These comparisons between OWS and Syria are frankly sickening. People over there are dying, and you want to compare that to the tragedy of only having a modest house, a comfortable suburban lifestyle, and a short stint of unemployment? You know what the people in syria would give to have a fraction of what you have?
Heres a shocker for you: 80% of the people in this country ARE the 5%, when compared to the rest of the world. But no, your cause is totally on the same level as people fighting for their lives.
Seriously, your plight is so bad that you need to shift stories like this away from dying protesters to YOUR situation? Its some awful combination of ego, selfishness, and lack of compassion.
They tried to squat on private property (it was a public park, but NOT publicly owned property), for about 2 months. And youre complaining that they lost their tents? Theyre lucky that they werent all arrested for trespassing.
The first amendment does NOT give you the right to squat on property.
Because the Occupy folks havent made clear what they want, and are generally trying to instigate violence with a reluctant system?
Trying to compare the two scenarios is in such bad taste its not even funny. People are dying over there trying to unseat a brutal government, whereas over here theyre making a massive nuisance of themselves vandalizing parks, instigating violence, and illegally camping on public property. Yea, thats real noble.
The insurance company CANT be sued (successfully); they have no relation to you except a specific policy which has no bearing on lawsuits unless you took out a legal damages policy.
If you wreck my car, I cant go to your homeowners insurance and say "this jerk totaled my car, yall need to pay up". It just doesnt work that way. And if they DID, I dont think the insurance company could just increase your rates. Certainly they could try to on renewal, I guess, but it would be pretty retarded.
Free speech and camping / bonfires are two entirely different things. Good luck convincing the SCOTUS that your tent deserves first amendment protection.
Im aware of that, but this issue seems to be so touchy people are brandishing troll mods for anything that smells of criticism. It really exposes how rational some folks are.
Its one thing to say "capitalism has issues". Its another thing to heavily imply that we need to replace it with something else, violently, without any clue or suggestion as to what the fix IS.
They also do a really poor job picking their political party, if thats true. Democrat isnt exactly the "lets shrink government" party (isnt that basically what the Tea Party was about, come to think of it?)
I dont disagree with this, and neither do most "fundamentalist" republicans. But go ahead and ask the OWS folks who they voted for last election, and whether or not they should vote differently next time?
It was rather telling that I heard someone on NPR ask that very question-- "If voting for Obama didnt work for the OWS folks, would they consider voting republican?" The answer: "If voting democrat doesnt work, clearly the system is broken." So the irony here is that apparently the OWS folks will continue to vote in a way that will GROW the government, all in the name of stopping the fat cats. Brilliant.
The vast majority of them don't give a damn about rich people being rich. The problem is that being rich means you can make other people poor.
So, the problem ISNT that people are rich!! Its that people are rich! Is that what youre saying?
And this is the first ive heard campaign finance reform touted as the answer. Ive alternatively heard suggestions about going green (?!), higher taxes on the rich, and guarenteed income (?!) as possible answers.
Incidentally, the bias of some of the mods today is really remanescent of Digg at its worst. Rather than modding based on content, people have decided that "troll" means "I disagree with this guy or suspect that he disagrees with me". Well, hopefully the metamods will clean the mess up; yall know that your moderations are rated, and will likely mean that you dont get mod points again, right?
The very video that the Occupy Oakland folks have been passing around showing that vet supposedly getting brutalized? I thought I made that rather clear. I dont feel being your personal google bot--a quick google for "occupy oakland vet hit by police" would have turned it up.
Theyre expected not to take over a privately owned park against its owners wishes. Setting up tents in a public park isnt exactly "protected speech", nor is seeking out conflict with the police.
None of this would be such a big deal if they took it at shifts and didnt camp there, but just gathered; but of course the goal was never peaceable protest, it was conflict with the cops (at least for many of those there; Im sure some there truly did just want to express grievances).
I still dont know what their agenda is. They claim to be pissed off about people making money, and unemployment; fantastic. WHat do you want done about it?
If we could get them to give a single answer to that, that would be a phenomenal start.
THe first amendment prohibits congress from regulating or restricting free speech (which one could take issue with free-speech zones over). It DOESNT say you can requisition an entire park for months and set up semi-permenant residences there, especially when the park owner tells you to stop (thats generally called "trespassing", and is NOT protected speech).
It will be informative to see what moderation your post ends at. Apparently you get one point so far for having been there, and for telling an alternative side of the truth, but I suspect that anything that doesnt mesh with people's conception of "rag tag group of oppressed and innocent protesters" will never get modded up as high as the ones that say "screw the po-lice".
Can you link the video? The one ive seen-- the much lauded one about that veteran who got hit by something (we dont know what) thrown by somebody (we dont know who) had a bunch of protesters throwing a bunch of stuff at the cops-- including what looked like molotovs.
Not exactly what you would consider "innocent victims". I can believe that some cops got out of hand, but when the protesters then try to claim that they are completely innocent, my BS meter goes wild. Especially when the one case that theyre making such a big deal of relied on the word of Scott's friend, and there didnt seem to be any other evidence or videos.
Incidentally, Im in favor of people being allowed to protest for as long as you want, but public property doesnt mean you can set up a residence there. Darn right theyre going to prohibit tents and whatnot, its not your personal space and apparently even the people who owned the park wanted it ended. In fact even this heavily biased report doesnt deny that it was the park owners themselves who wanted an end to the tents.
Its a web standard, not a law. You set an incredibly dangerous precedent by letting w3c standards dictate law-- what if one day they set a standard that all browsers must conform to IE9's behavior?
Enable it by default and noone will opt in. If noone opts in, noone will adopt or honor the standard (or else most websites will move to a paywall approach).
You miss the REAL point - that if they can get people to think that insurers are liable for copyright infringement fines,
The real question here is what insurance policy is covering this. If the RIAA tried to get your homeowners or car insurance to pay for a settlement, Im sure they would both tell the RIAA to get bent, as the policy would not cover that.
Im told that it is possible to get insurance for just about everything, including to cover legal costs; the idea that this is some plot to make car insurers somehow liable for a user pirating off of limewire is kind of kooky.
so many sound recordings that you'd net a $50 million fine, would your insurer be willing to pay that?
I suppose it depends if you both agreed to insurance terms that covered that. If so, I would say that you would be perfectly right to go after them to fulfill their end of the bargain.
Article is a load of crap, they give no details on how they know its there. They show screenshots of 2 android phones with visible GUIs which show CIQ, and then claim its on iPhone and Blackberry as well. Sorry, Ive dug through all the servicebooks on several blackberries (8250, 9600, 7200) and Ive never seen a CIQ service book.
And as for this statement...
According to TrevE, the software is installed as a rootkit software in the RAM of devices where it resides. This software basically is completely hidden from view and in it virtually invisible,
Someone doesnt understand the volatile nature of RAM, or is terrible at communicating. Rootkits dont reside in RAM, because then they would be removable with a battery removal. As for "completely hidden", why then does he have screenshots of a CIQ GUI where theres a "disable CIQ" checkbox?
The credibility factor of this story is in the negatives, especially when they really dont explain what their proof is and they have one guy on a forum claiming this-- its not even a researcher with a known real name. Who says this isnt a massive troll?
If you are one of the main distributors by which media of a particular type is distributed from creators to the public,
Amazon is the main distributors for users of the Kindle platform. That HARDLY makes them the main distributor of literature, by a long long shot.
The premise of the question is flawed. Consider Joe Scarborough.
Clearly I dont watch much MSNBC. Way to completely skate over the thrust of my argument, which was exposing the absurdity of demanding every vendor promote every type of media, every viewpoint, every genre, lest they be censoring.
Slashdot Mirror
These comparisons between OWS and Syria are frankly sickening. People over there are dying, and you want to compare that to the tragedy of only having a modest house, a comfortable suburban lifestyle, and a short stint of unemployment? You know what the people in syria would give to have a fraction of what you have?
Heres a shocker for you: 80% of the people in this country ARE the 5%, when compared to the rest of the world. But no, your cause is totally on the same level as people fighting for their lives.
Seriously, your plight is so bad that you need to shift stories like this away from dying protesters to YOUR situation? Its some awful combination of ego, selfishness, and lack of compassion.
They tried to squat on private property (it was a public park, but NOT publicly owned property), for about 2 months. And youre complaining that they lost their tents? Theyre lucky that they werent all arrested for trespassing.
The first amendment does NOT give you the right to squat on property.
Because the Occupy folks havent made clear what they want, and are generally trying to instigate violence with a reluctant system?
Trying to compare the two scenarios is in such bad taste its not even funny. People are dying over there trying to unseat a brutal government, whereas over here theyre making a massive nuisance of themselves vandalizing parks, instigating violence, and illegally camping on public property. Yea, thats real noble.
The insurance company CANT be sued (successfully); they have no relation to you except a specific policy which has no bearing on lawsuits unless you took out a legal damages policy.
If you wreck my car, I cant go to your homeowners insurance and say "this jerk totaled my car, yall need to pay up". It just doesnt work that way. And if they DID, I dont think the insurance company could just increase your rates. Certainly they could try to on renewal, I guess, but it would be pretty retarded.
Free speech and camping / bonfires are two entirely different things. Good luck convincing the SCOTUS that your tent deserves first amendment protection.
Im aware of that, but this issue seems to be so touchy people are brandishing troll mods for anything that smells of criticism. It really exposes how rational some folks are.
Its one thing to say "capitalism has issues". Its another thing to heavily imply that we need to replace it with something else, violently, without any clue or suggestion as to what the fix IS.
They also do a really poor job picking their political party, if thats true. Democrat isnt exactly the "lets shrink government" party (isnt that basically what the Tea Party was about, come to think of it?)
I dont disagree with this, and neither do most "fundamentalist" republicans. But go ahead and ask the OWS folks who they voted for last election, and whether or not they should vote differently next time?
It was rather telling that I heard someone on NPR ask that very question-- "If voting for Obama didnt work for the OWS folks, would they consider voting republican?" The answer: "If voting democrat doesnt work, clearly the system is broken." So the irony here is that apparently the OWS folks will continue to vote in a way that will GROW the government, all in the name of stopping the fat cats. Brilliant.
The vast majority of them don't give a damn about rich people being rich. The problem is that being rich means you can make other people poor.
So, the problem ISNT that people are rich!! Its that people are rich! Is that what youre saying?
And this is the first ive heard campaign finance reform touted as the answer. Ive alternatively heard suggestions about going green (?!), higher taxes on the rich, and guarenteed income (?!) as possible answers.
Incidentally, the bias of some of the mods today is really remanescent of Digg at its worst. Rather than modding based on content, people have decided that "troll" means "I disagree with this guy or suspect that he disagrees with me". Well, hopefully the metamods will clean the mess up; yall know that your moderations are rated, and will likely mean that you dont get mod points again, right?
The very video that the Occupy Oakland folks have been passing around showing that vet supposedly getting brutalized? I thought I made that rather clear. I dont feel being your personal google bot--a quick google for "occupy oakland vet hit by police" would have turned it up.
Theyre expected not to take over a privately owned park against its owners wishes. Setting up tents in a public park isnt exactly "protected speech", nor is seeking out conflict with the police.
None of this would be such a big deal if they took it at shifts and didnt camp there, but just gathered; but of course the goal was never peaceable protest, it was conflict with the cops (at least for many of those there; Im sure some there truly did just want to express grievances).
They don't have an agenda! They aren't serious!)
I still dont know what their agenda is. They claim to be pissed off about people making money, and unemployment; fantastic. WHat do you want done about it?
If we could get them to give a single answer to that, that would be a phenomenal start.
THe first amendment prohibits congress from regulating or restricting free speech (which one could take issue with free-speech zones over). It DOESNT say you can requisition an entire park for months and set up semi-permenant residences there, especially when the park owner tells you to stop (thats generally called "trespassing", and is NOT protected speech).
It will be informative to see what moderation your post ends at. Apparently you get one point so far for having been there, and for telling an alternative side of the truth, but I suspect that anything that doesnt mesh with people's conception of "rag tag group of oppressed and innocent protesters" will never get modded up as high as the ones that say "screw the po-lice".
Can you link the video? The one ive seen-- the much lauded one about that veteran who got hit by something (we dont know what) thrown by somebody (we dont know who) had a bunch of protesters throwing a bunch of stuff at the cops-- including what looked like molotovs.
Not exactly what you would consider "innocent victims". I can believe that some cops got out of hand, but when the protesters then try to claim that they are completely innocent, my BS meter goes wild. Especially when the one case that theyre making such a big deal of relied on the word of Scott's friend, and there didnt seem to be any other evidence or videos.
Incidentally, Im in favor of people being allowed to protest for as long as you want, but public property doesnt mean you can set up a residence there. Darn right theyre going to prohibit tents and whatnot, its not your personal space and apparently even the people who owned the park wanted it ended. In fact even this heavily biased report doesnt deny that it was the park owners themselves who wanted an end to the tents.
Im sure my employer (a consulting firm) just manufactures money out of thin air; clearly wall street does the same.
Its a web standard, not a law. You set an incredibly dangerous precedent by letting w3c standards dictate law-- what if one day they set a standard that all browsers must conform to IE9's behavior?
Enable it by default and noone will opt in. If noone opts in, noone will adopt or honor the standard (or else most websites will move to a paywall approach).
It HAS to be disabled by default.
You miss the REAL point - that if they can get people to think that insurers are liable for copyright infringement fines,
The real question here is what insurance policy is covering this. If the RIAA tried to get your homeowners or car insurance to pay for a settlement, Im sure they would both tell the RIAA to get bent, as the policy would not cover that.
Im told that it is possible to get insurance for just about everything, including to cover legal costs; the idea that this is some plot to make car insurers somehow liable for a user pirating off of limewire is kind of kooky.
Is it a "criminal act" if it was settled outside of court?
More to the point, do you have a source that says you cant get an insurance policy that covers fines from lawsuits?
so many sound recordings that you'd net a $50 million fine, would your insurer be willing to pay that?
I suppose it depends if you both agreed to insurance terms that covered that. If so, I would say that you would be perfectly right to go after them to fulfill their end of the bargain.
Article is a load of crap, they give no details on how they know its there. They show screenshots of 2 android phones with visible GUIs which show CIQ, and then claim its on iPhone and Blackberry as well. Sorry, Ive dug through all the servicebooks on several blackberries (8250, 9600, 7200) and Ive never seen a CIQ service book.
And as for this statement...
According to TrevE, the software is installed as a rootkit software in the RAM of devices where it resides. This software basically is completely hidden from view and in it virtually invisible,
Someone doesnt understand the volatile nature of RAM, or is terrible at communicating. Rootkits dont reside in RAM, because then they would be removable with a battery removal. As for "completely hidden", why then does he have screenshots of a CIQ GUI where theres a "disable CIQ" checkbox?
The credibility factor of this story is in the negatives, especially when they really dont explain what their proof is and they have one guy on a forum claiming this-- its not even a researcher with a known real name. Who says this isnt a massive troll?
If your bank is paying 0.5% on a savings account, then you need to find a new bank.
If you are one of the main distributors by which media of a particular type is distributed from creators to the public,
Amazon is the main distributors for users of the Kindle platform. That HARDLY makes them the main distributor of literature, by a long long shot.
The premise of the question is flawed. Consider Joe Scarborough.
Clearly I dont watch much MSNBC. Way to completely skate over the thrust of my argument, which was exposing the absurdity of demanding every vendor promote every type of media, every viewpoint, every genre, lest they be censoring.