1> because that 1 square mile reaches into the internet to shut down web sites.
2> because there are general principles at play and at least part of the posts on this site deal with the principle of a thing. (ie. It's not always about the specific act, sometimes it's about underlying concepts involved.)
it's obviously a physicist studying quantum theory at night and answering NSA FOIA requests during the day.
this explains how the requested materials might both exist and not exist, allowing proper classification until the point someone opens the folder to see if the material is there or not. then it takes on a finite state, allowing for a more mundane answer.
how is a law that makes it "illegal to expose [actions].." pass first amendment muster?
that seems like a pretty clear first amendment case of freedom of speech. sure, you may get nabbed for trespassing. but if the federal govt can't ban the NY times from printing NSA super secret information, how can a state ban someone from revealing or printing facts, photos, and testimonials?
could we find the listings of all the sites google is de-listing (for copyright infringement purposes) and simply make a searchable database from that?
In this case I have to agree that (most) people don't have a high care factor for freedom of the press.
but the press certainly does.
so I kind of hope that he does go to jail, to see if that will be enough to put the press on a confrontational footing with the govt. hopefully leading to some changes in opinion of the govt by the people.
which is one step towards changing the govt.
just 999 more steps to go.
(not referencing the 9-9-9 plan) :-P
Agreed.
There are also many positive (5 star) reviews based on "product got delivered promptly".
for some people "works as expected" is a 5 star feeling and for others it's a 3 star feeling, 5 stars being reserved for "exceeded expectations".
overall, people still need to take the time to look through what people are writing.
unless it's one of those "4,000 reviews" with a nice curve distribution. then you can pretty much trust the wave. but reading the negatives for recurring issues can still be insightful.
you could make a gun within the case of an iphone.
sure, the barrel would be zero length.
but if you remove all the iphone internals,
you could have a place for a firing pin that moves sideways, hits a custom primer which directs its force through an angled pipe to behind the bullet which would fly forward.
aim would be awful.
and I think there could be enough force to break the skin, though not a skull.
at close range the expansion of as and propellant might actually be more dangerous.
and you'd have to hol the phone in such a way that it wouldn't flay backwards into your face.
BUT.. you could, with some machining skills, make a projectile fly through a loosened lens of an iphone.
although it could be much more efficient (and even possibly deadly) if you ignored the 'shoot from the lens' concept and had the barrel masquerading as the audio plug.
the bullet would still be smaller than a .22, as I think the .22 is too big to fit within the thickness of the phone, but that just means a smaller caliber bullet.
if I was a machinist, I would say "challenge accepted!".
I mean.. what 5 year old isn't "terrorize, frightened" by that movie?
and I'm pretty sure those feelings were the intent of the creators.
even 18 year old and 25 year olds can FEEL frightened and terrorized after watching that movie.
but.. if we see something and say something..
won't the FBI just set up a sting to entice the troubled youth into rebelling in some fashion and then arrest the youth for conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?
I mean.. it's what they're doing now, but maybe they're running short of prospects, so they need a bigger pool.
Just a thought.
the right thing for them (BSA) to do would be to issue a public apology to the owner of the picture they used, and if it is a professional then they could also offer a token payment for the short time they had used the unlicensed material.
I'm not expecting any of that, but it would be the proper, correct, thing to do especially for a an entity (corporation? agency?) that primarily focuses on proper licensing requirements.
If the police confiscated a laptop from a man and found detailed travel records of a local female, it would be assumed he is stalking her.
what these companies are doing sounds like stalking everyone.
what does it take to get a restraining order, to tell someone to stop following me.
would this at all apply to this scenario of them following me through their network of electronic cameras?
sounds like a stretch, but so does what they're doing.
Police follow very similar general rules as us regular folks.
what we are seeing here is the 121 strikes and you're out rule. :-P
NYPD thought the perimeter wasn't secure because there weren't a hundred cops standing around chatting and texting. Also, there weren't any doughnuts..
so.. yeah, it was divergent from what the NYPD normally sees at their crime scenes.
Which are obviously the best in the world.
perhaps the article was written emotionally, but it seemed to lack all of the thinking and consideration I usually see in the TD articles I read. skipping past the race argument which has been well covered by other commenters, this was another "illogical argument" issue I had with this article..
"Oh, and advocating that would put you squarely on the side of Spondike, meaning this guy:"
that's like saying the liberals who are for gun control are like hitler, cuz he was for gun control too.
it's just moronic logic.
nowadays, a sombrero is racist.
racism has come to sit in the eye of the beholder.
I remember the definition of "racist" as being something along the lines of "having a policy or belief based on race"
which was an affirmative stance by someone. I know words and meaning change over time, but sometimes when the meaning changes, the word becomes somewhat irrelevant to its original meaning without having become disassociated with it, and then you get universities (learned people) saying that dressing up on halloween in a sombrero is racist, and dressing up as a cowboy is just as bad.
so now racist just means "might have offended someone if they knew about it".. which is everything from being a different religion, race, or belief system.
yes, I used the word underhanded as well.
"valid" in that it works, which you also admit to.
And as long as the fines are negligible, it'll remain a valid tactic.
I'm not pro underhanded anything, but whether it's apple using slave labor or whatever the cause of the day is, it's more of just a fact of business and politics, which will remain to be so until the return is no longer greater than the investment.
it's like the US spying on foreign leaders and companies.. the only 'news' is that someone got caught.. it's not news that it's being done.
yes, it should still be pointed out and tabs kept. but it's very much a 'meh' point until some actual action is taken against it. 1/3 of a mill fine is a bit of a 'meh' action.
just because they use underhanded tactics doesn't mean they're not doing well or are unpopular. they are arguably one of the top 2 phone makers at the moment. even if they are #1, they would still do things like this to try to widen the gap. it's silly to think these tactics are only undertaken by those who are otherwise failing.
Samsung also doesn't seem to be suffering from complacency in the new tech department. so this comment seems to be somewhat irrelevant.
These underhanded tactics are arguably business valid.. where if you gain 10% favorability through them, then lose 3% when it's discovered (a lot of people really don't follow up on this stuff).
it's like a politician saying something they know is false, because that message will reach more people than the fact checkers note that comes out 2 days later.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying it's a valid tactic that often succeeds.
I hope they succeed, as it will give credence to my lawsuit demanding I get payed for my hard work at farmville.
which will, of course, then go after govt farming subsidies.
so.. are there back-links, pictures, or what?
or do I have to buy the book and it's proven there by "I talked to someone who said" by a guy from NPR?
I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if fox did that, I'd think using TOR would be more anonymous and cheaper, or payed proxy servers more so than AOL accounts and mobile data thumb drives of some sort.
So, on the one hand, I'm willing to believe it, but I haven't seen the proof yet.
at the same time, not sure I care that much.. if it's fox defending itself, I don't really care.
if it's fox drumming up astro-turf pro or con a particular political point, then I care and would like more info on that, specifically.
engines outside the EU
if searching for a person why not just use Bing or Yahoo?
they still list the links to these articles don't they?
or wil the EU now go after yahoo and MS to offer similar 'RTBF' services?
and then after the second/third tier search engines?
I'm confused by the logic and the morality of targeting just 1 engine.
does the EU realize there are other engines that keep their own listings?
were these questions asked during the trial/legislation period that got this process approved?