elizabethtasker@mastodon.online
Elizabeth Tasker
@elizabethtasker@mastodon.online
I’m in a long line for the bag drop at the airport. A robotic cart joined the queue. It alternated between demanding people move in Japanese and English, and voicing the same demands at a variety of barriers.
People have done their best to acquiesce to its demands, but it’s now stationary and shouting in multiple languages.
ALT-TEXT: A small robotic cart (purpose not clear!) sits in a relatively clear area of the airport hall, as people have tried to meet its demands to scat.
Feb 04, 2024, 09:59 · · 0 · 0
The magistrate made a big booboo, I suspect there's a case for legal action against the magistrate, she obviously doesn't know the rules of evidence, you can't just declare someone guilty, as she apparently did here, this would be miscarriage of justice and maybe she needs to be removed from her position, who know how many innocent people she has railroaded simply be declaring them guilty?Friend Kishori Breeze took on Frank’s case because, ironically, he needed a mobile number and email to lodge an appeal.
“When Frank tried to say, ‘I don’t have a mobile phone and I’ve never’ … (the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, ‘You do own a mobile phone’.”
Now that may be the case, but camera's don't think, people think, and people thinking is appeared to what is remiss here. If he declares he doesn't have a mobile phone, statutory declaration of whatever or under oath in front of a magistrate, it's then not up to him to prove a negative. The camera does lie, but only by proxy!Lawyer Richard Mitry said the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty wasn’t always applied when it comes to traffic offences.
“It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,” Mitry said.
“So in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.”
Le Whoops on the brushes.Irrev-Black wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 11:06 pm DDOS attack from 3 million bot-netted
fucking
TOOTHBRUSHES!
Apart from jokes about brushing up on one's infosec, all I can say is "why does a toothbrush need connectivity?"
https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/s ... ck-really/
I could claim that I wasn't sucked in, although I would need to provide some evidence to back that claim, e.g. if I had made a post saying "this sounds bad, but let's wait for some more details so we know what really happened here".Irrev-Black wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 12:25 pm Colour me Sucked In.
https://bne.social/@Elizafox@treehouse. ... 4101250598
The stupid thing is yuzu is totally free and open source, its a stretch to call it an "emulator company". Thousands of people are already downloading the source and/or forking the project.. Even if Nintendo win the case it won't make one iota of difference, it is way too late.Legal emulation or no, Yuzu may not want to risk finding out in a court of law. Many small bands of developers have axed their projects after being approached by Nintendo, and it wouldn’t be surprising if Yuzu settled. “I’d say the claim here is enough to get a reasonable emulator company to cease, desist, and settle claims,” says Hoeg. “But remember that this is only one side of the story at present.”
stevebrooks wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2024 1:25 am Smart Phone traffic cams;
The magistrate made a big booboo, I suspect there's a case for legal action against the magistrate, she obviously doesn't know the rules of evidence, you can't just declare someone guilty, as she apparently did here, this would be miscarriage of justice and maybe she needs to be removed from her position, who know how many innocent people she has railroaded simply be declaring them guilty?Friend Kishori Breeze took on Frank’s case because, ironically, he needed a mobile number and email to lodge an appeal.
“When Frank tried to say, ‘I don’t have a mobile phone and I’ve never’ … (the Byron Bay Magistrate) butt in and she said, ‘You do own a mobile phone’.”Now that may be the case, but camera's don't think, people think, and people thinking is appeared to what is remiss here. If he declares he doesn't have a mobile phone, statutory declaration of whatever or under oath in front of a magistrate, it's then not up to him to prove a negative. The camera does lie, but only by proxy!Lawyer Richard Mitry said the typical attitude of innocence until proven guilty wasn’t always applied when it comes to traffic offences.
“It’s actually the other way around with most traffic offences,” Mitry said.
“So in this case, you’ve assumed that you’ve done the wrong thing based on the fact that a camera snapped you, and the camera thought you were doing the wrong thing.”
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... f9ad3dd31d
The fine was retracted, curious, I would think the authorities would want this clarified and a ruling whether or not traffic camera's must be correct and fines issued regardless of the actual facts. It's almost as if they didn't want this to go to court, maybe there are "other" cases where the fined people just paid the fines rather than argue, maybe there are a LOT of other cases where people paid the fine and weren't actually guilty!Despite the risk of incurring substantial legal fees, Singh, with the help of his friend Kishori Breeze, who himself owned a mobile phone, challenged the fine.
The initial appeal to the local tax office was rejected, compelling Singh to take the matter to court. In an unexpected turn of events, officials retracted the fine without explanation and informed Singh he was no longer required to appear in court, providing a sigh of relief to the pensioner
