Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
Democrats != left. Not even close, really, for the most part. Even Obama was to the right of goddamned Saint Ronnie.
Yep sure, those leftists. All ten of them, if any of that actually happened. And absolutely anyone remotely left of center totes agrees with that shit. Just like everyone on the right looooves Trump. And no one left-leaning does. Not at all. Lol.
No, it's "look for any potential inappropriate action as an excuse to escalate shit all out of proportion". That's an easy one, because some varieties of Trump supporters were already doing that to some people for simply existing at his rallies.
_"Both sides are equally to blame here because they have been showing quite a bit of contempt in multiple areas of politics."_
Which, apparently exactly and only two, sides are these?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!
So... he trashmouthed people who want to see the president tweeting videos of him taking part in pro wrestling.
Uh huh. And?
You keep telling us... lol. You are making it about Trump. This was about defending free speech. Don't defend free speech if it gives person x attention?
Well, it's a contest to see who can be a bigger idiot, apparently. Since we clearly showed the UK they can't compete with us no matter what, it's all an internal competition now.
A simple, "How inappropriate, thank you. I can't believe the presidency has come to this, even" would probably suffice.
Eventually they will all suffer manufactured (or otherwise) outrage fatigue, and then it will all be accepted as the new normal. I can only hope the press and the electorate improves as a result of all this, but i wouldn't hold my breath.
Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
I would also like to know which non-elites he imagines are aligned with his particular non-elite. I suspect rather more less-privileged persons are not aligned with his "non-elite".
But really i think "elite" is a dog whistle, and one of those words which means one thing in one sentence, and another thing in a different sentence.
Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
The writer is defending all speech, including odious and idiotic speech, as in the example. That is speech, and the writer is also free to do it. Get it?
Defending CNN: Lol who did that?
The people here i see rail on and on the most about "sides" and "teams" generally seem to be the ones with some team agenda, and y'all think you know exactly which "team" we all are on. Have fun with that.
You don't know how the DMCA works, do you? Not that I agree whatsoever that goofball's tweets should be deleted. But Twitter can delete his account just because they are having a bad day, or the price of tea in China went up or down. Ask millions of banned account holders / deleted post writers just how actionable it is. And if he uses his position to force something for personal reasons, he may just find out how actionable _that_ is. (As if he hasn't used office as a personal toy already.)
You probably don't remember early cable, where much of the point of getting it was - wait for it - it was commercial-free. Because you already damn paid for it. They have shifted that window so far over, you are looking back at the past from the other side of the valley.
The only real increase in costs are the demands of the gatekeepers. This is why it is an insult. Not to mention they are apparently trying to price themselves right out of a market. That isn't an innovation or a reasonable offer to consumers.
If any of these outfits were concerned with making money as top priority, instead of some perceived control, they would drop the price, make it more attractive, and sell more units.
_That could have provided the hard evidence they needed (even if it was falsified)._
The thing with that, though, is... you may be (wrongfully) arrested, but you can't be convicted for the smell of drugs. Go find the damn drugs. Investigate whomever. Watch them as much as investigation of a suspicion is warranted (or even allowed by superiors, given priorities and the quality of the case presented).
That is assuming the dog alerted to something more than the scent concert venue left on the bag, or a fireworks display, or maybe burgers or donuts... or nothing.
If there is no investigation after "seizing" the money, at the very least, then we know they are full of it. There is a good chance that if it were actual drug money, someone may be scrambling any way they can to cover that amount.
But no, they just want to trawl everyone's communications and send people to prison for years over crumbs found under a floor mat. Call that law enforcement, because I don't.
Yes, but, John Oliver only did such focus on Murray in the first place since Murray pre-Streisanded himself. It's a complex feedback system at work here.
For Murray though, it all boils down to acting with impunity and being insulated from ... well probably anything, for most of his life. Having to deal with the consequences of his idiocy being made public at this late age is upsetting, i am sure. Or maybe not. I wouldn't know if he is really upset at all, but his desire for control has been prodded into action.
The other funny thing about software patents as the are or were, is that there appears to be nothing requiring you actually wrote said software, or that it works. And given what passes for "ingenious design", it's a riot.
No such thing occurs. Thinking like that is exactly the problem.
Development already occurred. Non-sales, including people who got it free, have zero effect.
All the distribution industries know this, deep down, which is why they want to charge the same as if you were purchasing a hard copy that had to be manufactured and distributed. Some creators and publishes actually get it, others don't.
Burn down libraries, right? They are so evil. And heaven forbid you lend or sell something you are done watching, reading, playing, or listening to, if it is a hard copy medium.
But as for digital content, the production cost is effectively zero. 90% of the world can pirate it (which i am sure is exactly what y'all imagine in your frothing, fevered dreams), 10% can buy it, and you are well into happy profit land.
You seem to fail to realize that most people who infringe a thing or two occasionally are precisely future paying customers. "Fans" _does_ equal profits. Fans are advertisers and future customers. If you don't believe that, explain free samples, coupons, and Microsoft giving away free or low cost shit to China and schools.
Pretty sure anyone in industries subject to non-counterfeit infringement, who spend so much time and money whining and trying to "stamp out piracy" are wasting far more than any theoretical "lost profits" could possibly amount to.
If they can't handle the job they should find another. Any claims of split second decisions are most definitely belied by the well documented behavior starting immediately after the incident. This isn't new. And general culture of police behavior is ridiculous much of the time whether or not there was a fatal shooting or even a citation written. They do whatever because they feel like it. And the better ones have to contend with that system.
If police feel under threat so much, it's probably because they have a collective knowledge that they constantly provoke the public. Yeah, I'd feel threatened that something might happen and it could be any time if i constantly abused people or was part of a system that does.
Completely aside from anything relevant, i have always been befuddled by the usage of the word enforcement. Law enforcement? Makes sense. IP enforcement? How does one enforce property? Is this like leveraging blue? The DEA's name has always been particularly amusing.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE-POST: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
But please, do go on about the violent left.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Keep tilting at those windmills Don
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re:
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Well said
Yep sure, those leftists. All ten of them, if any of that actually happened. And absolutely anyone remotely left of center totes agrees with that shit. Just like everyone on the right looooves Trump. And no one left-leaning does. Not at all. Lol.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well said
_"Both sides are equally to blame here because they have been showing quite a bit of contempt in multiple areas of politics."_
Which, apparently exactly and only two, sides are these?
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ "Dark Helmet": SHEESH! The video was one simple little bit of HUMOR!
Uh huh. And?
You keep telling us... lol. You are making it about Trump. This was about defending free speech. Don't defend free speech if it gives person x attention?
I don't even.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re:
A simple, "How inappropriate, thank you. I can't believe the presidency has come to this, even" would probably suffice.
Eventually they will all suffer manufactured (or otherwise) outrage fatigue, and then it will all be accepted as the new normal. I can only hope the press and the electorate improves as a result of all this, but i wouldn't hold my breath.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
But really i think "elite" is a dog whistle, and one of those words which means one thing in one sentence, and another thing in a different sentence.
On the post: Why Protecting The Free Press Requires Protecting Trump's Tweets
Re: Re: Re: No, Trump's "tweet" was minorly amusing. But I'll give you "unpresidential" because you're comparing to Clinton, Bush, and Obama: UNlike those in ANY way is better.
Defending CNN: Lol who did that?
The people here i see rail on and on the most about "sides" and "teams" generally seem to be the ones with some team agenda, and y'all think you know exactly which "team" we all are on. Have fun with that.
You don't know how the DMCA works, do you? Not that I agree whatsoever that goofball's tweets should be deleted. But Twitter can delete his account just because they are having a bad day, or the price of tea in China went up or down. Ask millions of banned account holders / deleted post writers just how actionable it is. And if he uses his position to force something for personal reasons, he may just find out how actionable _that_ is. (As if he hasn't used office as a personal toy already.)
On the post: AMC To Charge Cable Customers $5 More To Avoid Advertisements
Re: What's the problem here?
The only real increase in costs are the demands of the gatekeepers. This is why it is an insult. Not to mention they are apparently trying to price themselves right out of a market. That isn't an innovation or a reasonable offer to consumers.
If any of these outfits were concerned with making money as top priority, instead of some perceived control, they would drop the price, make it more attractive, and sell more units.
On the post: Court Says Gov't Has To Do More Than Say It Doesn't Believe The Property Owners If It Wants To Keep The Cash It Seized
Re: Re: Rights Violators
The thing with that, though, is... you may be (wrongfully) arrested, but you can't be convicted for the smell of drugs. Go find the damn drugs. Investigate whomever. Watch them as much as investigation of a suspicion is warranted (or even allowed by superiors, given priorities and the quality of the case presented).
That is assuming the dog alerted to something more than the scent concert venue left on the bag, or a fireworks display, or maybe burgers or donuts... or nothing.
If there is no investigation after "seizing" the money, at the very least, then we know they are full of it. There is a good chance that if it were actual drug money, someone may be scrambling any way they can to cover that amount.
But no, they just want to trawl everyone's communications and send people to prison for years over crumbs found under a floor mat. Call that law enforcement, because I don't.
On the post: Bob Murray Demands John Oliver Be Silenced... While HBO Moves Case To Federal Court
Re: Re:
On the post: Bob Murray Demands John Oliver Be Silenced... While HBO Moves Case To Federal Court
Re: Re: Re:
For Murray though, it all boils down to acting with impunity and being insulated from ... well probably anything, for most of his life. Having to deal with the consequences of his idiocy being made public at this late age is upsetting, i am sure. Or maybe not. I wouldn't know if he is really upset at all, but his desire for control has been prodded into action.
On the post: Stupid Patent Of The Month: Using A Computer To Count Calories
Re:
On the post: Indie Developer Finds Game On Torrent Site, Gives Away Free Keys Instead Of Freaking Out
Re: Re: Re:
Development already occurred. Non-sales, including people who got it free, have zero effect.
All the distribution industries know this, deep down, which is why they want to charge the same as if you were purchasing a hard copy that had to be manufactured and distributed. Some creators and publishes actually get it, others don't.
Burn down libraries, right? They are so evil. And heaven forbid you lend or sell something you are done watching, reading, playing, or listening to, if it is a hard copy medium.
But as for digital content, the production cost is effectively zero. 90% of the world can pirate it (which i am sure is exactly what y'all imagine in your frothing, fevered dreams), 10% can buy it, and you are well into happy profit land.
You seem to fail to realize that most people who infringe a thing or two occasionally are precisely future paying customers. "Fans" _does_ equal profits. Fans are advertisers and future customers. If you don't believe that, explain free samples, coupons, and Microsoft giving away free or low cost shit to China and schools.
Pretty sure anyone in industries subject to non-counterfeit infringement, who spend so much time and money whining and trying to "stamp out piracy" are wasting far more than any theoretical "lost profits" could possibly amount to.
On the post: 'Free Market' Group: FCC Comments Show Nobody Really Wants Net Neutrality
Re:
Good plan.
On the post: Docs Show Police Also Sought (And Obtained) Phone Records For Police Shooting Victim's Girlfriend
Re:
If police feel under threat so much, it's probably because they have a collective knowledge that they constantly provoke the public. Yeah, I'd feel threatened that something might happen and it could be any time if i constantly abused people or was part of a system that does.
On the post: State Dept. Enlists Hollywood And Its Friends To Start A Fake Twitter Fight Over Intellectual Property
Completely aside from anything relevant, i have always been befuddled by the usage of the word enforcement. Law enforcement? Makes sense. IP enforcement? How does one enforce property? Is this like leveraging blue? The DEA's name has always been particularly amusing.
On the post: State Dept. Enlists Hollywood And Its Friends To Start A Fake Twitter Fight Over Intellectual Property
Re: Could this be just poor wording?
On the post: State Dept. Enlists Hollywood And Its Friends To Start A Fake Twitter Fight Over Intellectual Property
Re: Wow, they picked a poor example with Ben Franklin
Also, they clearly have no idea how bifocals, or corrective lenses in general, are used.
Next >>