That's a different conversation. If you modify the tractor in a way that is unsupported by the manufacturer, you void the warranty and John Deere is released from responsibility. It's not at all unlike your TV, or your cell phone, or millions of other products on the market. But what we're talking about here goes well beyond that. John Deere and other manufacturers are lobbying government to make law out of the notion that while you might have paid upward of a quarter million for that tractor (not an unusual sum with modern agriculture equipment), you don't actually own it, and you're not allowed to do anything with it that John Deere doesn't expressly allow.
The media refuses to cover peaceful protests?!?? Seriously? They report every single day since inauguration about a protest somewhere, but most of them completely fail to mention the burning police cars, burning limousines, smashed business windows, and people being drug out of their cars and getting the shit beat out of them. Or if they do it's a passing mention. There's absolutely shit that isnt getting reported, but it isnt the the peaceful protesters.
And then what kind of hack creates, and what other kind of hack fails to edit a/. summary that fails to mention a move like MS is making was (according to the article) targeted specifically at the Chrome education sector that desires the ability to lock down devices. That's a very key factor in this discussion that wasnt mentioned by the submitter or caught by the editors.
I agree that the hypocrisy is ridiculous. But singling out Trump as a prime example is just as ridiculous. We could collectively produce 100's or even 1000's of examples of politicians doing precisely that over the course of the last decade on both sides of the aisle, and do so on topics a hell of a lot more consequential than the number of people who attended an event. In the grand scheme that particular little nugget is absolutely meaningless. It's as significant as Trump literally saying his shit doesnt stink. Who cares?! Does it effect my taxes? Domestic policy? Foreign policy? Civil rights? Growing violence? Perception of law enforcement? No. It means nothing at all, and spending the inordinate amount of time on it that the press and Trump opposition seems vested in spending just boggles the mind. I mean seriously, even if you say its evidence that the man is willing to bold-faced lie to you, if that one example is really the biggest example you can verify then we're far better off than with the last administration or the one before it that bold-faced lied about PEOPLE DYING. Did the lies about Benghazi not mean something signicantly more? Or the lies about fast and furious? Or the IRS and how they "lost" all the data that they "found" and were ordered to keep? Or the lies about how many mobile devices Hillary used? Or "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?
My problem is the total lack of perspective, and the apparent psychosis to latch onto something that is as unimportant as what comes out of narcissistic garbage spewing from elitist self-aggrandizing dipshits in Hollywood and yet held with such inflated importance.
But they generally don't lie about things that are easily and readily confirmed.
They do if it keeps tens of millions of half-wits chasing ridiculous false statements instead of actually paying attention to what they are actually doing.
Actually, I did read the article. Did you? If yes, did you comprehend it?
From the article :
Zuckerberg's lawyer, Keoni Shultz of the firm Cades Schutte, in a statement to CNBC said, "It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time."
"In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests,"...
Start with the understanding that the declaration is from an atorney for Zuckpunk. And even given his obvious and perfectly legitimate bias he makes no claim that the statement is all inclusive. It is not a blanket assessment. It is not predetermined that all property owners have the same situations, knowledge of ownership, desire for ownership, or unpaid tax liabilities. It instead suggests that while a person with a shared ownership of a parcel might be fully vested in remaining an owner, other co-owners of that parcel might not know that they also have stake in the land.
In fact the only place that the article even mentions taxes is in the case of a single partial owner of a particular parcel.
One of that worker's great-grandchildren, Carlos Andrade, 72, lived on the property until recently, the paper said. But the retired university professor told the Star-Advertiser that he is helping Zuckerberg's case as a co-plaintiff in an effort to make sure the land is not surrendered to the county if no one in his extended clan steps up to take responsibility for paying property taxes on the plots.
Yup, I have land that has farming easements for the lands next to me. I knew it, and I accepted it. I think some of the farmers are absolute idiots, and they sometimes attempt to exploit me. But I knew what I was getting into , what my obligations were, and where those obligations cease. I have no more right to attempt to end those agreements now than Zuckerdick has here.
So because Zuckerberg either knowingly bought, or failed thru lack of due-diligence to learn before purchase, that this encumberence would be a factor, it's now the problem of those other land-owners to defend their right to own the land without legal pressures to sell from a man with enough resources to run them dry and into bankruptcy in court?
These arent people that snaked their way onto this land. They are people with a historical and ancestral right to retain their ownership and access.
This is nothing more than another loophole to exploit what is effectively a misappropriation of eminent domain by an entitled, self-righteous jackwagon who wants his own little fiefdom.
It's one thing to keep offering more and more to purchase the land, or to proceed in court to provide zuckerpuke with records that outline all the stakeholders, or even to refuse to provide any specific care to the easements beyond the most basic capability to access internal plots. It's another to crusade with the weight of money, wealth, influence and court of law to force a sale.
I love this argument. Is that what you'll be saying if a senator starts suggesting that we should have surveillance cameras installed in every home with a direct line to police or NSA to stop domestic abuse, or drug trafficking, or terrorism?
After all, what's the harm? If you arent doing anything wrong...
When you need a plumber, you call a plumber. And you are there to greet him, and watch him work, ask questions about what he's doing, and pay attention to what he's doing so your bill doesnt show that he replaced your water heater when in fact he changed a couple of sink knobs.
Also, when you need a plumber you dont call the homeless that hangs out downtown who likes to smack copper pipes together to make "music". Doing so would be comparable to calling Geek Squad when you need a computer technician.
And the Russians (allegedly) promoting one Presidential candidate over another doesnt equate to hostility toward the US. (Other actions do, but that's a different conversation.) Insulting and using taxpayer dollars to oppose Netanyahu no more suggests opposition to Israel writ large than does giving praise and aid to dissidents of Iran show support for Khamenei. ( An admittedly bad analogy, because Netanyahu is nothing like the nutjob Khamenei.)
Obama has openly snubbed Netanyahu on multiple occasions; waiting years to have a face to face dialogue, having Netanyahu use the same entrance to the White House that's used by service staff, and countless other examples.
How does what Russia is accused of differ from the Obama administration influencing the Israeli presidential election by giving over $300k to groups acting against Netanyahu?
Again, because extremes are always the logical and rational approach?
Apply your extremist position to a guy who owns one auto repair shop. Or the family that owns a grocery store. Or a woman who makes exceptional lampwork beads, but can only sell them for X% over her cost to make because that's what's dictated by a government bureaucrat.
There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
Translation : "I'm too fucking lazy to become educated, but I'm perfectly willing to spout off about shit I am cluelss on."
Because extremes are always the logical and rational argument... By extension of your argument every business should be entirely government run with regulated pricing, and regulated salaries to its employees. Otherwise a business might charge people more for a product than its "worth" and an employee might be paid less than another regardless of their poor performance.
Actually I'm very pro-human. I'm not one of the enviro-catastrophists. I'm just not deluded or arrogant enough to believe that this ecosystem gives a rat's ass about us, and would just as easily wipe us out as adapt to whatever stupidity we produce.
And all that is different than Facebook, how exactly? The only real difference is that you're providing copious amounts of information about your personal life (mostly lies), fishing for likes and huge friend's lists in an attempt to gain a sense that someone cares or that you have some validation in your life.
There's almost no reality associated with this statement. Yes, there are cutscenes sometimes, but the most popular games have almost none. Particularly an online game that's competitive, from MMO's to first person team-based games to real-time strategies, there are no cutscenes at all.
Because posting on/. obviously puts you on moral high ground...
Where's your crusade against twitter, facebook and texting? Where's your righteous indignation at the $40 billion spent on Hollywood movies at the box office alone in 2015? Where's your outrage at the ridiculous time and money wasted on professional sports, or propping up two-faced politicians, or Walmart's craptastic plastic future-landfill products?
Would you have the same apoplectic meltdown if the games people played were chess or backgammon? WTF is the difference if its on a screen, for the most part played with or against other humans anyway?
At least its an engagement of one's mind in an interactive activity, rather than drooling and staring at predictable regurgitations of fart jokes and "mystery" shows that pervade modern television. Or worse. the never ending one-upmanship of opportunistic narcissistic idiots trying to come up with the next outrageous statement that goes viral.
Slashdot Mirror
Mommy's little angel is such a good little child. Look how he only does exactly what he's told by the nice bureaucrats.
That's a different conversation. If you modify the tractor in a way that is unsupported by the manufacturer, you void the warranty and John Deere is released from responsibility. It's not at all unlike your TV, or your cell phone, or millions of other products on the market. But what we're talking about here goes well beyond that. John Deere and other manufacturers are lobbying government to make law out of the notion that while you might have paid upward of a quarter million for that tractor (not an unusual sum with modern agriculture equipment), you don't actually own it, and you're not allowed to do anything with it that John Deere doesn't expressly allow.
The media refuses to cover peaceful protests?!?? Seriously? They report every single day since inauguration about a protest somewhere, but most of them completely fail to mention the burning police cars, burning limousines, smashed business windows, and people being drug out of their cars and getting the shit beat out of them. Or if they do it's a passing mention. There's absolutely shit that isnt getting reported, but it isnt the the peaceful protesters.
"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss"
And then what kind of hack creates, and what other kind of hack fails to edit a /. summary that fails to mention a move like MS is making was (according to the article) targeted specifically at the Chrome education sector that desires the ability to lock down devices. That's a very key factor in this discussion that wasnt mentioned by the submitter or caught by the editors.
I agree that the hypocrisy is ridiculous. But singling out Trump as a prime example is just as ridiculous. We could collectively produce 100's or even 1000's of examples of politicians doing precisely that over the course of the last decade on both sides of the aisle, and do so on topics a hell of a lot more consequential than the number of people who attended an event. In the grand scheme that particular little nugget is absolutely meaningless. It's as significant as Trump literally saying his shit doesnt stink. Who cares?! Does it effect my taxes? Domestic policy? Foreign policy? Civil rights? Growing violence? Perception of law enforcement? No. It means nothing at all, and spending the inordinate amount of time on it that the press and Trump opposition seems vested in spending just boggles the mind. I mean seriously, even if you say its evidence that the man is willing to bold-faced lie to you, if that one example is really the biggest example you can verify then we're far better off than with the last administration or the one before it that bold-faced lied about PEOPLE DYING. Did the lies about Benghazi not mean something signicantly more? Or the lies about fast and furious? Or the IRS and how they "lost" all the data that they "found" and were ordered to keep? Or the lies about how many mobile devices Hillary used? Or "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq?
My problem is the total lack of perspective, and the apparent psychosis to latch onto something that is as unimportant as what comes out of narcissistic garbage spewing from elitist self-aggrandizing dipshits in Hollywood and yet held with such inflated importance.
But he's sure as hell on board with Trump's history of support of imminent domain.
That aside, being a proponent of legal immigration and being a proponent of securing the borders are not mutually exclusive.
But they generally don't lie about things that are easily and readily confirmed.
They do if it keeps tens of millions of half-wits chasing ridiculous false statements instead of actually paying attention to what they are actually doing.
From the article :
Zuckerberg's lawyer, Keoni Shultz of the firm Cades Schutte, in a statement to CNBC said, "It is common in Hawaii to have small parcels of land within the boundaries of a larger tract, and for the title to these smaller parcels to have become broken or clouded over time."
...
"In some cases, co-owners may not even be aware of their interests,"
Start with the understanding that the declaration is from an atorney for Zuckpunk. And even given his obvious and perfectly legitimate bias he makes no claim that the statement is all inclusive. It is not a blanket assessment. It is not predetermined that all property owners have the same situations, knowledge of ownership, desire for ownership, or unpaid tax liabilities. It instead suggests that while a person with a shared ownership of a parcel might be fully vested in remaining an owner, other co-owners of that parcel might not know that they also have stake in the land.
In fact the only place that the article even mentions taxes is in the case of a single partial owner of a particular parcel.
One of that worker's great-grandchildren, Carlos Andrade, 72, lived on the property until recently, the paper said. But the retired university professor told the Star-Advertiser that he is helping Zuckerberg's case as a co-plaintiff in an effort to make sure the land is not surrendered to the county if no one in his extended clan steps up to take responsibility for paying property taxes on the plots.
Care to amend your comments?
Yup, I have land that has farming easements for the lands next to me. I knew it, and I accepted it. I think some of the farmers are absolute idiots, and they sometimes attempt to exploit me. But I knew what I was getting into , what my obligations were, and where those obligations cease. I have no more right to attempt to end those agreements now than Zuckerdick has here.
So because Zuckerberg either knowingly bought, or failed thru lack of due-diligence to learn before purchase, that this encumberence would be a factor, it's now the problem of those other land-owners to defend their right to own the land without legal pressures to sell from a man with enough resources to run them dry and into bankruptcy in court?
These arent people that snaked their way onto this land. They are people with a historical and ancestral right to retain their ownership and access.
This is nothing more than another loophole to exploit what is effectively a misappropriation of eminent domain by an entitled, self-righteous jackwagon who wants his own little fiefdom.
It's one thing to keep offering more and more to purchase the land, or to proceed in court to provide zuckerpuke with records that outline all the stakeholders, or even to refuse to provide any specific care to the easements beyond the most basic capability to access internal plots. It's another to crusade with the weight of money, wealth, influence and court of law to force a sale.
I love this argument. Is that what you'll be saying if a senator starts suggesting that we should have surveillance cameras installed in every home with a direct line to police or NSA to stop domestic abuse, or drug trafficking, or terrorism?
After all, what's the harm? If you arent doing anything wrong...
When you need a plumber, you call a plumber. And you are there to greet him, and watch him work, ask questions about what he's doing, and pay attention to what he's doing so your bill doesnt show that he replaced your water heater when in fact he changed a couple of sink knobs.
Also, when you need a plumber you dont call the homeless that hangs out downtown who likes to smack copper pipes together to make "music". Doing so would be comparable to calling Geek Squad when you need a computer technician.
Oh, the irony....
And the Russians (allegedly) promoting one Presidential candidate over another doesnt equate to hostility toward the US. (Other actions do, but that's a different conversation.) Insulting and using taxpayer dollars to oppose Netanyahu no more suggests opposition to Israel writ large than does giving praise and aid to dissidents of Iran show support for Khamenei. ( An admittedly bad analogy, because Netanyahu is nothing like the nutjob Khamenei.)
Obama has openly snubbed Netanyahu on multiple occasions; waiting years to have a face to face dialogue, having Netanyahu use the same entrance to the White House that's used by service staff, and countless other examples.
How does what Russia is accused of differ from the Obama administration influencing the Israeli presidential election by giving over $300k to groups acting against Netanyahu?
Again, because extremes are always the logical and rational approach?
Apply your extremist position to a guy who owns one auto repair shop. Or the family that owns a grocery store. Or a woman who makes exceptional lampwork beads, but can only sell them for X% over her cost to make because that's what's dictated by a government bureaucrat.
There's too much news these days to read more than first sentences (unless it's very interesting), and this is worse when you see the same news over and over across your sources of choice.
Translation : "I'm too fucking lazy to become educated, but I'm perfectly willing to spout off about shit I am cluelss on."
Because extremes are always the logical and rational argument... By extension of your argument every business should be entirely government run with regulated pricing, and regulated salaries to its employees. Otherwise a business might charge people more for a product than its "worth" and an employee might be paid less than another regardless of their poor performance.
Interesting side thought: Do you think that businesses will pay for DAB on their commercial fleet vehicles?
Actually I'm very pro-human. I'm not one of the enviro-catastrophists. I'm just not deluded or arrogant enough to believe that this ecosystem gives a rat's ass about us, and would just as easily wipe us out as adapt to whatever stupidity we produce.
And all that is different than Facebook, how exactly? The only real difference is that you're providing copious amounts of information about your personal life (mostly lies), fishing for likes and huge friend's lists in an attempt to gain a sense that someone cares or that you have some validation in your life.
There's almost no reality associated with this statement. Yes, there are cutscenes sometimes, but the most popular games have almost none. Particularly an online game that's competitive, from MMO's to first person team-based games to real-time strategies, there are no cutscenes at all.
Because posting on /. obviously puts you on moral high ground...
Where's your crusade against twitter, facebook and texting? Where's your righteous indignation at the $40 billion spent on Hollywood movies at the box office alone in 2015? Where's your outrage at the ridiculous time and money wasted on professional sports, or propping up two-faced politicians, or Walmart's craptastic plastic future-landfill products?
Would you have the same apoplectic meltdown if the games people played were chess or backgammon? WTF is the difference if its on a screen, for the most part played with or against other humans anyway?
At least its an engagement of one's mind in an interactive activity, rather than drooling and staring at predictable regurgitations of fart jokes and "mystery" shows that pervade modern television. Or worse. the never ending one-upmanship of opportunistic narcissistic idiots trying to come up with the next outrageous statement that goes viral.
Only for humans. By the very apocalyptic view of "science" represented here it'd be the best thing for the planet itself.