Richard White
Senior Member
To be fair I forgot she even existed.
|
|
|
- Thread starter animatronic
- Start date
To be fair I forgot she even existed.
adma
Superstar
Within that narcissistic realm, I suppose they automatically think of multiple K's in terms of something kute like the Kardashians; and only "haters" and the "obsessed" would bring up KKK associations.
Oh, and re the Ford attacker: as always, it seems like the biggest grief he's been confronting hasn't been from the left, but from the right. Not the pinko social activists, but the pro-Trump "freedom" crazies. Not the NDP types, but the PPC types, etc.
Oh, and re the Ford attacker: as always, it seems like the biggest grief he's been confronting hasn't been from the left, but from the right. Not the pinko social activists, but the pro-Trump "freedom" crazies. Not the NDP types, but the PPC types, etc.
John_Dee
Active Member
And so, with these latest episodes, the Fords' freakish, white trash circus clown soap opera blunders merrily on...
tiffer24
Senior Member
This thread on anti-lockdown hero, Adam Skelly, in court today, is something.
Why have they set it so people can choose to be muted or have their mics on? Basic protocol for this type of thing. Only active participants should have mics.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Not only that - but who's the host and what is he/she doing? Kick everyone off, reset the meeting, put in a passcode and waiting room requirement. - and ruthlessly boot people off the moment they violate privileges. Sheesh. Do they even know how to use Zoom?
AoD
afransen
Senior Member
I can understand having those struggles a year ago. To not have figured it out by now is incompetence.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Especially for the courts. This isn't some grandparents wanting to Zoom with their grandkids. Though from what I've heard the legal/judicial profession is extremely slow with tech uptake generally speaking.
AoD
I attended a trial via Zoom. We were let in as observers. No cameras, no mics. Only the judge, attorneys, witnesses and accused had cameras and mics, along with the court reporter when needed. We couldn’t see who else was observing. I don’t know why that couldn’t have been done with this situation.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
From
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
www.facebook.com
EagleEye
Senior Member
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who didn't understand the zoom issue. I was just really hoping the lawyer would have had the cat filter on like that lawyer in the US did a few months ago!
afransen
Senior Member
"I am not a cat".
lenaitch
Senior Member
It is; although, in their defence (see what I did there), the government as a whole has always struggled with distributed networking systems. When it comes to the legal system, they have to worry about things that the average company holding a remote meeting does not. In this example, somebody clearly dropped the ball - unless you are a court 'player', you get to sit silently and observe. I don't know enough about the tech whether they can protect the space and bandwidth needed for the mandatory participants.
In some cases with legal processes, some changes have been limited by the lack of enabling legislation (i.e. electronic signatures on documents). Also, the profession has often taken the position that the state should pay for the tech upgrades in their offices.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That maybe, but things like the judge being swamped out of the Zoom because of participant limits suggests to me an inadequate understanding of the software and prioritization. It sounded like an administrative faux pas. There are implications though - because this inadequate understanding can allow someone determined enough to disrupt judicial proceedings.
AoD
Last edited:
Towered
Superstar
I love the super grumpy expression on that guy on the upper right.