A lot of, maybe even most, crowd-funded video games go over-budget. This isn't an indictment of the whole crowd-funded games model; the same is true of traditionally funded games.
The thing is, it's trickier, in some ways, for crowd-funded games to go back to the well and get more money. But if the game is going to come out, then the developers have to get more money somehow.
For a cut of the profits, they pitch in to cover the cost overruns. And if a prerequisite for them giving you the money you need to finish the project and not disappoint your fans who paid to get you this far is to jam some useless and intrusive DRM into your game... well, you have to decide what's worse for your reputation.
You can roll the dice and see if someone else'll fund you without requiring the DRM to "protect" their investment. Maybe you find someone, maybe you don't, but if you don't, that game is never coming out. Not just that, but your employees might lose their jobs. Or you can bite your tongue, jam it in there, and hope that it doesn't murder your fans' faith in and respect for you in the process.
"Yes, your honour. We did deploy our drone without applying for a warrant, but it was for the purpose of surveilling our Confidential Informant.
Through the use of the drone, we followed the CI to the meeting. At that point, the drone's cameras allowed the officers to observe the suspect reaching for what they believed to be a weapon.
Believing their informant's life to be in immediate danger, the officers activated the drone's weapon and engaged. The suspect was struck four times in the chest and head with small arms fire and died at the scene."
And that's only the first way to skin the "permission to use" cat that I thought of off the top of my head.
If the bill passes, then one of two things happens.
The first possibility is that services like Backpage shut down in order to avoid the attendant penalties that would come with not being able to play Whac-A-Mole while blindfolded. If that happens, the legislators and prosecutors get to point to their great victory in shutting down such wretched hives of scum and villainy. Never mind that they just moved somewhere else.
The second is that services like Backpage stay open, but scramble like mad in their attempts to police their ads. The responsibility for tracking down predators and human traffickers gets pushed off onto these private entities instead of resting on the shoulders of the prosecutors.
As a result, the prosecutors aren't responsible if it doesn't work - clearly, the proprietors of Backpage and the like aren't working hard enough. And any time they need an easy win - say, around reelection time - they can charge one of these personal ad sites with not having done enough to do law enforcement's job for them.
If it doesn't go through, on the other hand, then anyone who backed it gets to campaign for reelection on the premise that they tried to protect the children. If only their dastardly, decadent opposition hadn't stopped them. See, dear citizen? You need more people like them in office in order to protect your family.
And responsibility for hunting down predators and human traffickers still comes off the shoulders of law enforcement. After all, they wanted to, but the government keeps tying their hands.
How does this help abused children? Simple: it doesn't. This is about the legislators and prosecutors. The well-being of the children doesn't actually enter into it.
"...stealing everything that wasn't nailed down or on fire..."
Please. Let's give our valiant defenders in the Drug War the credit and respect they deserve. The DEA has its flaws, like any other agency, but I'm sure they at least know how to use a fire extinguisher and a crowbar.
Does this mean I can blame him for things that he has nothing to do with, too? I mean, there's plenty we can already blame him for. Still, imagine the fun we can have if we get to start blaming The Donald for bad weather, sports team losing streaks, and receding hair lines.
Then let the market deal with it. If the Hungarian people - not the occasional lawmaker, but the actual people of Hungary - are that angered by red star imagery, let them handle it.
Carlsberg beer used to use a swastika as part of their logo. Then Hitler happened, and they dropped it for the duration of the war and never brought it back. And they weren't alone. Suddenly, because of its association with a murderous madman, using the swastika in marketing was massively unprofitable.
If the Hungarians are really that bothered and offended by the red star in the Heineken logo, they'll stop buying it. As a result, either they'll change the logo or withdraw from the market. Simple as that.
Either way, trying to censor the star on the bottle is either a solution in search of a problem or, more likely, a politician in search of a payday.
I get your meaning, but as the linked article points out, flashing lights in that context are a "signal... intended to convey a variety of messages". The flashing lights I referred to convey no message other than "I dislike you" in the same manner that a punch to the jaw would.
No, I understood your point. I just reject it as I find it to be entirely specious.
First off, while some may be harmed by an individual's speech, free speech is, itself, a benefit to them, as it means that they may express their views just as openly and without fear of restraint. And I use "harm" in the loosest of senses, as protecting people from emotional distress is not the kind of pressing national interest that a society that considers freedom important should be concerning itself with.
Second, as I pointed out, the issue was not the message sent by the tweet. The issue was the flashing lights, which were not any form of speech, as they conveyed no message or information at all. At best, they conveyed the message "I wish you harm" in the same manner that a gunshot would have.
Saying "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" is speech, and I will vehemently defend a person's right to do so. Attempting to cause a seizure, even over the internet, is assault, and thus a crime. And, as the article shows, already recognized as such, thus no free speech questions are raised by this case.
A sequence of flashing lights, devoid of informational content is not speech. The message "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" did not harm him. It was simply overlayed atop the repeated flashes. It is no different than if it was inscribed on a blade, and using a knife that has words on it doesn't make a stabbing speech.
Sure, Twitter is a vehicle for speech. And the image was transmitted to the target via Twitter. That doesn't mean that all aspects of the image count as speech. A car is also a vehicle for food delivery. That doesn't mean that everything transported in a car is a pizza.
Also, you're wrong. Free speech doesn't HAVE important benefits; free speech IS the benefit. The ability to exchange ideas, even repugnant ones, without fear of government restraint is essential to a free society. Period dot.
No, not really. Especially since there is a clear difference between the example of bullying someone into suicide and this case.
In the former case, we are discussing speech intended to cause a person to make a choice. Specifically, to end their life. Words hurt, to be sure, but it is an emotional hurt, which is qualitatively different from physical hurt.
In the latter, we are discussing exposing someone to an external stimulus intended to provoke a physiological response that would cause real and tangible harm to their body. That, according to the victim, did precisely that.
The fact that the offending image included the phrase "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" doesn't make it a free speech question. There is no equivalency between the two examples. A more apt comparison would be that of a Neo Nazi stabbing someone advocating for racial equality with a knife that had "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" inscribed on the blade.
As a direct result of this incident, the TSA will issue a directive instructing their screeners to inspect all laptops for signs of explosives. However, being the TSA, they will be unable to find any laptops. Frustrated by this inability, the screeners will instead search your lap for signs of explosives.
What gets me about the Akai Gurley case is this: even if we accept the idea that his criminal record makes him getting shot okay - big if - there's still a problem. That means the narrative of the news piece is "don't worry about this latest screw-up. By pure chance, the officer managed to shoot someone who didn't matter."
In other words, even if you're okay with Gurley being dead, shouldn't you be concerned that cops in your town are shooting at random noises in the dark?
Actually, this explanation makes a fair bit of sense to me. At least from the perspective of the PD. First, it gives them a reason to set a financial bar to access that could weed out a fair number of requests. That's got to be appealing to them in this situation.
Second, if someone doesn't like what they find in the information they're given and thinks that they've either held something back or manufactured what they did give them, it lets them cover their asses. They can have someone from the firm stand up in front of a judge, if it gets that far, and say "no, this really is everything that fit their request, and here's why".
Hey... something just occurred to me. Even if the 4th Amendment didn't apply to the military and intelligence agencies, shouldn't Posse Comitatus apply since the NSA is part of the Department of Defense?