It's redundant enough that you should be able to make sense of things even when they miss a word here or there, though "Amazon's Jeff Bezos Called Out On Counterfeit Products Problem" isn't missing anything. It says who was called out. It says what they were called out for. It doesn't say who did the calling out, but that's not important because Bezos is the party that matters.
You would think that strictly enforcing carry on size and weight limits and charging an $X fee for each item outside the limits would generate them more profits and remove one of the main delaying factors (people which huge bags stuffing them in the overhead bins on the miles away from their seat).
The people without an oversized still want to put their normal sized bag overhead rather than taking up their tiny leg room - and thus are racing with the oversized bag carriers (who need to get it overhead since it won't fit under the seat in front).
OK. You took an ambiguous slashdot summary, ignored words like "reselling" that made it pretty clear which of the interpretations of the badly written summary was true, and used declarations like "That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone".
Fine, you trust slashdot summaries so much that reading the first sentence of the article isn't worth it. Your choice.
It says "Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice". With "the practice" obviously referring to what Redbox was doing (why would Disney seek an injunction to stop themselves from doing something after all). The only thing mentioned that that could apply to is "Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks".
You know your interpretation of the English is wrong - looking at the court filings at any of the thousands of articles that use better language than a slashdot summary shows that after all. So why are you sticking to it, rather than just saying "I misunderstood an ambiguous English statement and rather than checking the article just assumed my misunderstanding was true for numerous comments"?
The court filings are crystal clear about Redbox is doing - both parties agree with that part after all.
You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs, while ignoring the word "reselling" which explicitly states codes were sold rather than rented by redbox.
Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
They don't rent the codes.
Refbox buys a combo pack that contains a DVD, a blueray, and a digital code. The rent the DVD and bluray discs. The sell the digital code.
It would take you seconds to check this. By reading the first line of the article, by looking at the court documents (well OK slightly more than seconds on that one), by looking at netflix's web page, or by doing a trivial google search. Or by thinking about it for 10 seconds. But I guess posting the same uninformed crap over and over is more fun.
Then give them completely fake guns that and add the firing effects in CGI rather than giving the actor a real gun and adding the person being shot in CGI...
Maybe put a speaker in those fake guns so that pulling the trigger makes a bang sound if you want the actors to blink at the right time. Make them clearly not guns but brightly colored with tracking markers all over them so they can be CGIed really easily to look like real guns. All of that seems better than replacing a person with CGI since people see things that are "off" about a person far more easily that most things.
Or spend even more money making the CGI actually look right if you don't want to have stunt people falling over pretending to be shot in case they get hurt (which they do tend to do after all).
So don't watch them? Who cares if other people like them. I don't like the electronic music my son listens to, he doesn't like the metal I listen to. Somehow, neither one of us wants the other's music to not exist.
As to why they deserve to have $100+ million spent on them - people who have the $100+ million to spend think they'll make a better profit doing so than the alternative investments they could make.
By that measure, a poor man sitting outside a comic convention in a makeshift costume with a cardboard sword and paper cup for alms is committing assault.
Except that by that statement, if they're 'sitting outside' they're not assaulting. If they however act in a manner to get those alms that's threatening per case law, that is assault.
"while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs."
Two conditions are necessary:
1) openly wearing or carrying a weapon or in imitation thereof. - he has a cardboard sword, that isn't a weapon but it is an imitation weapon and he is carrying it. So we check that one as true.
2) he accosts or impedes another person or begs. - he isn't accosting, he isn't impeding, he is however begging and that you only need to fulfill one option in a list or "or" terms. So we chat one as true too.
Thus by the letter of law he has committed assault., Now there might be more to that law, but you picked the part to quote. Things like reasonableness and interactions with other laws...
What does that have to do with the phrase "X like every other Y" in basic English usage meaning that X is in the group Y.
You say things like "cats like every other animal" and "America like every other western nation". You don't say things like "cats like every other bird" and "America like every other nation in the southern hemisphere".
You ignore that people count assets as wealth. You know the entire thing my comment talked about.
If someone owns a bunch of shares that are currently worth $5 million that is counted as part of their wealth. I doesn't matter if they bought them for $100,000. They have $5 million in wealth. If the market crashes and those shares are not worth $1 million, then $4 million of their wealth has vanished. They haven't sold a single share, no one else has gained that $4 million. That they are still up $900,000 on their actual original monetary investment doesn't change that either.
That was a prediction. They predicted that bitcoin would stay above $9k. They were clearly wrong, but that was still a prediction made before the event.
But yes if you make lots of conflicting predictions it's pretty easy to get a few right.
Unless people also borrowed money to buy their bitcoins...
Wealth includes assets. If someone owned 10 bitcoins that they bought for $10k each, then when bitcoins were $15k each they had $150k in wealth. Now they have $80k. That's clearly a loss in wealth, not a transfer of wealth (that $70k vanished from the books - they didn't transfer it to anyone/etc). Of course that's what you should expect when you "invest" in something so clearly volatile.
It's not Trump voters are idiots for believing Russian trolls, it's there are enough idiots on both sides that it's easy to manufacture conflict - which then gets reported in the media creating more conflict and on we go.
The original post is irrelevant. You were responding to "nobody got sent in the US for just writing n|gger on the internet". A bunch of non-US examples and two US examples that both entered threats of violence territory are clearly not counterexamples to the claim.
You're an idiot. But that's been the russian/chinese/republican party play book for a long time. You don't have to be perfect in order to criticize others. I've driven 5mph over the speed limit, that doesn't mean I can't call someone a dangerous idiot for doing 120mph in a school zone.
What do you honestly think would have happened to Manning if they were in the Chinese army - out of prison in 7 years and trying to run for government office? I doubt it...
They aren't officially. They US government doesn't declare tham an ally or an enemy.
However, the US has nuclear missiles targetted at China ready to be launched in minutes. China has nuclear missiles targetted at the US ready to be launched in minutes. For practical purposes that surely makes them more enemies than friends:)
The site has "conspiracy" in the name - got a more reasonable source? Searching the name turns up some harassment charges but the warrant cites "I hate you so much I would like to see you butchered," alongside pictures of mutilated barbie dolls which isn't un-PC it's just violent.
UK.
UK.
UK.
UK,
Singapore.
Hey, this one is the US. But the arrest is for "let's lynch her" an explicit threat of physical harm toward a specific person, not for un-PC speech.
UK,
So got any actual US arrests for peaceful un-PC speech in the US?
Slashdot Mirror
But since they don't require it detecting all bugs for it to be useful, that it it is impossible to do so for all bugs is irrelevant.
Is English that difficult for you?
It's redundant enough that you should be able to make sense of things even when they miss a word here or there, though "Amazon's Jeff Bezos Called Out On Counterfeit Products Problem" isn't missing anything. It says who was called out. It says what they were called out for. It doesn't say who did the calling out, but that's not important because Bezos is the party that matters.
You would think that strictly enforcing carry on size and weight limits and charging an $X fee for each item outside the limits would generate them more profits and remove one of the main delaying factors (people which huge bags stuffing them in the overhead bins on the miles away from their seat).
The people without an oversized still want to put their normal sized bag overhead rather than taking up their tiny leg room - and thus are racing with the oversized bag carriers (who need to get it overhead since it won't fit under the seat in front).
You could try reading the article?
It does the obvious thing you would expect from a system using digital signatures that is set to not verify the signature.
OK. You took an ambiguous slashdot summary, ignored words like "reselling" that made it pretty clear which of the interpretations of the badly written summary was true, and used declarations like "That's what Redbox is doing when they "rent" a download code to someone".
Fine, you trust slashdot summaries so much that reading the first sentence of the article isn't worth it. Your choice.
It says "Disney requested an injunction to stop the practice". With "the practice" obviously referring to what Redbox was doing (why would Disney seek an injunction to stop themselves from doing something after all). The only thing mentioned that that could apply to is "Redbox bought Disney movies on DVD to offer for rental in its kiosks".
You know your interpretation of the English is wrong - looking at the court filings at any of the thousands of articles that use better language than a slashdot summary shows that after all. So why are you sticking to it, rather than just saying "I misunderstood an ambiguous English statement and rather than checking the article just assumed my misunderstanding was true for numerous comments"?
The court filings are crystal clear about Redbox is doing - both parties agree with that part after all.
You quoted the bit that said Disney often bundled codes with the DVDs, while ignoring the word "reselling" which explicitly states codes were sold rather than rented by redbox.
Your just making shit up. And you apparently can't read the simple English sentences in TFS.
They don't rent the codes.
Refbox buys a combo pack that contains a DVD, a blueray, and a digital code. The rent the DVD and bluray discs. The sell the digital code.
It would take you seconds to check this. By reading the first line of the article, by looking at the court documents (well OK slightly more than seconds on that one), by looking at netflix's web page, or by doing a trivial google search. Or by thinking about it for 10 seconds. But I guess posting the same uninformed crap over and over is more fun.
Then give them completely fake guns that and add the firing effects in CGI rather than giving the actor a real gun and adding the person being shot in CGI...
Maybe put a speaker in those fake guns so that pulling the trigger makes a bang sound if you want the actors to blink at the right time. Make them clearly not guns but brightly colored with tracking markers all over them so they can be CGIed really easily to look like real guns. All of that seems better than replacing a person with CGI since people see things that are "off" about a person far more easily that most things.
Or spend even more money making the CGI actually look right if you don't want to have stunt people falling over pretending to be shot in case they get hurt (which they do tend to do after all).
So don't watch them? Who cares if other people like them. I don't like the electronic music my son listens to, he doesn't like the metal I listen to. Somehow, neither one of us wants the other's music to not exist.
As to why they deserve to have $100+ million spent on them - people who have the $100+ million to spend think they'll make a better profit doing so than the alternative investments they could make.
By that measure, a poor man sitting outside a comic convention in a makeshift costume with a cardboard sword and paper cup for alms is committing assault.
Except that by that statement, if they're 'sitting outside' they're not assaulting. If they however act in a manner to get those alms that's threatening per case law, that is assault.
"while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs."
Two conditions are necessary:
1) openly wearing or carrying a weapon or in imitation thereof. - he has a cardboard sword, that isn't a weapon but it is an imitation weapon and he is carrying it. So we check that one as true.
2) he accosts or impedes another person or begs. - he isn't accosting, he isn't impeding, he is however begging and that you only need to fulfill one option in a list or "or" terms. So we chat one as true too.
Thus by the letter of law he has committed assault., Now there might be more to that law, but you picked the part to quote. Things like reasonableness and interactions with other laws...
What does that have to do with the phrase "X like every other Y" in basic English usage meaning that X is in the group Y.
You say things like "cats like every other animal" and "America like every other western nation". You don't say things like "cats like every other bird" and "America like every other nation in the southern hemisphere".
You ignore that people count assets as wealth. You know the entire thing my comment talked about.
If someone owns a bunch of shares that are currently worth $5 million that is counted as part of their wealth. I doesn't matter if they bought them for $100,000. They have $5 million in wealth. If the market crashes and those shares are not worth $1 million, then $4 million of their wealth has vanished. They haven't sold a single share, no one else has gained that $4 million. That they are still up $900,000 on their actual original monetary investment doesn't change that either.
Same with bitcoin.
Since news wasn't classified as "right wing" in their methodology, maybe you just don't understand it?
That's not what the phrase "every other" means. Try and follow along with basic English usage.
That was a prediction. They predicted that bitcoin would stay above $9k. They were clearly wrong, but that was still a prediction made before the event.
But yes if you make lots of conflicting predictions it's pretty easy to get a few right.
Unless people also borrowed money to buy their bitcoins...
Wealth includes assets. If someone owned 10 bitcoins that they bought for $10k each, then when bitcoins were $15k each they had $150k in wealth. Now they have $80k. That's clearly a loss in wealth, not a transfer of wealth (that $70k vanished from the books - they didn't transfer it to anyone/etc). Of course that's what you should expect when you "invest" in something so clearly volatile.
Why should a pension being treated differently from any other marital asset?
Both sides were being played - it wasn't just pro trump but more a "sow discord". At least those are the allegations. For example:
http://www.houstonpress.com/ne...
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
It's not Trump voters are idiots for believing Russian trolls, it's there are enough idiots on both sides that it's easy to manufacture conflict - which then gets reported in the media creating more conflict and on we go.
The original post is irrelevant. You were responding to "nobody got sent in the US for just writing n|gger on the internet". A bunch of non-US examples and two US examples that both entered threats of violence territory are clearly not counterexamples to the claim.
You're an idiot. But that's been the russian/chinese/republican party play book for a long time. You don't have to be perfect in order to criticize others. I've driven 5mph over the speed limit, that doesn't mean I can't call someone a dangerous idiot for doing 120mph in a school zone.
What do you honestly think would have happened to Manning if they were in the Chinese army - out of prison in 7 years and trying to run for government office? I doubt it...
They aren't officially. They US government doesn't declare tham an ally or an enemy.
However, the US has nuclear missiles targetted at China ready to be launched in minutes. China has nuclear missiles targetted at the US ready to be launched in minutes. For practical purposes that surely makes them more enemies than friends :)
UK.
The site has "conspiracy" in the name - got a more reasonable source? Searching the name turns up some harassment charges but the warrant cites "I hate you so much I would like to see you butchered," alongside pictures of mutilated barbie dolls which isn't un-PC it's just violent.
UK.
UK.
UK.
UK,
Singapore.
Hey, this one is the US. But the arrest is for "let's lynch her" an explicit threat of physical harm toward a specific person, not for un-PC speech.
UK,
So got any actual US arrests for peaceful un-PC speech in the US?
Foreign exchange trading is also just like a casino, so I'm not sure why that matters