I think I see your problem now. The legal world is not based on sanity.
The original ideal of the rule of law is entirely sane. Laws are one of the only tools that we have to force bad people to do good things. I can see your point about our current system, reform is necessary. Obviously, you aren't against the rule of law itself, heck, even anarchists and libertarians like laws.
However, I think that laws should be simple enough and few enough in number that lawyers are unnecessary, because the average citizen can completely understand them all.
So 'Ride the Ducks' is trying to assert trademark over generic duck sounds, made by riders and tour guides on these duck tours? I've got a simple solution for bay quackers, just trademark the sound of sniffling, coughing, and whining children, then sue Ride the Ducks when their customers make those sounds. Then cross license and form a tour guide duopoly.
I would argue that the duck quack is a generic sound, used by hunters for hundreds of years. It is like a particular note on a generic piano. Or a generic word, such as 'Quality.' Nobody can trademark the word 'Quality' by itself. The duck quack is not like the NBC chimes or other sound marks, which are carefully engineered and specific. You can still play the three notes of the chimes in a commercial, just not the specific chime sounds. In a sane world, generic duck quacks can not be trademarked.
I've never been to Poland or Eastern Europe, only the UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Greece. If I recall, the further east I went, the fewer people of (recent) African descent I saw.
It's impossible to look up something that's wrong. You may have a four digit ID but you know fuck all about chemistry; every open bracket needs a close, just like perl, just like maths.
Did I say you were wrong about the parenthesis? Nope. And yet, somehow, I looked it up. Go figure.
No African-Americans in Poland doncha know so it is only natural. Imagine the funny looks of the poles when this face appears.
African-Americans are usually only found in... America !! As far as I know, there are no African-Europeans, and no African-Asians. There may be some African-Australians. but they call them something else down there, maybe Australian-Africans, seeing as how everything is upside down down there.
Are you trolling or have you just never left the states? There are most certainly lots of people of African descent in Europe. In Asia, not so much, but they do exist.
Yes, well, this is what we in the comedy business like to call a 'joke.' These are short anecdotes designed to elicit a laugh. Oftentimes, they are not literally true, but instead play on common stereotypes. For instance, while I did have pimples as a youth, I did not live in my parent's basement and after the age of 17, I did not lack for romantic prospects. But the 'geek' stereotype insists we all must have been awkward social losers, and the 'married' stereotype says that we married folk do not have sex, when in fact, even after nine years I am getting more regular and better sex than I did when I was single (and I was no slouch in that department, either.)
This educational message brought to you by the Committee for Amplifying the Sense of Humor, a non-profit dedicated to explaining humor to the humor impaired. Donations may be made out to C.A.S.H.
Right, like we're all still pimply faced youths stuck in our parents basement with no romantic prospects. Some of us have wives now, you know, so... um... never mind.
Evens... everything... out? Holy crap you're deluded. You act as if this is not a common occurrence with old Billy boy. The man is an angry loon who can't stand being shown up, he's a screamer not a debater. I've never seen him have a debate: he talks over others, turns off their mike if they are winning, attacks people rather than ideas, acts self righteous even though he is an amoral sociopath who thinks he is top ape on the tree. He treats his employees like dirt and stalks and harasses women.
Admit it: you do not watch MSNBC. You parrot back what your Dear Leaders tell you about the network. That is the strength of the conservative movement, the spear carriers don't need to understand anything, they simply need to be able to repeat stock phrases, loudly and often.
This is the reason Fox and conservative pundits are popular, and liberal pundits are not. Liberals do not like being told how to think, conservatives can't think for themselves and enjoy hooting and flinging crap. The conservative pundits supply the crap, and tell their slope browed, neolithic supporters who to hoot at and where to fling the poo.
Well, yeah, I mean obviously most people are going to figure it out. The practice of correction without acknowledgment just smacks of evasion of responsibility to me, that's all I'm saying.
It's as if you live in Opposite Land, where black is white and up is down. Seriously, every criticism you heap on MSNBC can more accurately be applied to Fox, while every bit of praise for the fairness and openness of Fox commentators can be more accurately laid at the feet of MSNBC correspondents. I don't know how to have a debate with someone who wears blinders of such efficiency that they simply can not see any evidence that contradicts their world view. I mean, I've seen O'Reilly turn off a guest's microphone because they were disagreeing too effectively. I've never seen that kind of behavior on MSNBC. We simply don't live in the same world, and I'm sure you feel the same about me. As I don't really enjoy butting my head against a brick wall repeatedly, let's just agree to disagree. About everything. And let's just leave it at that. It just bums me out too much to watch smart people invent entire imaginary worlds, and then get lost inside them.
I came here from my RSS feed purely to moan about this. Glad to see several beat me to it. Also, in what must be a Slashdot first, TFS has actually been corrected!
It's not a first. What would be a first would be a correction with an actual admission that a correction took place. But that would require something approaching journalistic integrity. As it is, I often see stories tagged with 'typoinsummary,' with comments about the typo, but no evidence of a typo or a correction of said typo. The Slashdot editors must think we are quite easily fooled.
Far left writers/talkers are never given a platform to even try to hold an audience. And what exactly is the difference between Beck's or O'Reilly's shows and Olberman's or Mathew's shows? You've set up some awfully convenient categories there that let you keep your paranoid worldview, but then, that's a key facet of true paranoia: it is, at least, internally consistent.
The far left are a different audience, and a more critical audience. The far right do not want to have to think about things, they just want to feel that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They want to be spoon fed high school pep squad level rah-rah boosterism. They want to be told they are special, but persecuted. That they are the beleaguered Good Guys perpetually fighting the good fight against all that is wrong, bad, and anti-American. They don't want facts or journalism, they want sound bites they can parrot back without having to understand. In short, the far right whackaloons are an audience that is easily pandered too, that subspecies of humanity that Lenin called the 'useful idiot.' They are the type of sad, sorry, sycophant who begs to be allowed to lick the boot just once more.
Is The Rachel Madow Show a news or an opinion show? How about Hardball? They sure seem like commentary to me, and no different than, say, Glen Beck or The O'Reilly Factor. Except for the fact that they have, you know, factual accuracy and the hosts are capable of reason and discourse.
You are simply playing semantic games to make a point. Which you've made quite well, that is, if your point is 'Straif can't argue worth a damn.' Useful idiot, indeed.
So, what would the left wing equivalent of Fox News be? MSNBC? Really? Then why were they first on the bandwagon to throw Rowdy Roddy Blagojevich out of office, while Fox acts as an apologist for any right winger accused of anything ever? Did MSNBC ever proselytize for it's viewers to go to any protests? No? Fox sure as hell did, the whole teabagger thing never would have gone anywhere without them. What left wing news source has ever fought (and won) for their right to lie to their audience? None. Only Fox did that.
Who is the left wing equivalent of, oh, Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? Glen Beck? We don't have anyone as flat out nuts as those folks speaking through any major news outlets.
Sure, there's bias, but it's hardly overwhelming. What we've got is a number of stories that show a minor left wing slant, but no far left opinions or stories at all. On the right, it's wingnut central. The craziest of crazies get handed a soapbox and told to scream at the top of their lungs.
MSNBC is fairly liberal, I personally can't stand Mathews but Madow is quite informative. MSNBC is about as far left-wing as, oh, CNN is right-wing. There is no left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or Fox News.
The townhall screamers are bussed in from outside, they have been instructed by their corporate masters to shut down discussion. During the Bush years, no liberal could get close to him. If you wore a T-Shirt his handlers didn't like, you were escorted to a 'free speech zone.' Sure, some left wingers from out of district began to show up, after it became obvious that the insane screamers were being bussed in from afar.
But like I said, please do go on wallowing in that delusional persecution complex. Maybe you're like that right wing white guy I saw on a documentary who started crying like a baby when Obama was elected. Maybe you believe the country really is going to hell because the evil liberals are winning. Maybe I'll just have another laugh at your expense. Seriously, the whining? Priceless. I couldn't ask for a better gift from a conservative. You've made my day.
Stalin and Mao never practiced communism. In other news, the Nazi's weren't Socialists and East Germany was not a Democracy. Sheesh. Cuba is just another dictatorship, with some socialist trappings. Why not look at real and successful socialist countries, like, oh, I don't know, most of our allies in Europe.
Face facts: Obama is a centrist. He is on record stating that Reagan was his favorite president. If you think Obama is left wing, you're probably a fascist ultra right wing nutbag. Thankfully, your type is a dying breed.
Did you even read that? It's basically saying what I said, because it was the study I was citing: reporters are liberal, editors and owners are conservative. The media 'lean to the left' but are 'more moderate than congress.'
The methodology of this study is somewhat, er, misleading at best. They compare ONLY the number of times a paper cites conservative think tanks versus cites of liberal think tanks. Huh? What is that supposed to show? According to this study, 'The Drudge Report' is liberal!
Seriously, dude, put down the kool-aid. There is no vast liberal conspiracy. It just looks that way to some extremists.
Sorry, but in the 2008 election, the media was absolutely, positively in the bag for Obama.
Yeah, uh, you know your source there is run by the Moonies, HATES the larger and more successful Post, and is basically DC's 'National Enquirer' of the right wing, right? Talk about media bias!
Oooh, what nice anecdotal evidence you have there! That sure proves exactly... nothing. Got any studies citing column inches positive/negative on given issues? Then shut up, you are talking out of your ass.
Comparing anyone to Hitler is simply tasteless. Well, Pol Pot or Stalin, maybe. But Bush is no Hitler, Hitler got shit DONE. Bush was a bush league wannabe tinpot dictator, Hitler wrote the damn book on the subject.
Anyway, have fun with your persecution complex. It doesn't make you look sane, it doesn't make you look rational, but hey, we're all out to get you anyway, right? Yeah...
So, your sig means whatever you want it to mean, given the situation?
So you think it's fair that there are more Bush parodies? Just commenting on the disparity, not saying you feel one way or the other about it? Uh-huh, sure.
I figure we've got to bash Bush for as long as the right-wingers bashed Clinton. As they haven't stopped yet, I can't really give you an estimate. The only thing Obama is fucking over is us liberals, who thought we were voting for one of us.
Your sig says that fairness is Marxism in drag. So anyone whining about how unfair something is must be a Marxist who wants to handicap everyone down to the same level. Don't sell your boy short! Nobody screws up like a Bush. Obama's screw ups are (so far) amateur league compared to what Bush did. It will take us decades to repair the damage Bush did to our international reputation. But of course, every other country in the world is either a third world dictatorship or a socialist hell-hive, right? So why should we care?
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the world is not black and white, there are no pure 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, a fascist, a Nazi, or insane.
Is it true that no one can hear you scream? What about sex? Except for the lack of screaming, zero G sex sounds like fun! I bet stuff is extra bouncy bouncy up there. Is it still okay to call you space people, or do you prefer 'people of space' now?
Slashdot Mirror
In a sane world...
I think I see your problem now. The legal world is not based on sanity.
The original ideal of the rule of law is entirely sane. Laws are one of the only tools that we have to force bad people to do good things. I can see your point about our current system, reform is necessary. Obviously, you aren't against the rule of law itself, heck, even anarchists and libertarians like laws.
However, I think that laws should be simple enough and few enough in number that lawyers are unnecessary, because the average citizen can completely understand them all.
So 'Ride the Ducks' is trying to assert trademark over generic duck sounds, made by riders and tour guides on these duck tours? I've got a simple solution for bay quackers, just trademark the sound of sniffling, coughing, and whining children, then sue Ride the Ducks when their customers make those sounds. Then cross license and form a tour guide duopoly.
I would argue that the duck quack is a generic sound, used by hunters for hundreds of years. It is like a particular note on a generic piano. Or a generic word, such as 'Quality.' Nobody can trademark the word 'Quality' by itself. The duck quack is not like the NBC chimes or other sound marks, which are carefully engineered and specific. You can still play the three notes of the chimes in a commercial, just not the specific chime sounds. In a sane world, generic duck quacks can not be trademarked.
I've never been to Poland or Eastern Europe, only the UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Greece. If I recall, the further east I went, the fewer people of (recent) African descent I saw.
It's impossible to look up something that's wrong. You may have a four digit ID but you know fuck all about chemistry; every open bracket needs a close, just like perl, just like maths.
Did I say you were wrong about the parenthesis? Nope. And yet, somehow, I looked it up. Go figure.
No African-Americans in Poland doncha know so it is only natural. Imagine the funny looks of the poles when this face appears.
African-Americans are usually only found in... America !! As far as I know, there are no African-Europeans, and no African-Asians. There may be some African-Australians. but they call them something else down there, maybe Australian-Africans, seeing as how everything is upside down down there.
Are you trolling or have you just never left the states? There are most certainly lots of people of African descent in Europe. In Asia, not so much, but they do exist.
Yes, well, this is what we in the comedy business like to call a 'joke.' These are short anecdotes designed to elicit a laugh. Oftentimes, they are not literally true, but instead play on common stereotypes. For instance, while I did have pimples as a youth, I did not live in my parent's basement and after the age of 17, I did not lack for romantic prospects. But the 'geek' stereotype insists we all must have been awkward social losers, and the 'married' stereotype says that we married folk do not have sex, when in fact, even after nine years I am getting more regular and better sex than I did when I was single (and I was no slouch in that department, either.)
This educational message brought to you by the Committee for Amplifying the Sense of Humor, a non-profit dedicated to explaining humor to the humor impaired. Donations may be made out to C.A.S.H.
Did you look it up? It is apparently the chemical formula for a mineral called... wait for it... cummingtonite.
Right, like we're all still pimply faced youths stuck in our parents basement with no romantic prospects. Some of us have wives now, you know, so... um... never mind.
See, now that would have been hilarious, if you'd just left it alone I would have thought it was on purpose. What a great way to save ener
Evens... everything... out? Holy crap you're deluded. You act as if this is not a common occurrence with old Billy boy. The man is an angry loon who can't stand being shown up, he's a screamer not a debater. I've never seen him have a debate: he talks over others, turns off their mike if they are winning, attacks people rather than ideas, acts self righteous even though he is an amoral sociopath who thinks he is top ape on the tree. He treats his employees like dirt and stalks and harasses women.
Admit it: you do not watch MSNBC. You parrot back what your Dear Leaders tell you about the network. That is the strength of the conservative movement, the spear carriers don't need to understand anything, they simply need to be able to repeat stock phrases, loudly and often.
This is the reason Fox and conservative pundits are popular, and liberal pundits are not. Liberals do not like being told how to think, conservatives can't think for themselves and enjoy hooting and flinging crap. The conservative pundits supply the crap, and tell their slope browed, neolithic supporters who to hoot at and where to fling the poo.
Well, yeah, I mean obviously most people are going to figure it out. The practice of correction without acknowledgment just smacks of evasion of responsibility to me, that's all I'm saying.
It's as if you live in Opposite Land, where black is white and up is down. Seriously, every criticism you heap on MSNBC can more accurately be applied to Fox, while every bit of praise for the fairness and openness of Fox commentators can be more accurately laid at the feet of MSNBC correspondents. I don't know how to have a debate with someone who wears blinders of such efficiency that they simply can not see any evidence that contradicts their world view. I mean, I've seen O'Reilly turn off a guest's microphone because they were disagreeing too effectively. I've never seen that kind of behavior on MSNBC. We simply don't live in the same world, and I'm sure you feel the same about me. As I don't really enjoy butting my head against a brick wall repeatedly, let's just agree to disagree. About everything. And let's just leave it at that. It just bums me out too much to watch smart people invent entire imaginary worlds, and then get lost inside them.
I came here from my RSS feed purely to moan about this. Glad to see several beat me to it.
Also, in what must be a Slashdot first, TFS has actually been corrected!
It's not a first. What would be a first would be a correction with an actual admission that a correction took place. But that would require something approaching journalistic integrity. As it is, I often see stories tagged with 'typoinsummary,' with comments about the typo, but no evidence of a typo or a correction of said typo. The Slashdot editors must think we are quite easily fooled.
Far left writers/talkers are never given a platform to even try to hold an audience. And what exactly is the difference between Beck's or O'Reilly's shows and Olberman's or Mathew's shows? You've set up some awfully convenient categories there that let you keep your paranoid worldview, but then, that's a key facet of true paranoia: it is, at least, internally consistent.
The far left are a different audience, and a more critical audience. The far right do not want to have to think about things, they just want to feel that they are right, and everyone else is wrong. They want to be spoon fed high school pep squad level rah-rah boosterism. They want to be told they are special, but persecuted. That they are the beleaguered Good Guys perpetually fighting the good fight against all that is wrong, bad, and anti-American. They don't want facts or journalism, they want sound bites they can parrot back without having to understand. In short, the far right whackaloons are an audience that is easily pandered too, that subspecies of humanity that Lenin called the 'useful idiot.' They are the type of sad, sorry, sycophant who begs to be allowed to lick the boot just once more.
Is The Rachel Madow Show a news or an opinion show? How about Hardball? They sure seem like commentary to me, and no different than, say, Glen Beck or The O'Reilly Factor. Except for the fact that they have, you know, factual accuracy and the hosts are capable of reason and discourse.
You are simply playing semantic games to make a point. Which you've made quite well, that is, if your point is 'Straif can't argue worth a damn.' Useful idiot, indeed.
So, what would the left wing equivalent of Fox News be? MSNBC? Really? Then why were they first on the bandwagon to throw Rowdy Roddy Blagojevich out of office, while Fox acts as an apologist for any right winger accused of anything ever? Did MSNBC ever proselytize for it's viewers to go to any protests? No? Fox sure as hell did, the whole teabagger thing never would have gone anywhere without them. What left wing news source has ever fought (and won) for their right to lie to their audience? None. Only Fox did that.
Who is the left wing equivalent of, oh, Ann Coulter? Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? Glen Beck? We don't have anyone as flat out nuts as those folks speaking through any major news outlets.
Sure, there's bias, but it's hardly overwhelming. What we've got is a number of stories that show a minor left wing slant, but no far left opinions or stories at all. On the right, it's wingnut central. The craziest of crazies get handed a soapbox and told to scream at the top of their lungs.
MSNBC is fairly liberal, I personally can't stand Mathews but Madow is quite informative. MSNBC is about as far left-wing as, oh, CNN is right-wing. There is no left wing equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, or Fox News.
The townhall screamers are bussed in from outside, they have been instructed by their corporate masters to shut down discussion. During the Bush years, no liberal could get close to him. If you wore a T-Shirt his handlers didn't like, you were escorted to a 'free speech zone.' Sure, some left wingers from out of district began to show up, after it became obvious that the insane screamers were being bussed in from afar.
But like I said, please do go on wallowing in that delusional persecution complex. Maybe you're like that right wing white guy I saw on a documentary who started crying like a baby when Obama was elected. Maybe you believe the country really is going to hell because the evil liberals are winning. Maybe I'll just have another laugh at your expense. Seriously, the whining? Priceless. I couldn't ask for a better gift from a conservative. You've made my day.
Stalin and Mao never practiced communism. In other news, the Nazi's weren't Socialists and East Germany was not a Democracy. Sheesh. Cuba is just another dictatorship, with some socialist trappings. Why not look at real and successful socialist countries, like, oh, I don't know, most of our allies in Europe.
Face facts: Obama is a centrist. He is on record stating that Reagan was his favorite president. If you think Obama is left wing, you're probably a fascist ultra right wing nutbag. Thankfully, your type is a dying breed.
Did you even read that? It's basically saying what I said, because it was the study I was citing: reporters are liberal, editors and owners are conservative. The media 'lean to the left' but are 'more moderate than congress.'
The methodology of this study is somewhat, er, misleading at best. They compare ONLY the number of times a paper cites conservative think tanks versus cites of liberal think tanks. Huh? What is that supposed to show? According to this study, 'The Drudge Report' is liberal!
Seriously, dude, put down the kool-aid. There is no vast liberal conspiracy. It just looks that way to some extremists.
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative.
Studies like these?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/10/post-concedes-bias-for-obama/
Sorry, but in the 2008 election, the media was absolutely, positively in the bag for Obama.
Yeah, uh, you know your source there is run by the Moonies, HATES the larger and more successful Post, and is basically DC's 'National Enquirer' of the right wing, right? Talk about media bias!
Oooh, what nice anecdotal evidence you have there! That sure proves exactly... nothing. Got any studies citing column inches positive/negative on given issues? Then shut up, you are talking out of your ass.
Comparing anyone to Hitler is simply tasteless. Well, Pol Pot or Stalin, maybe. But Bush is no Hitler, Hitler got shit DONE. Bush was a bush league wannabe tinpot dictator, Hitler wrote the damn book on the subject.
Anyway, have fun with your persecution complex. It doesn't make you look sane, it doesn't make you look rational, but hey, we're all out to get you anyway, right? Yeah...
So, your sig means whatever you want it to mean, given the situation?
So you think it's fair that there are more Bush parodies? Just commenting on the disparity, not saying you feel one way or the other about it? Uh-huh, sure.
I figure we've got to bash Bush for as long as the right-wingers bashed Clinton. As they haven't stopped yet, I can't really give you an estimate. The only thing Obama is fucking over is us liberals, who thought we were voting for one of us.
Your sig says that fairness is Marxism in drag. So anyone whining about how unfair something is must be a Marxist who wants to handicap everyone down to the same level. Don't sell your boy short! Nobody screws up like a Bush. Obama's screw ups are (so far) amateur league compared to what Bush did. It will take us decades to repair the damage Bush did to our international reputation. But of course, every other country in the world is either a third world dictatorship or a socialist hell-hive, right? So why should we care?
Studies show the media is neither liberal nor conservative. While reporters are often more liberal than their readership, editors and owners are more conservative. What the media actually is, is pro-owning class, and lazy. When you claim the media is 'liberal' you do two things: you demonstrate that you do not understand what the word 'liberal' means, and that you subscribe to a simplistic view of the world where everything is black and white. Please try to grow up and see that things are more nuanced, the world is not black and white, there are no pure 'good guys' or 'bad guys,' and not everyone who disagrees with you is a monster, a fascist, a Nazi, or insane.
Is it true that no one can hear you scream? What about sex? Except for the lack of screaming, zero G sex sounds like fun! I bet stuff is extra bouncy bouncy up there. Is it still okay to call you space people, or do you prefer 'people of space' now?