Re: So says one admitted nut-burger. Translating isn't creative.
...You want proof? You mean besides the fact that his translation is, and has been, publicly available? For free? Because it is.
Unlike your "translation," which isn't. Just a claim that your personal work is nearly identical to a published version.
You have an unhealthy case of confirmation bias. Seriously, I think you may need professional help. Please, call 1-800-950-NAMI. They can help you find someone local to you to talk to.
If you aren't techdirt's resident confrontational super-fan, I apologize. I would suggest that next time, you adopt a tone that is less pointlessly aggressive.
This would require science journals/magazines to treat "Flat Earthers" with the same respect and dignity as anyone who has climbed a hill tall enough to see the horizon.
Oh, I know. It just seems strange that they can claim to be "law enforcement" when they are "enforcing" laws that either:
a) got removed from the books, or
b) only ever existed in their heads.
And somehow they are getting to keep 75% of the literally illegal forfeitures. Not just "that should be against the law," actually against the law. And they've only had to give back some of it - maybe. They might not have to give back any of it!
If they don't need to know the laws they are enforcing, and can break the law as long as they do it in a new and innovative fashion, they shouldn't be able to call themselves "law enforcement."
They should have to tell people they "work in arresting, also evidence collection and creation."
I'm surprised they didn't go with the equally "true" headline:
75% of Missing Children Involved in Sex-trafficking
3 out of four is much easier to understand. Not "victims," though, that would require proof. Also, it's much more media friendly than having to bring up that ~97% of the "missing" children were just late coming home, or attempted runaways.
Actually, "case law" has decided exactly that. The 1868 Supreme Court found that, as the Constitution only had provisions for joining, it was intended to be a one way trip. No take-backs, no erasies, triple-stamped it, touch blue make it true. However, with a big enough vote, you can get KICKED out.
Re: Re: Re: Laugh all want, but FCC choosing NOT to act IS its regulation.
Here's the thing - the FCC decided unilaterally that the internet wasn't their problem, and should be regulated by the FTC. It seems to me that only one of those declarations has any teeth to it.
Someone can shirk their responsibilities all they want, that doesn't make it legal to call out a random third party as suddenly culpable for that decision.
What I'm saying is, did the FTC ever agree that they are, in fact, over the internet, or (barring that) has Congress made such a declaration? If not, I don't see how the FTC has any need to touch this situation with a 10-ft pole.
Your game of hot potato is pointless if the person you chuck it at refuse to catch.
Honestly, when I first saw this article, I went, "Oh damn! They're playing so much it's interfering with their sleep! Ha! How relata-wait, what? Another one of these guys..."
"Oh, you're sitting in front of a screen too much. You're much better off sitting in front of this OTHER screen."
Well, even then, a "need" is not considered "addiction" until it is harmful - such as damaging relationships, or interfering harmfully with normal life functions like work and socialization (turning into a shut-in).
Prioritizing a videogame over going drinking with the guys you work with (pro-level teammates are coworkers) is NOT losing out on socializing. When I have to travel for work, it's all I can manage just to clean my clothes, let alone go paint the town red.
IF (big if) video game addiction is real, it is a symptom, not a primary illness. Like jaundice, it's an immediately visible problem, but ultimately caused by something else.
If you treat someone's video game addiction without treating the underlying problem (depression, probably), they will likely move onto some other, more harmful, addiction.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Nope, not a "Dacko," if that's your weird name for Democrats. The only thing that Kavanaugh wasn't responsible for was the accusation. The number of people who were for and against him stayed the same throughout the whole process.
He chose to ramble.
He chose to wax poetic about his drinking.
He chose to demean the Senate for doing their job, which is to investigate his suitability for the position.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
The values he chooses to represent are only "American" by dint of the fact that Kavanaugh is, himself, an American. Frankly, I can't think of anything more American than the ability to say, "Sure, you're qualified, but I don't like your attitude. You don't get the job."
The "campaign of personal destruction" was only waged by Kavanaugh, against Kavanaugh. It was stunning that he failed. Like Trump, it seemed that he was trying his damndest to get out of the job, without saying outright "I don't want this." Any one of the many problems he had (mere suspicion of misconduct, his high temper, his dismissal of HALF OF THE SENATE for playing for the wrong team) would have normally made the committee move on, with no fuss.
Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
I keep having to explain to very excited relatives that, yes, this has happened before (Clarence Thomas). Kavanaugh's behavior was awful.
And why couldn't they have just gone onto one of the other 31 "throw a dart at the list" candidates? Why choose this particular rambling, drunkard, way too aggressive and angry hill to die on?
What? No, I actually wasted 4 hours of my life to listen to the actual testimony. No, I don't really care which channel you get your soundbites from.
On the post: Fan Translator Likely Finds His Work In Official Game Release And Is Totally Cool With It
Re: So says one admitted nut-burger. Translating isn't creative.
Unlike your "translation," which isn't. Just a claim that your personal work is nearly identical to a published version.
You have an unhealthy case of confirmation bias. Seriously, I think you may need professional help. Please, call 1-800-950-NAMI. They can help you find someone local to you to talk to.
If you aren't techdirt's resident confrontational super-fan, I apologize. I would suggest that next time, you adopt a tone that is less pointlessly aggressive.
On the post: Axios Ridiculously Calls For Newsrooms To Ban Journalists From Having Opinions Online
Re: Re: But it's even falser to pretend objective when actually partisan
He can't comprehend that a "blog" is basically a diary that anyone can read.
He also can't comprehend that "censorship is only illegal when the government does it."
He probably doesn't even understand that "Objective" means that you subject both sides of a subject to the same scrutiny, instead of no scrutiny.
On the post: Axios Ridiculously Calls For Newsrooms To Ban Journalists From Having Opinions Online
Re: Read again: you rant about Trump lying. STATE ONE UNEQUIVOCAL.
"I'll Make Mexico Pay for It!"
"Ted Cruz's family helped assassinate Kennedy!"
"Global Warming is a Chinese conspiracy to hurt American Manufacturing!"
"Saudi Arabia may have Murdered a Reporter in their Consulate, but we Need to Be More Concerned about our Business Interests!"
Need more?
On the post: Axios Ridiculously Calls For Newsrooms To Ban Journalists From Having Opinions Online
It's the "Lowest-Common-Denominator Golden Rule"
"Expect others to do unto you as you plan to do unto them."
He shills for anyone who drops change in his hat, so doesn't that mean everyone else does, too?
On the post: Axios Ridiculously Calls For Newsrooms To Ban Journalists From Having Opinions Online
"Bias-free reporting"
On the post: Arkansas Police Department Has Been Engaging In Illegal Drug Raids For Years
Re: Re:
Somebody had better tell Australia!
Seriously though, only audio may be illegal, in some provinces, depending on how it is recorded. Video is totally fine.
The same goes for the US, though. Depending on the state, the audio of dash cam footage may be considered "wiretapping."
It's bullshit, but also (thankfully) uncommon.
On the post: Mississippi Law Enforcement Performed $200,000 Worth Of Illegal Forfeitures Because It 'Didn't Realize' Law Had Changed
Re: Re: Said it before, I'll say it again...
Oh, I know. It just seems strange that they can claim to be "law enforcement" when they are "enforcing" laws that either:
a) got removed from the books, or b) only ever existed in their heads.
And somehow they are getting to keep 75% of the literally illegal forfeitures. Not just "that should be against the law," actually against the law. And they've only had to give back some of it - maybe. They might not have to give back any of it!
On the post: Mississippi Law Enforcement Performed $200,000 Worth Of Illegal Forfeitures Because It 'Didn't Realize' Law Had Changed
Said it before, I'll say it again...
They should have to tell people they "work in arresting, also evidence collection and creation."
On the post: ISU Student Groups Changing Names En Masse To Protest School's Ridiculous New Trademark Policy
I love initialisms.
A.S.T.R.A.
They're alright in my book.
On the post: 'Missing, Sex Trafficked' Children Neither Missing, Nor Victims Of Sex Trafficking
Re: Article Title Correction:
I'm surprised they didn't go with the equally "true" headline:
75% of Missing Children Involved in Sex-trafficking
3 out of four is much easier to understand. Not "victims," though, that would require proof. Also, it's much more media friendly than having to bring up that ~97% of the "missing" children were just late coming home, or attempted runaways.
Only 3% of Missing Children Actually Kidnapped
No, doesn't roll off the press quite so nicely.
On the post: Washington State Laughs At Federal Attack On State Net Neutrality Laws
Re: Never know what them wacky feds'll get up to.
Actually, "case law" has decided exactly that. The 1868 Supreme Court found that, as the Constitution only had provisions for joining, it was intended to be a one way trip. No take-backs, no erasies, triple-stamped it, touch blue make it true. However, with a big enough vote, you can get KICKED out.
On the post: Washington State Laughs At Federal Attack On State Net Neutrality Laws
Re: Re: Re: Laugh all want, but FCC choosing NOT to act IS its regulation.
Here's the thing - the FCC decided unilaterally that the internet wasn't their problem, and should be regulated by the FTC. It seems to me that only one of those declarations has any teeth to it.
Someone can shirk their responsibilities all they want, that doesn't make it legal to call out a random third party as suddenly culpable for that decision.
What I'm saying is, did the FTC ever agree that they are, in fact, over the internet, or (barring that) has Congress made such a declaration? If not, I don't see how the FTC has any need to touch this situation with a 10-ft pole.
Your game of hot potato is pointless if the person you chuck it at refuse to catch.
On the post: NHL Team Institutes 'No Video Game' Policy For Players Due To Fortnite 'Addiction'
Re: Re: Re: Re: addiction
Honestly, when I first saw this article, I went, "Oh damn! They're playing so much it's interfering with their sleep! Ha! How relata-wait, what? Another one of these guys..."
"Oh, you're sitting in front of a screen too much. You're much better off sitting in front of this OTHER screen."
On the post: NHL Team Institutes 'No Video Game' Policy For Players Due To Fortnite 'Addiction'
Re: Re: addiction
Well, even then, a "need" is not considered "addiction" until it is harmful - such as damaging relationships, or interfering harmfully with normal life functions like work and socialization (turning into a shut-in).
Prioritizing a videogame over going drinking with the guys you work with (pro-level teammates are coworkers) is NOT losing out on socializing. When I have to travel for work, it's all I can manage just to clean my clothes, let alone go paint the town red.
On the post: NHL Team Institutes 'No Video Game' Policy For Players Due To Fortnite 'Addiction'
Re:
If you treat someone's video game addiction without treating the underlying problem (depression, probably), they will likely move onto some other, more harmful, addiction.
On the post: NHL Team Institutes 'No Video Game' Policy For Players Due To Fortnite 'Addiction'
Re: Life on the Road
Look, if you aren't drunk and getting in fights, why even play hockey?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
Nope, not a "Dacko," if that's your weird name for Democrats. The only thing that Kavanaugh wasn't responsible for was the accusation. The number of people who were for and against him stayed the same throughout the whole process.
He chose to ramble.
He chose to wax poetic about his drinking.
He chose to demean the Senate for doing their job, which is to investigate his suitability for the position.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
The values he chooses to represent are only "American" by dint of the fact that Kavanaugh is, himself, an American. Frankly, I can't think of anything more American than the ability to say, "Sure, you're qualified, but I don't like your attitude. You don't get the job."
The "campaign of personal destruction" was only waged by Kavanaugh, against Kavanaugh. It was stunning that he failed. Like Trump, it seemed that he was trying his damndest to get out of the job, without saying outright "I don't want this." Any one of the many problems he had (mere suspicion of misconduct, his high temper, his dismissal of HALF OF THE SENATE for playing for the wrong team) would have normally made the committee move on, with no fuss.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: The reasons he should not have been confirmed
I keep having to explain to very excited relatives that, yes, this has happened before (Clarence Thomas). Kavanaugh's behavior was awful.
And why couldn't they have just gone onto one of the other 31 "throw a dart at the list" candidates? Why choose this particular rambling, drunkard, way too aggressive and angry hill to die on?
What? No, I actually wasted 4 hours of my life to listen to the actual testimony. No, I don't really care which channel you get your soundbites from.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know, I know. It's a troll. But some people might not know that, so I felt I should explain for their benefit.
Next >>