able to find the perpetrators to punish them with this law, they are able to punish them with the laws against threats as well. Yes, if it's a he-said-she-said kind of thing, that's rather difficult to punish, but new laws don't fix that. You still need evidence to convict using this law (or any other they come up with) so that still doesn't solve the subtle harassment.
For standard trolling, if it's a single person or small group, there is an "ignore" or "block" or "report" button on most sites you can use. If it's a large, organized group and things start getting serious, then you have anti-harassment laws and anti-stalking laws. Additionally, in most countries, you can tack on "conspiracy to" when the crime was organized to get anyone involved but not directly committing the crime.
As for my previous post, I was just trolling... Guess I should go to jail.
I believe you've answered your own question. If law is the answer, then by golly, why not use the anti-harassment laws! I dunno, perhaps I'm too much of a simpleton for your obviously superior mind, but it still seems to me that there is no need for new laws just because you append "on the internet".
"In Canada, 216.4a of the Criminal Code of Canada states that threatening someone with bodily harm is punishable by 2-5 yrs in prison. Doesn't matter if it is by phone, in person, or online. Should NOT matter!"
Correct. Most countries already have laws on the books for threats of bodily harm. There is no need for new laws just because it's "on the internet". Besides, the law is talking about trolling, not just threats of bodily harm. I think Mike's got it right, it's clearly an attack on freedom of speech.
Actually, since the only way for a company to hold a patent is by transfer (whether buying patents from others or by contract with their employees). By making them non-transferable, we would effectively make corporate held patents illegal.
You're forgetting the sentence directly before that one. He says; "The article's assertion the image belongs to no one or to everyone might make sense in a ideal world of pure philosophy, but we don't live in that world." He specifically includes it belonging "to everyone", the public domain. It's very clear from that sentence, and the one after it, that he believes the public domain has no value.