So WHY is the government AND the popular media so hell-bent on making the situation WORSE?
Because a scared person is a stupid person that you can get to agree to things they otherwise wouldn't so long as you can convince them it needs to be done 'for their safety', and because fear-mongering is an easy way to throw together 'sensational news' with a minimum amount of effort respectively.
It will be interesting to see how this goes in court -- and whether or not Car-Freshener's trademark bullying over its Little Trees products results in the company actually losing some or all of its trademarks...
Not likely, I imagine once they come to fully realize that the mark isn't backing down, and in fact stands to deal some real damage to them in court if the case continues they'll quickly present a 'settlement offer'(complete with NDA of course) of some sort to drop the case as quickly as possible.
It sucks that it has come to this, but your privacy is the cost of modern convenience.
Yeah, no. They somehow managed to handle updates and all that fun stuff without requiring that absolutely absurd amounts of personal data be handed over on a regular basis before, the idea that they just can't manage updates without access to that personal data now is rubbish. They could easily decide to make the handing over of personal data clear and opt-in, they just prefer to lie and claim that they can't and that the reason they can't is because they just care so much about their customers.
So MU's lawyers offered a deal with regarding the servers to keep them maintained, used only for evidentiary purposes and under forensic-level access(or whatever the term was), and the DOJ flipped out and insisted that the servers couldn't be maintained because someone would use them for more infringements, somehow, asserting that their cherry-picked evidence was enough.
No really, tell me again how the DOJ is so very interested in a fair trial rather than just setting a precedent and killing the company.
Hey, credit where it's due, if there's one thing the FBI is actually capable of it's encouraging and facilitating the committing of crimes.
Whether that's finding (often literally) mentally challenged people to rope in as 'terrorists' or facilitating a massive increase in the viewing and spread of child porn, they've had plenty of practice taking a bad situation and making it worse.
Unless police are paid according to the difficulty and stress of their jobs, which is obviously much greater in poorer and more violent areas, this sorting mechanism will continue to do its ugly, discriminatory work.
That still strikes me as solving the wrong problem. If a cashier for example is skimming from the register the solution isn't to pay them better it's to fire them hire someone who'll pay attention to the rules better next time.
Similarly if you've got rotten police it doesn't seem like it would help much just to pay them better, as that would leave the rot in place. Instead you fire the worst, making it clear that abuse of power and authority does carry consequences. Paying more isn't going to do squat about the rot and the draw for people who know that once you're a cop you can do pretty much anything without repercussions, it's just going to make the job even more attractive to those kinds of people.
As for the idea that they don't get paid enough for the 'difficulty and stress of the jobs'? Yeah, not sure how accurate overall it is, but the numbers I'm looking at at the moment seem to say otherwise.
According to those numbers at least they rank #3 out of 10 as far as average annual pay goes.
Using 2013 BLS stats meanwhile I'm not even sure if cops make the list in the top 15.
'Fatal work injury rate(per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers)', pg 14:
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting - 23.2 Transportation and warehousing - 14.0 Mining, Quarrying, and oil and gas extraction - 12.4 Construction - 9.7 Wholesale trade - 5.3 Professional and business services - 2.8 Other services(exc. public admin) - 2.7 Utilities - 2.6 Manufacturing - 2.1 Government - 2.0 Retail trade - 1.9 Leisure and hospitality - 1.9 Information - 1.5 Financial activities - .9 Education and health services - .7
A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a "cease and desist" letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn't wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.
Re-reading that it occurred to me: Are the police currently being paid to wear their other equipment? I mean if not being paid to wear a given piece of equipment means they can't wear it, sounds like it's time to start taking away some of their toys.
Not being paid to carry a gun? Say good-bye to the gun. Not being paid to carry pepper-spray and/or taser? Say good-bye to both. Not being paid to carry cuffs? That's out too.
If the 'Fraternal Order of Police Lodge' wants to play the 'You have to be paid to wear a particular piece of equipment' game sounds like it's time to start taking away a lot of the toys their members currently have on them. Should they object to that by claiming that the other gear is just 'part of the uniform/standard equipment' then great, their complaint is void, because that now includes the body-cam. All or nothing, body-cam and the other gear or no gear at all.
In the vitriolic debates over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the United States, many opponents of taking action to limit access to foreign websites dedicated to piracy argued that website blocking would “break the Internet,” although they never satisfactorily explained how this breakage would occur or why the Internet was not already broken, since some site blocking already existed before the SOPA debate.
How's that saying go again?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
Plenty of people explained(or tried to anyway if they're still lying about how no-one said a thing ), they just didn't listen because they weren't actually interested in what the people telling them how stupid and problematic their proposal was were saying.
So it is plausible that paying LEOs higher wages will result in some types of police misconduct being reduced.
Possible but very, very unlikely I'd say. The kind of cop that uses their position for personal gain is not likely to stop doing so just because they got a raise, instead they'll continue to abuse their position for personal gain and enjoy the raise.
We're not talking about homeless, jobless people here doing anything they can to survive, breaking laws not because they want to but because they feel they have no other choice, we're talking about people that have homes, have jobs, and that break the laws simply because they want to and/or it benefits them in some way.
The cities/states should make it clear that no in fact, there will be no raises in order to somehow incentivize cops to do their damn jobs properly, but there are punishments for failure to do so.
Police are required to wear body-cams. If one of them doesn't want to accept this then they are more than welcome to find another job where body-cams aren't required.
The police and their unions have spent years, decades even I'd say doing everything they could to avoid holding their own accountable and get rid of the blatantly rotten from their number(as opposed to the mild and moderately rotten that comprises the majority). They've demonstrated that if accountability is to be had, it's going to have to come from somewhere other than them, hence the body-cams(even if they do everything they can to sabotage those too). They can whine all they want about how it's 'unfair' and 'invasive', but they have no-one to blame but themselves for it.
And of course the actual terrorists have got to be laughing their asses off at how cowardly and easily spooked the 'land of the brave' is these days, thanks almost entirely to years of the government telling the public 'Be Afraid!' over and over for personal gain.
Those in the government meanwhile I'm sure are also having a hearty chuckle at how well years of terrifying the public is worked, because terrified people are stupid people, and if you can make someone afraid and position yourself to offer 'protection' you can get away with pretty much anything.
Two things: 1. many of the major video sites partnered with T-Mo on this.
Kinda conflicted on that. On the one hand zero-rating is an idea that needs to die as quickly as possible, as it hands the ISP's far more power than they should have in choosing winners and losers, which makes multiple sites agreeing to it a seriously bad idea as it just lends more credibility to it.
On the other hand I suddenly have a wicked desire for T-Mobile to show them exactly why handing over that power to another company is a really bad idea, say by T-Mobile sending over a letter informing them that if they want to keep their zero-rating status there's going to be a few changes to the contract they signed.
Maybe if they get burned badly enough they'll realize just what a bad decision they made, and if not, well at least I get that schadenfreude itch scratched. Small consolation, but it would be something at least.
Yes, after the charade of the election is over, perhaps politicians will revert to their previous positions supporting the deal, but even at their most cynical, it seems a bit crass to do so right after the election.
When it comes to politics there's no such thing as 'too crass' or 'too cynical'. Both sides know full well that voting for it before the election stands a good chance to harm the chances of their respective candidates, so they'll wait until it's too late to change the votes before voting for it anyway.
After all, if they were planning on voting against it then doing so pre-election would only stand to benefit the candidates with regards to the voters, the entire point of delaying the vote is to render the public backlash moot by removing the ability of the public to immediately vote against the ones who voted in favor of TPP.
If the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were really about "oversight" of the NSA, then shouldn't they have jumped on this immediately? Shouldn't they be looking into how the NSA manages the VEP? Shouldn't they be looking into how these tools got out? Why are they just staying silent or giving meaningless statements like Schiff's?
Why stay silent? It's because they have absolutely no interest in providing any sort of oversight or acting as a check on the NSA's actions, and since commenting on this there's really no way to make the NSA come out looking good(which is all they care about), they instead choose to say nothing at all.
You've got plenty of other choices, including Verizon, AT&T, and a whole huge collection of MVNOs.
Assuming they even offer service in his/her area, and assuming those companies haven't yet realized that with the likes of Comcast, T-Mobile and Sprint gouging their customers without repercussions they can too, leading to them implementing similar 'customer friendly plans'.
You want five grandmas to pay $100 a month, when they each consume $5 a month of service, so that you can consume $500 worth of service for $100.
So said grandmas are currently only paying $5 a month now, right? No? No price drops, everyone is just paying more?
Yeah, the 'They use more* so they should have to pay more' argument falls rather flat once you realize that the prices only ever go up, never down. If the justification being employed is that 'more use = higher cost', similar to pricing for electricity and water, then the reverse should hold true as well, but it doesn't, exposing this as a blatant and unnecessary cash-grab.
Also I'd love to hear about how someone case consume '$500 worth of service for $100'. If a company is selling a connection with a speed of 'up to X', then whether you use it to the absolute maximum or barely use it at all you're still getting what you paid for, no more, no less.
If companies want to advertise their service by monthly data allotment rather than speed they can do that, in which case you might have a point if someone was able to game the system in such a way as to get more than they paid for, but so long as they advertise their service by speed then it doesn't matter how much someone uses it, they're still not abusing or overusing their connection. If the networks can't handle the company's users actually using them at the speed advertised then that's on the company for false advertising by claiming that they could actually offer those speeds, not the customers for believing them.
*'More' in this case being 'for the connection that they paid for'.
1) Accuracy with regards to DMCA claims takes time and money.
2) Being able to crow about how many 'infringing links' you demanded taken down allows you to make your company/service look more productive than competing companies/services, meaning more people use your service, leading to more profits.
3) There is no penalty whatsoever for making false DMCA claims.
Given the above three it shouldn't come as any sort of surprise that companies of this sort can be wildly inaccurate and sloppy with their claims, since all the incentives are on the side of throwing out as many claims with as little effort expended as possible, with no incentives whatsoever on the side of making sure those claims are accurate before sending them out or reporting them to their clients.