Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Gosh, it's a common notion to think your screen name is protected. WELL IT AIN'T, SEE?
Go register an account with the same screen name and avatar as Gwiz which also posts to his comment history, then I'll believe that there's inadequate protection on the names.
Ummm... context? If you bothered trying to understand the sentence, you'd see that 'prosecutors' is the antecedent to 'they', and prosecutors certainly play a role in conviction.
The US justice system is reminding me of Cardassian law more and more every day.
Under Cardassian law, guilt was confirmed prior to Court proceedings – the trials themselves served only as a way to demonstrate the wrongdoing of the defendants and to illustrate the consequences of their alleged criminal behavior. Defendants were provided with legal counsel merely to help them "concede" the "wisdom" of the state's judicial process, as well as help them to admit guilt and express "proper" remorse. (Memory Alpha)
Yes, Smith and Wesson makes some money off murder.
Yes, trenchcoat manufacturers make some money off shoplifting.
Yes, casinos make some money off money laundering.
Yes, rope makers make some money off kidnapping.
Seeing a pattern here? You would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that any of these manufacturers were dedicated to that purpose because of the pitiful amounts of money they make on it compared to the myriad of legitimate ones. Well, some people would argue about the guns, but the point stands.
Even if that were a fully functional mortar, it's about the size of his TV remote, maybe just a touch bigger. What's it gonna shoot, small firecrackers?
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
...the papers' dimensions match the envelope they are stored in.
Sorry, but am I just insanely confused (and mostly ignorant about paper), or are you arguing here that the paper needs to be bigger (9.25x12.5 vs 8.5x11) so that it fits in the envelope? In my experience the smaller something is, the easier I can get it into an envelope.
I believe you have the right to do all manner of cowardly things, and I'll even say that I strongly support many of those rights. Doesn't mean I won't call them out as being cowardly when I see them.
Come on guys, could we just stop it with these? They add nothing, lower the level of the discussion, and are frankly more annoying than the posters they're intended to insult. All they do is egg on the qualities we wish would go away.
That's one of the huge perks of Netflix to me. No piracy warnings, no unskippable bullshit, just click and it plays. The day they add either of those is the day they lose my subscription.
I find it easier just to assume that everyone's an FBI agent.
Random anonymous commenter? FBI agent.
Person signed in with a witty username? FBI agent.
Nathan Fillion doing an AMA on Reddit, with pictures and confirmation from his Twitter? Oh cool, when did the FBI hire Nathan Fillion?
That's the issue with playing poker. There is never any doubt. If you say the odds of drawing a royal flush are about one in 650,000, people assume it won't happen.
If you then draw one, the probability of drawing a royal flush must have been 100%. Rare events can never happen by pure random chance.
From the way they said it, I wouldn't be too surprised if you did own your ebooks... if you bought them from an authorized library wholesaler. Amazon is a retailer, so I'm sure that counts as enough of a difference for it to be a license instead of a sale. Still, it's a nice step in a good direction.
Obviously Mike was laying clear his own views, otherwise the usual gang would have blasted him for not explicitly stating that he disapproves of such things. After all, to them not saying what he said would be the equivalent of expressing his support of such things.
Mike is free to include a sentence on his own personal morals, but he did not center his entire discussion on that. He similarly feels that centering the discussion about copyright on morals is counterproductive, as he has stated clearly plenty of times.
Except that great songwriting isn't relegated to decades past. Newer music just doesn't have the benefit of decades of filtering and word of mouth, so you have to look a little harder. For example, bands like Nightwish, Epica, and Avantasia (yes, they're all heavy rock/metal, that's what I'm into so that's what I know) have excellent writing.
On the post: Comcast: We Won't Terminate Your Account Under Six Strikes; We'll Just Block Every Single Website
Re: Re: Re: @ Mike: I ask you to state that the first out_of_the_blue is false.
Go register an account with the same screen name and avatar as Gwiz which also posts to his comment history, then I'll believe that there's inadequate protection on the names.
On the post: DOJ Admits It Had To Put Aaron Swartz In Jail To Save Face Over The Arrest
Re:
On the post: Georgia Lawmaker Claims 'Making Fun Of Someone' Isn't Protected Speech; Seeks To Outlaw Vulgar Photoshopping
Re:
On the post: Georgia Lawmaker Claims 'Making Fun Of Someone' Isn't Protected Speech; Seeks To Outlaw Vulgar Photoshopping
Re: Re: PP Georgia opposes it
On the post: DOJ Admits It Had To Put Aaron Swartz In Jail To Save Face Over The Arrest
On the post: Dell Board Can't Get Into Specifics, But Just Trust Them When They Say: Sell!
Re: Gosh, a NEW lame idea! And I thought you couldn't get any lamer!
On the post: Dead Kennedys Guitarist Joins Crusade Against Ad Networks & YouTube Despite Understanding Neither
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, Smith and Wesson makes some money off murder.
Yes, trenchcoat manufacturers make some money off shoplifting.
Yes, casinos make some money off money laundering.
Yes, rope makers make some money off kidnapping.
Seeing a pattern here? You would be laughed out of town if you were to suggest that any of these manufacturers were dedicated to that purpose because of the pitiful amounts of money they make on it compared to the myriad of legitimate ones. Well, some people would argue about the guns, but the point stands.
On the post: Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background
Re:
On the post: The Insanely Complex Rules The Supreme Court Requires You To Meet To Ask It To Hear Your Case
Re: Re: Re: Mike Mansick....you were initially right about Greenspan...but not here.
Sorry, but am I just insanely confused (and mostly ignorant about paper), or are you arguing here that the paper needs to be bigger (9.25x12.5 vs 8.5x11) so that it fits in the envelope? In my experience the smaller something is, the easier I can get it into an envelope.
On the post: TechCrunch Admits That Using Facebook Comments Drove Away Most Of Their Commenters
Re: Re:
On the post: FBI, Working With Banks, Chose Not To Inform Occupy Leadership Of Assassination Plot On Its Leaders
Re: Re: Re: Even Better
On the post: Organizations Try To Shame People Into Voting By Revealing How Often They & Their Neighbors Voted
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Study: Paywalls Work Better If You Beg
Re: Did you mention paywalls???
On the post: Biden Takes Part In MPAA Board Meeting; Suggests Studios Tell Paying Customers They're Thieves
Re: Re:
On the post: The Internet Didn't 'Kill' Carly Rae Jepsen's Career
Re: Re: Re: Hats?
Random anonymous commenter? FBI agent.
Person signed in with a witty username? FBI agent.
Nathan Fillion doing an AMA on Reddit, with pictures and confirmation from his Twitter? Oh cool, when did the FBI hire Nathan Fillion?
It makes a lot of things a lot more exciting.
On the post: Italian Scientists Convicted Of Manslaughter, Sentenced To 6 Years In Jail, Over Earthquake They Failed To Predict Properly
Re:
If you then draw one, the probability of drawing a royal flush must have been 100%. Rare events can never happen by pure random chance.
On the post: Random House Says Libraries Own Their Ebooks, Really
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Reddit, Trolling, Doxxing, Free Speech & Anonymity: Whoo Boy, Is This Stuff Complicated
Re:
Mike is free to include a sentence on his own personal morals, but he did not center his entire discussion on that. He similarly feels that centering the discussion about copyright on morals is counterproductive, as he has stated clearly plenty of times.
On the post: Worth Noting: Amanda Palmer's 'Free' Album Debuted At Number 10 On The Billboard Charts
Re:
Next >>