"you should be upset because these guys are trying to abuse CwF to a purely commercial end..."
Just so we're clear "CwF + RtB = $$" is a freaking business model.
Which means that your argument ACTUALLY reads "you should be upset because these guys are trying to abuse [your proposed business model] to a purely commercial end"
Which is just like saying "you should be upset because they're trying to pass your Terrier off as a breed of dog."
I truly love pointing out when stupid people argue so vehemently about something they don't understand.
"But that's the point. [The police] are NOT saying they're unbiased. They're saying they're biased [in the service of the local mob boss] and that's fine, so long as you know the bias [they will pretend to enforce the law unless the local mob boss tells them otherwise.]"
Hey I can do that too:
Being [a dumbass shows that you are] obligated to selectively [twist arguments and then] report the [now doctored] facts ... on what the parent company decides...."
It's amazing what you can do with some brackets and ellipses, isn't it? Why, you can COMPLETELY CHANGE SOMEONE'S ARGUMENT TO FIT YOUR OWN!!
Good point. So let's consider all of the previous arguments from that point of view.
That still doesn't change the fact that all the little gadgets, gizmos, and features I enjoyed on past phones are now controlled ENTIRELY by needing a different app, which I may or may not need to PURCHASE.
Let's just take Pix messaging for instance. How long has the ability to send/receive pics from your phone been around? To do that with the iPhone, you need to go find the app; and even then, there is still no app for RECEIVING. It can't be done. How is this better?????
Could that be because, in order to do ANYTHING, on the iphone, you need "an app for that"? Hmmm? No couldn't possibly be that...
-slightly embittered iphone owner
Technically speaking, yes. However, depending on the circumstances of that admission, the prosecution still might not be able to use it. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give any examples, but there are always loopholes....
On the post: The Borderless Internet And Jurisdictional Disputes: A Growing Problem
Re:
On the post: The Borderless Internet And Jurisdictional Disputes: A Growing Problem
Re: Re:
On the post: The Borderless Internet And Jurisdictional Disputes: A Growing Problem
Re:
If you are not physically present in a place when an action that is illegal in that place, you CANNOT be held accountable.
It's haughtilly laughable to presume otherwise.
On the post: Corporations Hiring Their Own Reporters
Re:
Sorry dude, just business.
On the post: Corporations Hiring Their Own Reporters
Re: Re:
Just so we're clear "CwF + RtB = $$" is a freaking business model.
Which means that your argument ACTUALLY reads "you should be upset because these guys are trying to abuse [your proposed business model] to a purely commercial end"
Which is just like saying "you should be upset because they're trying to pass your Terrier off as a breed of dog."
I truly love pointing out when stupid people argue so vehemently about something they don't understand.
On the post: Corporations Hiring Their Own Reporters
Re:
Really? Wow, I guess you're right with this site just riddled with ads....
STFU and GTFOY
On the post: Corporations Hiring Their Own Reporters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is ethics
Hey I can do that too:
Being [a dumbass shows that you are] obligated to selectively [twist arguments and then] report the [now doctored] facts ... on what the parent company decides...."
It's amazing what you can do with some brackets and ellipses, isn't it? Why, you can COMPLETELY CHANGE SOMEONE'S ARGUMENT TO FIT YOUR OWN!!
On the post: Corporations Hiring Their Own Reporters
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem is ethics
You clearly didn't have enough respect for him, in the first place, to identify yourself. So I say nothing gained, nothing lost.
GTFOY
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re:
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re: Re: Re: It wouldn't make a difference
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re: Re: It wouldn't make a difference
Umm no. Try Samsung I730 which came out in 2003!!!!!!!!!!!
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re: Typo?
and linking to various stories concerning the arbitrary nature of [apps] being allowed (or not) on the iPhone
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re: The iPhone Is Not A Personal Computer
That still doesn't change the fact that all the little gadgets, gizmos, and features I enjoyed on past phones are now controlled ENTIRELY by needing a different app, which I may or may not need to PURCHASE.
Let's just take Pix messaging for instance. How long has the ability to send/receive pics from your phone been around? To do that with the iPhone, you need to go find the app; and even then, there is still no app for RECEIVING. It can't be done. How is this better?????
On the post: What If Microsoft Had To Approve Every App On Windows?
Re: It wouldn't make a difference
-slightly embittered iphone owner
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
Re: Podcasting
CwLawyers + RtSue = $$$$$
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
Re: How do I get one
BTW if you laughed at that because you think it sounds silly, you need to look up the history of "the sandwich".
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
WTF??
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
Re:
I'm no lawyer, so all I got out of reading that was "A method for providing...channel depth."
The fact that there is a NEED to have legal copy written that way is so ridiculous... but that's a whole different topic.
On the post: Company Claims Patent On Pretty Much All Podcasting
Re: Re: If Only...
On the post: Trainwreck From Team Tenenbaum
Re: Mike have a question......
Next >>