A very logical viewpoint, one that is ignored by most of the anti-gun zealots out there ...
Yea, except for that fact the your analogy totally fails in that while backpage.com can be used for all sorts of things, the only thing you can use a gun for is to kill stuff (or, in the case of target/skeet shooting, practicing to kill stuff)
Whoooa! Damn! You are REALLY fucking out to lunch!
> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.
> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.
> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology
> Techdirt ... will do or say anything to put Hillary in a good light and dump on Trump.
You are WAAAAAAAAY off the deep end if you think this article is somehow pro-Clinton and anti-Trump (well, it is anti-Trump but only in the sense that it's anti- both of them).
Marcy Wheeler again points out how absolutely ridiculous this is, including the idea that releasing such statements would "re-victimize" people. That makes absolutely no sense:
This makes perfect sense in this SJW world where everyone needs to hide in their safe spaces from every-one/thing lest someone be "triggered" by some imaginary sleight.
Emergency services have immunity from "collateral damage"
Source: tried to get a township's insurance to pay for a motorbike their firetruck smashed. No dice. I suppose I could have sued, but cost/benefit probably wouldn't have gone my way.
Apparently, Senator Chuck Grassley thinks so. And, hey, bad luck for, well, everyone, because Grassley just happens to be the guy in charge of moving the bill forward on the Senate side.
Is that for real? Is it really possible for a single man to block legislation in this way? On one hand it wouldn't surprise me that our corrupt system is so severely flawed, but on the other this is not the way it SHOULD be.
My apologies. I thought you were being sarcastic. It was the same time I was reading the comment above that basically said, "Lewis was the other person DA Brockler was chatting with. Duh!" as if that explains anything.
Again, my apologies.
Funny that we *still* don't know who this Lewis is. I suppose I could Google it and find out, but should I really have to? I don't think so.
Is it the Lewis of Lewis and Clark? No, not hardly. But it very well could be, as the first mention of a Lewis in this article is
... but did not disclose the circumstances or content of his conversations with Mossor or Lewis.
Shortly thereafter we get this mention of Lewis:
... both Mossor and Lewis had told him they would not support Dunn’s alibi ...
But that doesn't clear it up at all. And then the final mention:
... Brockler’s deceptions and misrepresentations in his contacts with Mossor and Lewis resulted in multiple violations ...
Which also doesn't shed any light. If I was forced to guess, mine would be that Lewis is the actual person that DA Brockler was imitating with his "Taisha Little" persona, but that's complete speculation
This is not the first time I've noticed names being dropped into stories on TD with no reference to who they are / what they have to do with the story. You can do better.
My favorite [lie] is Apple's claims that the FBI will force them to turn on microphones and cameras remotely without your permission.
Got a citation for that?
Furthermore, how do YOU know with ANY certainty that the FBI won't do exactly that? It would be very, very, very far from the first time the FBI pulled this sort of dirty trick.
How quickly you erase the MEANS of promoting the progress under the Constitution.
If you had ANY idea of what you're talking about, you would know that Mike and other TD writers frequently discuss how copyright is the means. This is almost always in reaction to those who claim that the purpose of copyright is to create income for creators. So right off the bat your whole premise is wrong.
Your incessant whining, and inability to give meaning to the entire Copyright Clause, is embarrassingly silly.
No, it's YOUR whining about a subject you are CLEARLY wrong about is what is utterly, amazingly, shockingly silly. It's especially silly that there isn't even anything in THIS article that "erases" the means (to put it in your absurd phrasing); just because he doesn't bend over backwards to frame the argument in the way YOU prefer doesn't mean he's "erasing" anything.
You clearly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know that the means are a very, very common topic that Mike and TD address.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Re: Re:
Indicating your news source bias.
Well, considering that Fox News viewers are less informed, I wouldn't really call that bias so much as being able to recognize horseshit.
On the post: Zuckerberg Momentarily Curbs 'Hate Speech' Moderation Stupidity At Facebook To Reinstate Posts By Donald Trump
Re: Re: HATE speech
On the post: Details Of Charges Against Backpage Execs For 'Pimping' Look Totally Bogus
Re: Logic? We don't need no stinking logic!!!
Yea, except for that fact the your analogy totally fails in that while backpage.com can be used for all sorts of things, the only thing you can use a gun for is to kill stuff (or, in the case of target/skeet shooting, practicing to kill stuff)
On the post: Details Of Charges Against Backpage Execs For 'Pimping' Look Totally Bogus
More than meets the eye
Paxtron isn't up for reelection...
Not yet, but he'd better watch out. I've heard Optimus Prime is considering running for that seat.
On the post: Arizona Law Enforcement Charging Innocent Car Owners $2,000 To Reclaim Their Wrongfully-Seized Vehicles
monopoly
That line reminds me of something I read some time ago:
Government is nothing more than a monopoly on the application of violence.
On the post: No Matter Who Our Next President Is, They Won't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
> Again, that does not appear to be the case with either of the two candidates, who (at best) might just be described as agnostic to/indifferent to new technologies and somewhat ignorant on what that might mean from a policy perspective.
> and, like Clinton, he often relies on staff to print news articles off the internet.
> These are two candidates who don't have their hands on the technology
"Samey same?" Yes. EXACTLY.
Fucking loon.
On the post: No Matter Who Our Next President Is, They Won't Understand Technology
Re: off the deep end
You are WAAAAAAAAY off the deep end if you think this article is somehow pro-Clinton and anti-Trump (well, it is anti-Trump but only in the sense that it's anti- both of them).
On the post: DOJ Rushed To Link Orlando Shooter To ISIS, Now Plans To Redact What He Said During 911 Call For... Reasons
Safe spaces
On the post: Homeowner Sues Police After Pursuit Of Shoplifter Leaves Him With No Home To Own
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Source: tried to get a township's insurance to pay for a motorbike their firetruck smashed. No dice. I suppose I could have sued, but cost/benefit probably wouldn't have gone my way.
On the post: SEC And Chuck Grassley Still Trying To Stop Email Privacy Act That Got UNANIMOUS Support In The House
A single Senator?
Is that for real? Is it really possible for a single man to block legislation in this way? On one hand it wouldn't surprise me that our corrupt system is so severely flawed, but on the other this is not the way it SHOULD be.
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the heck is Lewis?
Meanwhile, the adults have already settled the matter. You can go back to being sanctimonious in your playpen now, ok?
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who the heck is Lewis?
Again, my apologies.
Funny that we *still* don't know who this Lewis is. I suppose I could Google it and find out, but should I really have to? I don't think so.
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Re: Re: Who the heck is Lewis?
Tell me who Lewis is from this article. What role does (s)he play (other than someone who had a FB chat with Brockler ... but how is that relevant?!?)
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Re: Re: Who the heck is Lewis?
And that still doesn't say anything about who Lewis is and how they're connected to the case.
On the post: Prosecutor Disciplined For Using Fake Facebook Profile To Meddle In Murder Case
Who the heck is Lewis?
... but did not disclose the circumstances or content of his conversations with Mossor or Lewis.
Shortly thereafter we get this mention of Lewis:
... both Mossor and Lewis had told him they would not support Dunn’s alibi ...
But that doesn't clear it up at all. And then the final mention:
... Brockler’s deceptions and misrepresentations in his contacts with Mossor and Lewis resulted in multiple violations ...
Which also doesn't shed any light. If I was forced to guess, mine would be that Lewis is the actual person that DA Brockler was imitating with his "Taisha Little" persona, but that's complete speculation
This is not the first time I've noticed names being dropped into stories on TD with no reference to who they are / what they have to do with the story. You can do better.
On the post: Apple's Response To DOJ: Your Filing Is Full Of Blatantly Misleading Claims And Outright Falsehoods
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got a citation for that?
Furthermore, how do YOU know with ANY certainty that the FBI won't do exactly that? It would be very, very, very far from the first time the FBI pulled this sort of dirty trick.
On the post: Using Copyright To Shut Down 'The Pirate Bay' Of Scientific Research Is 100% Against The Purpose Of Copyright
Re:
If you had ANY idea of what you're talking about, you would know that Mike and other TD writers frequently discuss how copyright is the means. This is almost always in reaction to those who claim that the purpose of copyright is to create income for creators. So right off the bat your whole premise is wrong.
Your incessant whining, and inability to give meaning to the entire Copyright Clause, is embarrassingly silly.
No, it's YOUR whining about a subject you are CLEARLY wrong about is what is utterly, amazingly, shockingly silly. It's especially silly that there isn't even anything in THIS article that "erases" the means (to put it in your absurd phrasing); just because he doesn't bend over backwards to frame the argument in the way YOU prefer doesn't mean he's "erasing" anything.
You clearly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know that the means are a very, very common topic that Mike and TD address.
On the post: Our Response To Yet Another Bogus Legal Threat From Australia: Go Learn Some Law
you gangsta
On the post: India Set To Ban Zero Rating As Facebook's Misleading Lobbying Falls Flat
impotent rage
Then I can't imagine desperately trying to accumulate even more wealth while being one of the richest people on the planet either.
On the post: Guitar Hero YouTuber Sings Acapella Version To Get Around ContentID Takedowns... Probably Is Still Violating Copyright Law
Re:
Next >>