In this day and age of rampant armed thieves freely roaming the countryside, a wise course of action if you're transporting more than a few hundred dollars is to convert it to a cashier's check.
Even if the armed thieves get their hands on the check, they can't do anything with it, except maybe try to commit some felonies by trying to cash it. More importantly, your funds are safe. If the armed thieves steal your check, though, it can take a few months to get the cash back if the bank is jerky.
Either way, don't carry more than you can afford to lose to the rampant armed thieves freely roaming the countryside.
When Quibi launched it was without the ability of fans to take and share screenshots/make memes/audio clips/etc to spread bits of the content organically (* cough *, I mean "virally").
Without the shares, the audience didn't grow much (stupid format aside). A few months after they launched, they realized their mistake and added the ability to take screenshots (but in a broken way). No ability to make gifs or audio clips, because that would be stealing or something.
They protected their IP so hard that they plowed into the ground less than a year after launch.
these kinds of tests aren't designed to test your knowledge or abilities at all, they are designed for maximum revenue.
Yes, and not in the way you think!
IANAL, but my profession does the same exact thing: guarantee a limited supply of practitioners. The stupid thinking goes that if we allow every Tom, Dick and Henrietta in, then there will be too many of us, and that sweet, sweet contracting cash will go down as supply goes up.
The downside is
a) the rent is just too damn high
b) the next breakthrough in the field might not happen because the gatekeepers filtered out the one person who could've done it today
c) debt and misery
d) ???
e) Profit!
After we're done pulling down everything of any substance, we'll be left with only such vapid, turgid, and worthless works as "Art of the Deal" and all of the works of Ayn Rand.
Why do some people see the need to loudly proclaim they're disavowing being a republican (cough) I mean stating they're independent?
I'm about as far left as you can get and I don't go around starting off all my arguments with "First, I'm as left as you can get without swimming to Hawaii"
I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds
Ahh this old chestnut. Here's your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I'd be surprised they're looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.
cover up the obscene language.
There's lots of caselaw on this, but let's ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?
Let's try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:
The easiest thing to do is not allow anyone in the EU to upload anything.
Places like Techdirt don’t have the resources to implement even passable filers, so they will just geo fence the EU. Maybe places like TikTok and Insta will have to figure it out (as it is their business model) but they have enough € to hire lawyers and devs.
Usually, the easiest/cheapest solution that doesn’t suck too bad wins.
I know that people smarter/more skilled than me can write the apps
Therefore, it must be possible—and easy—for those in #3 to do #2 and to stop people from uploading copyrighted stuff, but not memes using that copyrighted stuff , or those soundtrack mashups on the TikToks my granddaughter sends me
So you say, so let's go to their "platform": FoxNews.com uses OpenWeb to host comments on their website.
Interestingly enough, the OpenWeb TOS include these provisions (emphasis mine);
5.3 You shall not ... post ... any User Content ... that ...
(ii) you know is false, misleading, untruthful or inaccurate;
(iii) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, deceptive, fraudulent, invasive of another’s privacy, tortious, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, offensive, profane, ... or is otherwise inappropriate as determined by Us in Our sole discretion; ....
5.4 ... We reserve the right to, but do not have any obligation to
(i) remove, edit or modify any User Content in our sole discretion, at any time, without notice to you and for any reason ... or for no reason at all; ....
Thus under this soon-to-be-short-lived Texas Law, foxnews.com has to lift all the above restrictions on their platform.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re:
IOW, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
On the post: Oklahoma Deputies Steal $141,500 From Men Trying To Buy Land, Manage To Make $10,000 Of It Disappear
Sucks we have to do this...
In this day and age of rampant armed thieves freely roaming the countryside, a wise course of action if you're transporting more than a few hundred dollars is to convert it to a cashier's check.
Even if the armed thieves get their hands on the check, they can't do anything with it, except maybe try to commit some felonies by trying to cash it. More importantly, your funds are safe. If the armed thieves steal your check, though, it can take a few months to get the cash back if the bank is jerky.
Either way, don't carry more than you can afford to lose to the rampant armed thieves freely roaming the countryside.
On the post: Copyright Ruins Everything Again: How Dare A Sports Writer Get People Excited About The Olympics!
Quibi shifts in the grave
When Quibi launched it was without the ability of fans to take and share screenshots/make memes/audio clips/etc to spread bits of the content organically (* cough *, I mean "virally").
Without the shares, the audience didn't grow much (stupid format aside). A few months after they launched, they realized their mistake and added the ability to take screenshots (but in a broken way). No ability to make gifs or audio clips, because that would be stealing or something.
They protected their IP so hard that they plowed into the ground less than a year after launch.
On the post: Copyright Ruins Everything Again: How Dare A Sports Writer Get People Excited About The Olympics!
Re: Re: Think about the content producers!
Exposure! It was for exposure!!
On the post: It's Time We Talk About Getting Rid Of The Bar Exam. And Here's Why.
Re:
Yes, and not in the way you think!
IANAL, but my profession does the same exact thing: guarantee a limited supply of practitioners. The stupid thinking goes that if we allow every Tom, Dick and Henrietta in, then there will be too many of us, and that sweet, sweet contracting cash will go down as supply goes up.
The downside is
a) the rent is just too damn high
b) the next breakthrough in the field might not happen because the gatekeepers filtered out the one person who could've done it today
c) debt and misery
d) ???
e) Profit!
On the post: Freaking Out About Nazi Content On The Internet Archive Is Totally Missing The Point
Re:
After we're done pulling down everything of any substance, we'll be left with only such vapid, turgid, and worthless works as "Art of the Deal" and all of the works of Ayn Rand.
On the post: Freaking Out About Nazi Content On The Internet Archive Is Totally Missing The Point
Re: This means war!
I guess the irony is lost on him that he's advocating for a digital Säuberung (book burning), just like the Nazis:
"And thus you do well in this midnight hour to commit to the flames the evil spirit of the past." —Joseph Goebbels, book burning speech, May 10, 1933
On the post: Axios Parrots A Lot Of Dumb, Debunked Nonsense About Net Neutrality
Ahh, remember the good old days?
As a sufficiently-grey hair, I remember when the airline industry was regulated. What happened is the airlines competed on amenities and service.
Now, imagine if the ISP industry was regulated:
Thus the ISPs would be all on a level playing field, more or less. What to do? Complete on amenities and service.
...but that would cut into their obscene profits. And temporarily mess with their stock. And make baby Jesus cry (probably).
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
Under His EYE
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re: I don't see this as unreasonable
Why do some people see the need to loudly proclaim they're disavowing being a republican (cough) I mean stating they're independent?
I'm about as far left as you can get and I don't go around starting off all my arguments with "First, I'm as left as you can get without swimming to Hawaii"
Maybe it's just me.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
It is 100% legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, as long as you believe there's a fire.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
How else are we going to clutch our pearls and cry, "Won't something think of the children?" as we faint on the couch.
On the post: Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs
Re:
Ahh this old chestnut. Here's your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I'd be surprised they're looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.
There's lots of caselaw on this, but let's ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?
Let's try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:
On the post: Top EU Court's Adviser Regrettably Fails To Recommend Throwing Out Upload Filters, But Does Say They Should Block Only "Identical" Or "Equivalent" Copies
The whole thing is stupid and ignores the obvious
The easiest thing to do is not allow anyone in the EU to upload anything.
Places like Techdirt don’t have the resources to implement even passable filers, so they will just geo fence the EU. Maybe places like TikTok and Insta will have to figure it out (as it is their business model) but they have enough € to hire lawyers and devs.
Usually, the easiest/cheapest solution that doesn’t suck too bad wins.
On the post: Top EU Court's Adviser Regrettably Fails To Recommend Throwing Out Upload Filters, But Does Say They Should Block Only "Identical" Or "Equivalent" Copies
Re:
Think of it as the spawn of the unholy union of The Bike Shed Effect and Dunning-Jkruger Effect:
On the post: Sixth Circuit Says School Board Can't Boot People From Meetings Just Because It Doesn't Like What They're Saying
Re: Re: 'Guns are the problem. Specifically the low numbers of t
FTFY
On the post: House Republican's Entire 'Big Tech' Platform Is 'We Must Force Big Tech To Display Our Conspiracy Theories And Lies'
Re: How to comply
Or what about this:
On the post: Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment
Re: Re:
You posted that you'll post links, but you don't post the links. At this point I will have to say you're full of hot air.
On the post: Montana Senator Thinks The Third Time Is The Charm For His Anti-Flag Burning Amendment
Re:
If such an amendment were enacted and such a law were passed, we can then get those racists busted for their alt-traitor flag!
BTW, What is physical desecration? Dry-humping & molesting? Using it as a spear? As a club? What about displaying it improperly? What about wearing it on clothing or wearing it as clothing?
On the post: Texas Legislature Sees Florida's Social Media Bill Go Down In Unconstitutional Flames; Decides 'We Can Do That Too!'
Re: Publisher vs Platforms
So you say, so let's go to their "platform": FoxNews.com uses OpenWeb to host comments on their website.
Interestingly enough, the OpenWeb TOS include these provisions (emphasis mine);
Thus under this soon-to-be-short-lived Texas Law, foxnews.com has to lift all the above restrictions on their platform.
Be careful what you wish for!
Next >>