Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral or ethical. A decent human being, something Woods clearly isn't, would drop this and back away. There is no possible way he can come out of this without being seen as the person who has zero empathy for grieving family and friends. The only sure outcome is broadcasting to the world what a complete asshole he is. His bruised ego must be massive to think that's a worthwhile trade-off.
Also, who in their right mind is going to think Ken White is likely to lie to the court about a defendant's death?
"As soon as people realize it's ALL fake news, the better.
There is no objective news reporting anymore..."
This is a ridiculously extremist and ignorant point of view. There's a big difference between biased or non-objective reporting and actual fake news. Highlighting stories that fit your worldview and ignoring those that don't, or expressing mainly positive opinions about one particular political party and mainly negative opinions about another is NOT fake news. If you're really concerned about biased reporting, calling it fake news is a stupid and counterproductive attempt to fix the problem.
Russian agents hack both parties. Russian agents prefer Trump as president, as that would strengthen their world position. Russian agents realise only damaging Democrat emails, the subjects of which become major focal points for the election campaigns.
Sorry but that's not 'journalism', that's basically social engineering to attempt to swing more votes to your preferred candidate. Do you really think there was absolutely nothing newsworthy in the Republican info taken?
You'd expect this from an opposition party, but not another country. Your third paragraph is completely correct, because it turns out they didn't need to do any of those things to get the desired result.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obamy has been whipped like a cur
"Go do the work for yourself."
Sorry but that's not how the burden of proof works. You make claims, you provide the supporting evidence. If you can't, expect to be called on it and have your claims dismissed.
"As I read it... it seemed like he was trying to convince himself more than trying to convince others."
As I read it he was just laying out a set of facts that most technologically apt people should be well aware of my now; that these companies collect data to use in ways that improve their service, because better service attracts and retains customers, which in turn makes them more money. Why he need to convince himself of something that's fairly well understood? Yes there are absolutely privacy trade-offs, and making these trade-offs more transparent and controllable is something a lot of these companies could improve on, which is a main point of the article.
I don't believe he claimed he actually had a seizure, only that the sender intended to cause one. If you swing a baseball bat at someone's head and miss you can still be charged with assault.
It's unlikely he's lying about the image being sent, otherwise he wouldn't be attempting legal discovery.
"All this NEGATIVE on Trump already for things he may or may not do and hasn't even gotten into Office yet and won't until next year."
I honestly can't think of a more braindead criticism to make about predictions being made based on mountains of solid evidence right in front of us. You're basically praying that despite the well-documented history of Trump and his cronies' actions, there're all going to do something completely different this time.
Have you even considered the possibility that calling them out on potential bad behavior now might actually reduce the chances of them following through? Shine a critical light on people and they're naturally less inclined to do what they're being criticized for. Keep quiet, as you obviously think we should, and they'll feel there's a better chance of getting away with it.
Getting stuck into Trump now is a perfectly valid self-defense mechanism. Giving him the completely undeserved benefit of the doubt is to openly invite disaster.
"I'm honestly hoping I bite my tongue and he ends up being awesome."
If he'd picked people with the nation's interests at heart there might have been a sliver of hope of him being OK (not awesome, that's a wish too far). But the people he's surrounding himself with make a drained swamp look like a holiday resort. The damage they could potentially inflict is epic in scale and would take a long time to recover from.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
Stating a pretty bland FACT is a dig? Wow, you're super sensitive about this aren't you. Sounds a bit like you're really trying to convince yourself, not us.
You mean replace the elitist DC mafia with the elitist NY mafia? You think that's progress?
It's hilarious that middle class shmucks think their interests are going to be championed by a narcisistic billionaire with a grotesque history of failed businesses, ripped off customers and screwed employees.
Actually I was referring to the many, many things Trump has said that are stupid or untrue or dangerous, or often a combination of those three things. So many to choose from.
"He needs to have the people that know how the swamp works to drain it."
Those people are the swamp. They absolutely will not allow it to be drained. It was an easy con to spot a mile off, but apparently lots a of people fell for it.
"If the Hillary won by the electoral collage, they'd be clamoring about how great it was, that is was gilded in gold, should never be changed, and was the most democratic concept upon the face of the earth."
So you're claiming that if Clinton got less votes but still won, MSNBC would be praising the system that delivered such a ridiculous result? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
I'm stunned how many commenters here are focusing on the 'unfair' bit, which Mike didn't even mention in the article, and completely ignoring the glaring fact that the president-elect is criticising people for protesting, something not only a major 1A-prtected act, but also something he encouraged against Obama. How can you not see that?
On the post: Confirmed Horrible Person James Woods Continues Being Horrible In 'Winning' Awful Lawsuit To Unmask Deceased Online Critic
Re:
Also, who in their right mind is going to think Ken White is likely to lie to the court about a defendant's death?
On the post: Facebook Censors Art Historian's Photo Of Neptune's Statue-Penis
Re:
On the post: Facebook Censors Art Historian's Photo Of Neptune's Statue-Penis
Re:
You don't have kids do you...
On the post: Washington Post Falsely Claims Russia Hacked Vermont Utility, Because OMG RUSSIANS!
Re: Fake News in the Mainstream
There is no objective news reporting anymore..."
This is a ridiculously extremist and ignorant point of view. There's a big difference between biased or non-objective reporting and actual fake news. Highlighting stories that fit your worldview and ignoring those that don't, or expressing mainly positive opinions about one particular political party and mainly negative opinions about another is NOT fake news. If you're really concerned about biased reporting, calling it fake news is a stupid and counterproductive attempt to fix the problem.
On the post: White House Kicks Russian Diplomats Out Of The Country, Releases Preliminary Report On Russian Hacking With More To Come
Re: Much ado about nothing
Russian agents prefer Trump as president, as that would strengthen their world position.
Russian agents realise only damaging Democrat emails, the subjects of which become major focal points for the election campaigns.
Sorry but that's not 'journalism', that's basically social engineering to attempt to swing more votes to your preferred candidate. Do you really think there was absolutely nothing newsworthy in the Republican info taken?
You'd expect this from an opposition party, but not another country. Your third paragraph is completely correct, because it turns out they didn't need to do any of those things to get the desired result.
On the post: White House Kicks Russian Diplomats Out Of The Country, Releases Preliminary Report On Russian Hacking With More To Come
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Obamy has been whipped like a cur
Sorry but that's not how the burden of proof works. You make claims, you provide the supporting evidence. If you can't, expect to be called on it and have your claims dismissed.
On the post: Amazon Refuses To Comply With Police Request For Amazon Echo Recordings In Murder Case
Re: Re: Re: Re: What Amazon does
As I read it he was just laying out a set of facts that most technologically apt people should be well aware of my now; that these companies collect data to use in ways that improve their service, because better service attracts and retains customers, which in turn makes them more money. Why he need to convince himself of something that's fairly well understood? Yes there are absolutely privacy trade-offs, and making these trade-offs more transparent and controllable is something a lot of these companies could improve on, which is a main point of the article.
On the post: Why Does It Still Take Press Attention For Comcast To Fix Obvious Screw Ups?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government idiocy
On the post: Kurt Eichenwald Sues Twitter Troll Over Alleged 'Epileptic' Image Assault
Re: How about triggering depression?
That's not what triggers depression.
On the post: Kurt Eichenwald Sues Twitter Troll Over Alleged 'Epileptic' Image Assault
Re:
It's unlikely he's lying about the image being sent, otherwise he wouldn't be attempting legal discovery.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump
Re: Re:
I honestly can't think of a more braindead criticism to make about predictions being made based on mountains of solid evidence right in front of us. You're basically praying that despite the well-documented history of Trump and his cronies' actions, there're all going to do something completely different this time.
Have you even considered the possibility that calling them out on potential bad behavior now might actually reduce the chances of them following through? Shine a critical light on people and they're naturally less inclined to do what they're being criticized for. Keep quiet, as you obviously think we should, and they'll feel there's a better chance of getting away with it.
Getting stuck into Trump now is a perfectly valid self-defense mechanism. Giving him the completely undeserved benefit of the doubt is to openly invite disaster.
On the post: FCC Commissioner Pai Says Net Neutrality's 'Days Are Numbered' Under Trump
Re:
If he'd picked people with the nation's interests at heart there might have been a sliver of hope of him being OK (not awesome, that's a wish too far). But the people he's surrounding himself with make a drained swamp look like a holiday resort. The damage they could potentially inflict is epic in scale and would take a long time to recover from.
On the post: How 'Just Metadata' Helped Ruin A Career Diplomat's Life
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
On the post: Trump, GOP Prepare To Gut FCC Boss Tom Wheeler's Populist Reforms...Under The False Banner Of Populist Reform
Re: Restore local control
You mean replace the elitist DC mafia with the elitist NY mafia? You think that's progress?
It's hilarious that middle class shmucks think their interests are going to be championed by a narcisistic billionaire with a grotesque history of failed businesses, ripped off customers and screwed employees.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Apparently Trump Draining The Swamp Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists Requires A Lot Of Lobbyists & Crony Capitalists
Re:
Those people are the swamp. They absolutely will not allow it to be drained. It was an easy con to spot a mile off, but apparently lots a of people fell for it.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re:
Free speech is not a shield that protects you from criticism when you say stupid, untrue or dangerous things.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re:
So you're claiming that if Clinton got less votes but still won, MSNBC would be praising the system that delivered such a ridiculous result? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: Stretch much?
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
Re: Dramatic much?
Next >>