> By caving into the Chinese dicatorship they give them legitimacy
Wow. Google is a business, not a government. Google's actions do not give legitimacy to ANYTHING. They are a COMPANY who wish to do business within a country. To do business within that country, they must follow the LAWS of that country. It is that simple.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Your keen powers of observation come to our rescue yet again! Without your half-assed-half-explanation, I might have been eternally doomed to find the joke funny. Perhaps not...
> we like to think that our high divorce rate is some deep sickness in our society without ever stopping to think that there might be an upside.
There already WAS an upside... I can make illogical-logical excuses about being alone, like "there's a 60% chance I'll just get divorced and lose half of everything I own!" The closer we come to knowing how to fall in love and get it 100% right, the closer I come to having to admit that I'm just an ugly loser. My ego might not survive the fallout from something like that!
> (the trivia of your dog's toilet training doesn't cut it) [...] after all, the blogger doesn't have any sources to protect in the first place!
Oh, I see, just because it's not a human, you can post lewd pictures of your dog taking a dump? How can you suggest that the dog doesn't deserve any protection??? Ludicrous! It is shameful to see our canine brethren treated as objects like that! You are a sick, sick person!;)
What?!?! Why the heck not? Their job is to report news. Factually incorrect information is not news (unless that news is pointing out the incorrectness of something else). That means they are not doing their jobs. They are the only ones to blame for not doing their jobs, unless they were forced, somehow, to lie. Even then, it could be argued that they are still at fault for giving in to coercion. They should be held responsible for incorrect information, not just given a pass because their source was untrustworthy. If they relied on a bad source, it's their fault for doing so.
Man, I can't believe this hasn't been modded as a troll! What utter nonsense. You talk about parental control, but this bill does the OPPOSITE! You already have control over what is in your house. However, if a parent decides that their child CAN play a game, their right to allow their son to purchase a piece of software has been REMOVED!
This bill takes away rights, without gaining anything in return. As an aside, I bet that the number of "mature" games stolen from stores increases dramatically. As well as copyright infringement on many of those titles.
Waaah, waaaah. "I know a counterexample or two so you're a doodoohead."
Get a goddamned clue. Just because your cousin and neighbor are honest people (I'll assume so) does not mean the majority are. If I said McDonalds' food sucks, I'd be right (IMO). However, there are a few items on the menu that are actually tasty. My original point would, and does stand despite the existence of a counterexample or three.
How about you come to West Virginia and talk to a few lawyers there. Lawyers have driven malpractice insurance to the point of a _critical_ shortage of doctors in the state because of all their bullshit lawsuits. Yet they will not accept any responsibility and just keep sueing and sueing. And yes, it is an individual who gets a lawyer to start a lawsuit (usually*) but this thread was about the accountability of the lawyer. The lawfirms are accepting the cases that they know do not have good legal grounding, but they will lie like hell to win a case so they can get paid better -- IOW, a shill.
* As for class-action lawsuits, they are even worse in some cases, because the people who were actually harmed are used to get ludicrous amounts of money for a lawfirm, and see jack shit as a result (except lost time/wages to take part, possibly). Of course, there are examples where a class-action lawsuit resulted in net positive gain for someone other than the lawyers prosecuting the case.
Yes, the country IS going to shit, and the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
You seem to be confusing exasperation and excitement. I pointed out that arguing for someone is not the same as believing what they believe. Then you started talking about being accountable for your actions. Well, they weren't her actions, she was carrying out the actions on behalf of a law firm -- you don't seriously think she was the one doing all the research and making arguments, do you? She was arguing a case, doing her job, not making a political statement. Should the man who defended Jeffrey Dahmer be disbarred because he defended someone that seemed so obviously guilty? What restrictions should he have, or is it just that he shouldn't be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court? Or, as per your point, that he should be held accountable for trying to "free" a murderer?
Plus, you didn't mention what actions she should be held accountable for which is, presumably, what you considered exciting. Just being "accountable for her defense" doesn't mean much, except that it should be considered whether she used legally-correct arguments. AFAIK, she did.
The part where there is something to be held accountable FOR. You want to hold her responsible for defending a company you don't like??? WHAT DID SHE DO, exactly, that should keep her from being a Supreme Court Justice?
> You think the Pope isn't as important as a Supreme Court justice?
Please note, I didn't say "influential." If you truly think he is more important, you need to remember that not everyone is Catholic. In fact the large majority are not. The Pope only really matters to Catholics. And that power is slowly dwindling, as more Catholics see him as just a person, who is as flawed as any other.
> It was her own preference to work for Microsoft.
No, actually, it was not. It was her choice to work for a law firm, where her job was to represent people in cases, as appointed by her bosses at said law firm. AFAIK, she didn't "choose" to represent them, she was told to represent them as part of her job.
> our new Supreme Court nominee is a professional liar
How many of them were previously lawyers? Then that's how many of them were professional liars. That's what a lawyer is. However, it does not mean they continue to lie as justices. Consider how people thought they would be when they were appointed vs. how they actually have decided cases since.
> Works for the Vatican. Why can't it work for the US' own venerable and august body?
Because a Supreme Court justice is an important person who has a hand in truly important decisions. The Pope is some guy in a hat. You have the right to disobey the Pope, but a Justice guides the law which, when broken, has much harsher consequences.
> Uh, how is that a flame? It's a fact. Bush's latest nominee used to be a lawyer for Microsoft.
Just because someone can argue a point for someone (remember that was her JOB to give MS's argument, not her own preference) it does not automatically mean they believe it to be correct.
Or every single personal musician's site that is doing it because it's fun, not because they're waiting to sell out to the RIAA.
Posted AC (or not*) because I have such a site in my sig and am waiting to sell out to the RIAA;)
* It's been 11 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment This is some annoying shit! Fuck the AC posting then, I don't have time to wait around for an hour until/. lets me post again just because I'm trying to avoid advertising my own site... *sigh* See what happens when you try to stop pagehit whoring? Anyway, the "selling out" thing isn't serious
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, man, didn't you see who wrote it? It's Elohim. You owe him (them) all of YOUR brain cells!
> By caving into the Chinese dicatorship they give them legitimacy
Wow. Google is a business, not a government. Google's actions do not give legitimacy to ANYTHING. They are a COMPANY who wish to do business within a country. To do business within that country, they must follow the LAWS of that country. It is that simple.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. Your keen powers of observation come to our rescue yet again! Without your half-assed-half-explanation, I might have been eternally doomed to find the joke funny. Perhaps not...
> some things couldn't truly be replaced...but the Net(s) would survive.
I'm sure there would be a buttload of sites/programs to connect the two together in one form or another.
> how do you possible cope with measuring things in X sixteenths of an inch?!
We are smart enough to be able to work with fractions. Whole numbers are not required here, we have evolved past their use.
> One degree Celsius is exactly equal to one degree Kelvin.
Wow. I didn't realize that just above the freezing point of water was the same as just above the freezing point of... everything else!
> we like to think that our high divorce rate is some deep sickness in our society without ever stopping to think that there might be an upside.
There already WAS an upside... I can make illogical-logical excuses about being alone, like "there's a 60% chance I'll just get divorced and lose half of everything I own!" The closer we come to knowing how to fall in love and get it 100% right, the closer I come to having to admit that I'm just an ugly loser. My ego might not survive the fallout from something like that!
> (the trivia of your dog's toilet training doesn't cut it) [...] after all, the blogger doesn't have any sources to protect in the first place!
;)
Oh, I see, just because it's not a human, you can post lewd pictures of your dog taking a dump? How can you suggest that the dog doesn't deserve any protection??? Ludicrous! It is shameful to see our canine brethren treated as objects like that! You are a sick, sick person!
> So bloggers are 100% journalists under the second definition
Your powers of observation are the most remarkable I've seen for quite some time. You should think about joining the FBI. Thank you, Mr. Obvious!
> I don't necessarily fault them for that
What?!?! Why the heck not? Their job is to report news. Factually incorrect information is not news (unless that news is pointing out the incorrectness of something else). That means they are not doing their jobs. They are the only ones to blame for not doing their jobs, unless they were forced, somehow, to lie. Even then, it could be argued that they are still at fault for giving in to coercion. They should be held responsible for incorrect information, not just given a pass because their source was untrustworthy. If they relied on a bad source, it's their fault for doing so.
> What is "political value as to minors"?
Could be "Civil Disobedience," as in looking at pictures in protest because they are banned.
Might not stand up in court though...
> People who oppose this bill are anti-family
Man, I can't believe this hasn't been modded as a troll! What utter nonsense. You talk about parental control, but this bill does the OPPOSITE! You already have control over what is in your house. However, if a parent decides that their child CAN play a game, their right to allow their son to purchase a piece of software has been REMOVED!
This bill takes away rights, without gaining anything in return. As an aside, I bet that the number of "mature" games stolen from stores increases dramatically. As well as copyright infringement on many of those titles.
Waaah, waaaah. "I know a counterexample or two so you're a doodoohead."
Get a goddamned clue. Just because your cousin and neighbor are honest people (I'll assume so) does not mean the majority are. If I said McDonalds' food sucks, I'd be right (IMO). However, there are a few items on the menu that are actually tasty. My original point would, and does stand despite the existence of a counterexample or three.
How about you come to West Virginia and talk to a few lawyers there. Lawyers have driven malpractice insurance to the point of a _critical_ shortage of doctors in the state because of all their bullshit lawsuits. Yet they will not accept any responsibility and just keep sueing and sueing. And yes, it is an individual who gets a lawyer to start a lawsuit (usually*) but this thread was about the accountability of the lawyer. The lawfirms are accepting the cases that they know do not have good legal grounding, but they will lie like hell to win a case so they can get paid better -- IOW, a shill.
* As for class-action lawsuits, they are even worse in some cases, because the people who were actually harmed are used to get ludicrous amounts of money for a lawfirm, and see jack shit as a result (except lost time/wages to take part, possibly). Of course, there are examples where a class-action lawsuit resulted in net positive gain for someone other than the lawyers prosecuting the case.
Yes, the country IS going to shit, and the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.
> So basically what your saying is that she's a shill for whoever has money
Umm.. that's what a lawyer is.
So someone should be held accountable for their actions when arguing for a civil case, but not a criminal one? Grasp, indeed.
You seem to be confusing exasperation and excitement. I pointed out that arguing for someone is not the same as believing what they believe. Then you started talking about being accountable for your actions. Well, they weren't her actions, she was carrying out the actions on behalf of a law firm -- you don't seriously think she was the one doing all the research and making arguments, do you? She was arguing a case, doing her job, not making a political statement. Should the man who defended Jeffrey Dahmer be disbarred because he defended someone that seemed so obviously guilty? What restrictions should he have, or is it just that he shouldn't be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court? Or, as per your point, that he should be held accountable for trying to "free" a murderer?
Plus, you didn't mention what actions she should be held accountable for which is, presumably, what you considered exciting. Just being "accountable for her defense" doesn't mean much, except that it should be considered whether she used legally-correct arguments. AFAIK, she did.
> What part of this is unclear?
The part where there is something to be held accountable FOR. You want to hold her responsible for defending a company you don't like??? WHAT DID SHE DO, exactly, that should keep her from being a Supreme Court Justice?
> You think the Pope isn't as important as a Supreme Court justice?
Please note, I didn't say "influential." If you truly think he is more important, you need to remember that not everyone is Catholic. In fact the large majority are not. The Pope only really matters to Catholics. And that power is slowly dwindling, as more Catholics see him as just a person, who is as flawed as any other.
> It was her own preference to work for Microsoft.
No, actually, it was not. It was her choice to work for a law firm, where her job was to represent people in cases, as appointed by her bosses at said law firm. AFAIK, she didn't "choose" to represent them, she was told to represent them as part of her job.
> our new Supreme Court nominee is a professional liar
How many of them were previously lawyers? Then that's how many of them were professional liars. That's what a lawyer is. However, it does not mean they continue to lie as justices. Consider how people thought they would be when they were appointed vs. how they actually have decided cases since.
> Works for the Vatican. Why can't it work for the US' own venerable and august body?
Because a Supreme Court justice is an important person who has a hand in truly important decisions. The Pope is some guy in a hat. You have the right to disobey the Pope, but a Justice guides the law which, when broken, has much harsher consequences.
> Uh, how is that a flame? It's a fact. Bush's latest nominee used to be a lawyer for Microsoft.
Just because someone can argue a point for someone (remember that was her JOB to give MS's argument, not her own preference) it does not automatically mean they believe it to be correct.
The fact that only one of them is rap must mean you can't read.
> yeah, maybe like magnatune.com
;)
/. lets me post again just because I'm trying to avoid advertising my own site... *sigh* See what happens when you try to stop pagehit whoring? Anyway, the "selling out" thing isn't serious
Or every single personal musician's site that is doing it because it's fun, not because they're waiting to sell out to the RIAA.
Posted AC (or not*) because I have such a site in my sig and am waiting to sell out to the RIAA
* It's been 11 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
This is some annoying shit! Fuck the AC posting then, I don't have time to wait around for an hour until
> ost streaming content is free-as-in-beer e.g. "internet radio", that the user has little to no rights in using.
o -cups-asshole!"
Ummm, if the user has little-to-no-rights, then it isn't "free-as-in-beer," it's "free-as-in-I'll-let-you-drink-from-the-keg-but-n