Oh, but it's so much worse than that. Have you ever been to Argentina? I have, and "las Malvinas" (the Falkland Islands) is still a thing that the average citizen cares about, passionately, even thirty years later. (Passionately and somewhat ignorantly. I once had a little kid, maybe 10 years old, come up to me begging for money because "my papi died in las Malvinas." This was about 10 years ago, which would have placed the date of the kid's father's death about 10 years before his poor, unfortunate son was born! And yet he clearly expected people to fall for it.)
You can see posters on the sides of buildings downtown saying "Las Malvinas were, are, and will be Argentina's!" And the common man on the street firmly believes that the UK invaded the islands and massacred the Argentine civilians living there, and historical accuracy be damned. There's a cultural hatred for all things England down there that's hard to draw a parallel to for an American audience. Maybe the national feeling of anger against Arab terrorists for a few weeks, when 9/11 briefly brought us (mostly) all together, but this is something that's endured for decades.
I was there when Argentina lost to England in a World Cup match. It as not pretty, and in fact that was probably my single scariest moment living there. A big group of teens, maybe 10 or so, came up and surrounded me and a friend of mine, angrily asking if we were from England. Luckily, when we responded that no, we're Americans, their mood improved and they started laughing and congratulating us on Team USA's recent good performance in another match. (As if we had anything to do with that?) But it could have gotten real ugly.
So yeah. Should another territorial dispute with England actually turn into something real... it would be a big mess.
Here's a fun one: My sister lives in Provo, Utah. Did you know that in Provo, it's completely legal to steal a car, and the cops won't do a thing about it if you report it... as long as the thief runs a tow truck company?
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to tow an illegally parked car. But the stuff the towers do there goes far beyond any such bounds, and it's all still presumed to be legal by default.
It sounds like you're complaining about the prices themselves. I see nothing wrong with them charging whatever they feel like charging; that's just basic capitalism. Buyer and seller agree on a price, and everyone's happy.
The real problem, IMO, is when they advertise one price and then charge another. In polite company, that's known as "deceptive advertising." Among people more willing to speak the unvarnished truth, words like "lies" and "fraud" will get used. The buyer and seller agreed on one price, and then a different price actually gets charged.
IMO if the monthly bill comes out to $60 and the ad said $40/month, that's a problem. The bill coming out to $60 isn't problematic in and of itself; it's the fact that the customer was lied to and defrauded with regard to what the bill would be.
It's worthy of acknowledgment at the very least since, as has been pointed out, it's not necessary. He does it not to fulfill some legal requirement, but out of a desire to be a decent human being and maintain good relations with his peers. That counts for something these days...
Exactly. I'm sure there have been a fair number of revolutions that, once successful in driving out the old regime, did not up with the common people's quality of life getting noticeably worse within their own lifetimes and the country becoming less stable, but off the top of my head I can only think of one, and it happened way back in 1776. The student of history knows that that was the exception, though, not the rule.
The only possible reason they could have for securing a patent like this is as a bludgeon to use against competitors. How long is it going to take Techdirt to realize that Uber is evil? Will they continue to try to say "yeah, Uber's done a few crappy things but they're still providing a valuable service" even after Uber ventures into patent trollery?
Like most politicians, he welcomes any exercise of free speech that he happens to agree with. Opinions that differ from his own preconceived notions are to be feared and rejected, doubly so when new technology is utilised to make them.
it's pretty bizarre to see a government official outright condemn what happened in the Arab Spring -- which was a clear move away from authoritarian dictatorships and into democracy.
Was it? How many of the countries that saw significant Arab Spring uprisings take place look more like a democracy than either an authoritarian dictatorship or a chaotic war zone today?
I don't know about preventing colds and cancers, but vitamin C megadoses can dramatically reduce the amount of time you spend sick once you actually catch the cold.
Seems Mr. Hood is pretty sure. One scenario makes him out to be clueless, which is no worse than 90% of politicians. The other makes him out to be a felon, so look at which one he's doing his level best to paint himself as!
People should have said WTF? the moment someone said... "Hello, I am from the Government, and the law says I get to have your kids for 8 hours a day for the majority of the year!"
A lot of people did. Read up on the history of the introduction of mandatory public education. But that happened long before you or I were born.
This is an interesting response, but unfortunately it doesn't really scale. If your reaction to "country X passes a bad law that impacts your business" is "cease doing business in country X to avoid the impact of this law," what happens when multiple countries do it? Or what happens when the USA passes a harmful law, and shutting down means... well... shutting down, because you're cutting yourself off from your primary source of revenue?
Exactly. This is what I've been saying for a long time now: why has Google, when faced with obnoxious Hollywood interests, not simply said "All right, let's settle this like businessmen" and initiated a hostile takeover?
Historically, there was something of a rock-paper-scissors dynamic on ancient battlefields. There were three fundamental classes of warriors: cavalry, infantry, and archers.
Cavalry beat archers, with their ability to close quickly and overrun them before they could get many shots off.
Infantry beat cavalry, because they could use long spears to disrupt the heck out of a cavalry charge and panic the horses, throwing the whole group into disarray.
Archers beat infantry, because, infantry being much slower to move than cavalry (especially if they wore heavy armor) they were left exposed to devastating projectile volleys for a long time.
In the ancient tale of David and Goliath, we see the biggest, toughest guy around challenging the opposing army to a traditional rite of combat by champion: a "proxy battle" that avoided the wasteful slaughter of an actual battle. The record goes into great detail about his size and the size and weight of his weapons and armor. There's no doubt about it: Goliath was heavy infantry through and through.
After much consternation on the other side, a self-selected champion stepped up. When the king tried to outfit him as a heavy infantryman to match Goliath, though, he demurred; it wasn't what he was trained for. No, David was an archer, and he intended to fight as an archer. He used a sling rather than a bow and arrow, but that's still an incredibly lethal ranged weapon.
He stepped out onto the field, and Goliath's fate was sealed at that moment. People who don't understand the tactics involved call it a surprising victory on David's part, but in reality the only surprise here is that at no point did Goliath seem to understand just how screwed he was, until it was suddenly too late.
There is one aspect of his description that doesn't fit the heavy infantry profile: he had a shield bearer go before him. But a guy used to fighting in close quarters doesn't need someone else to carry his shield; shield bearers were for archers! Between that, his physical description, and the fact that he claimed David was attacking him with "staves" (plural), when he was carrying a single staff, it's likely that he had severe problems with his vision--which is a known side effect of gigantism--and the "shield bearer" was actually a guide.
Goliath died because he faced an opponent who was playing by different rules than what he was expecting, and he was too blind to notice until it was too late. Now who does that sound more like? Google, or the MPAA?
On the post: DailyDirt: Imagine There's No Countries...
Re: Re:
You can see posters on the sides of buildings downtown saying "Las Malvinas were, are, and will be Argentina's!" And the common man on the street firmly believes that the UK invaded the islands and massacred the Argentine civilians living there, and historical accuracy be damned. There's a cultural hatred for all things England down there that's hard to draw a parallel to for an American audience. Maybe the national feeling of anger against Arab terrorists for a few weeks, when 9/11 briefly brought us (mostly) all together, but this is something that's endured for decades.
I was there when Argentina lost to England in a World Cup match. It as not pretty, and in fact that was probably my single scariest moment living there. A big group of teens, maybe 10 or so, came up and surrounded me and a friend of mine, angrily asking if we were from England. Luckily, when we responded that no, we're Americans, their mood improved and they started laughing and congratulating us on Team USA's recent good performance in another match. (As if we had anything to do with that?) But it could have gotten real ugly.
So yeah. Should another territorial dispute with England actually turn into something real... it would be a big mess.
On the post: DailyDirt: Imagine There's No Countries...
Mark my words, this will not end well. :P
On the post: Dumb Criminal Proves Again That Open WiFi Doesn't Mean Everyone Gets Away With Everything
Re: Re:
Yes, there are legitimate reasons to tow an illegally parked car. But the stuff the towers do there goes far beyond any such bounds, and it's all still presumed to be legal by default.
On the post: As Time Warner Cable Defends Merger Plans, It Keeps Gouging Customers With Obnoxious New Sneaky Fees
It sounds like you're complaining about the prices themselves. I see nothing wrong with them charging whatever they feel like charging; that's just basic capitalism. Buyer and seller agree on a price, and everyone's happy.
The real problem, IMO, is when they advertise one price and then charge another. In polite company, that's known as "deceptive advertising." Among people more willing to speak the unvarnished truth, words like "lies" and "fraud" will get used. The buyer and seller agreed on one price, and then a different price actually gets charged.
IMO if the monthly bill comes out to $60 and the ad said $40/month, that's a problem. The bill coming out to $60 isn't problematic in and of itself; it's the fact that the customer was lied to and defrauded with regard to what the bill would be.
On the post: Why United Airlines And Orbitz Are Suing An Entrepreneur Who Helps People Find Cheaper Flights
It's Ed Snowden all over again.
On the post: Dumb Criminal Proves Again That Open WiFi Doesn't Mean Everyone Gets Away With Everything
That's sort of a matter of definition. The clever ones end up setting up corporations, and then it's all legal.
On the post: How Copyright Forced A Filmmaker To Rewrite Martin Luther King's Historic Words
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Twitter, Google And Facebook Have Responded To Russia's Attempt To Censor Political Opposition
Re: Re:
On the post: In The Spirit Of The Holidays: It's Not Too Late For Uber To Avoid Stupid Patent Of The Month
Only time will tell.
On the post: UK Party Leader Attacks Satirical Mobile Game Made By Teenagers Interested In Politics
I had to look that word up. Apparently it means something that's intended to cause laughter.
Why does that make it despicable in the eyes of this politician dude?
On the post: UK Party Leader Attacks Satirical Mobile Game Made By Teenagers Interested In Politics
Re: Re: Simple mistake
FTFY.
On the post: Philadelphia DA Drops Case Against Parents Whose House Was Seized Over A $40 Drug Sale By Their Son
I wouldn't call stealing a house, which for even a modest one can easily be valued at well over a hundred thousand dollars, "petty theft."
On the post: How Twitter, Google And Facebook Have Responded To Russia's Attempt To Censor Political Opposition
Was it? How many of the countries that saw significant Arab Spring uprisings take place look more like a democracy than either an authoritarian dictatorship or a chaotic war zone today?
On the post: Mississippi Attorney General Dares Reporters To Find Any Evidence Of Hollywood Funding... So We Did
...umm?
That exactly suggests that Hood is beholden to that money, because that is the nature of politics, particularly in America, post-Citizens United.
On the post: DailyDirt: Winning A Nobel Prize And Thinking Differently
On the post: More Evidence Revealed Of Hollywood's Chummy Relationship With State Attorney General... Even As He Plays Dumb
Seems Mr. Hood is pretty sure. One scenario makes him out to be clueless, which is no worse than 90% of politicians. The other makes him out to be a felon, so look at which one he's doing his level best to paint himself as!
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Student's Suspension For Rap Song Criticizing School Employees
Re: The true shame here...
A lot of people did. Read up on the history of the introduction of mandatory public education. But that happened long before you or I were born.
On the post: Google Allegedly Closing Down Russian Engineering Office In Response To Russian Data Laws
On the post: Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Leaked Emails Reveal MPAA Plans To Pay Elected Officials To Attack Google
Re: Re:
Cavalry beat archers, with their ability to close quickly and overrun them before they could get many shots off.
Infantry beat cavalry, because they could use long spears to disrupt the heck out of a cavalry charge and panic the horses, throwing the whole group into disarray.
Archers beat infantry, because, infantry being much slower to move than cavalry (especially if they wore heavy armor) they were left exposed to devastating projectile volleys for a long time.
In the ancient tale of David and Goliath, we see the biggest, toughest guy around challenging the opposing army to a traditional rite of combat by champion: a "proxy battle" that avoided the wasteful slaughter of an actual battle. The record goes into great detail about his size and the size and weight of his weapons and armor. There's no doubt about it: Goliath was heavy infantry through and through.
After much consternation on the other side, a self-selected champion stepped up. When the king tried to outfit him as a heavy infantryman to match Goliath, though, he demurred; it wasn't what he was trained for. No, David was an archer, and he intended to fight as an archer. He used a sling rather than a bow and arrow, but that's still an incredibly lethal ranged weapon.
He stepped out onto the field, and Goliath's fate was sealed at that moment. People who don't understand the tactics involved call it a surprising victory on David's part, but in reality the only surprise here is that at no point did Goliath seem to understand just how screwed he was, until it was suddenly too late.
There is one aspect of his description that doesn't fit the heavy infantry profile: he had a shield bearer go before him. But a guy used to fighting in close quarters doesn't need someone else to carry his shield; shield bearers were for archers! Between that, his physical description, and the fact that he claimed David was attacking him with "staves" (plural), when he was carrying a single staff, it's likely that he had severe problems with his vision--which is a known side effect of gigantism--and the "shield bearer" was actually a guide.
Goliath died because he faced an opponent who was playing by different rules than what he was expecting, and he was too blind to notice until it was too late. Now who does that sound more like? Google, or the MPAA?
Next >>