If someone wrote a book about another person, and put that persons name in the "by line", then that's wrong (assuming the true author was not also named Ron Paul). It's not an autobiography.
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About.
Are you actually trying to say that nobody is allowed to title a book "Ron Paul" except the politician of the same name? Or do you misunderstand the term "byline" to mean "author's name?" If the former, you can't be serious. If the latter, you should retake Comp 101.
Of course, since the website in question clearly states
There's really no brand confusion at all, save perhaps among a handful of morons who obviously don't know enough about how websites work to be making commentary about them.
If this was "peopleforronpaul.com" then I'd say he should take a hike. But they're using HIS NAME.
... and it matters not a fuck. If he wants the domain, he can pay for it just like anyone else would have to. Period, end of story.
FYI, a person does not automatically get dominion over a particular arrangement of letters, just because that arrangement happens to be the name they go by. Think for a second - were that the case, every single goddamn website on the planet would owe tribute to Kim Dotcom.
That would seem the legitimate use case, but when you take into consideration that the government does not typically intervene in the recall process of other products, such as automobile*, that argument begins to get a bit shaky.
* Here's how automotive recalls happen, based on my experiences and education as an automotive technician: 1) the company is made aware of a major mechanical issue 2) company lawyers decide which is cheaper - performing the recall, or paying out on the inevitable lawsuits if they don't 3) if it's cheaper to let people die than to recall and repair the problem, no recall notice is issued.
Conversely, I can think of a number of nefarious purposes for such a list, especially considering that many of these implanted medical devices are now remotely accessible.
From what I read, the $250 large is for the mailing list, not the domain, and the owner of the site is stating that this is a package deal. Don't like the deal? Don't buy the package.
It could also be the clause requiring the government create a "registry of implantable devices" which some of my more paranoid friends have somehow taken to mean "a chip implanted for tracking".
Well, that does cause my paranoia to flare up as well, albeit not for such a ridiculous reason.
Why would the government, legitimately, need a who's-who list of pacemaker/hearing aid users?
I'm surprised this aspect isn't getting more press - did you see the pictures of their truck? We're not talking 1 or 2 bullet holes, it looks like it was in a war zone...
Yea, I noticed the little round-counting cards numbered to at least 46...
My guess is, the LAPD will try and keep that one on the DL until the whole Chris Dorner thing blows over, then, once the world is no longer paying attention, quietly sweep the whole mess under the rug.
Not new information to me, but if you read the article I linked to, the LAPD Chief specifically stated that they had acquired a rocket launcher - he did not note that they were useless tubes of composite.
Side note: Who the hell turns in a one-of-a-kind military artifact in exchange for a $100 Walmart card? I guess the word "heirloom" is not taught in CA schools...
Targeting connotates shooting/firing/use of force from the targeting platform.
No it doesn't - think of the laser designators used by the military to 'paint' targets for airstrikes. The targeting body (laser designator on the ground) is not the weapons platform.
This is basically the same situation, with roles reversed - the aircraft will provide the targeting mechanism, while the 'troops' do the killing.
Wait, they used a drone to kill the guy already? I thought they were using the drones to find him not kill him.
Find him, so they can kill him.
Just because the platform for the weapons is not the drone itself, does not necessarily mean the drone isn't weaponized - in this case, the armaments consist of the heavily-armed paramilitary group on the ground who are awaiting a target designation.
You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.
But I thought you said were weren't supposed to root for the ones engaging in extra-judicial killing sprees?
Oh, I see, the LAPD only wounded innocent people, so they're still the good guys, I guess?
Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target.
Taking bets on the end result to that one - my money is on "paid administrative leave during 'investigation,' cleared of any wrongdoing, back on the streets in 2-3 weeks"
Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.
Well, sure, if you're an honor-less piece of human detritus.
For men with honor, few as they may be, the moral is: report the abuse, get fired; take every legal avenue possible, get shut out by a system gamed against you; when all other options are exhausted, take your honor back by force.
Thank goodness the British Empire didn't have drones, or we'd all be having tea and crumpets right about now.
Slashdot Mirror
You do understand what "PR" means right?
Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?
Are you sure you're responding to the right post?
How is a "legal avenue" that will ultimately fail a "viable" avenue? You seem to be contradicting yourself...
I never said any of them were viable, only that they are the "legal avenues."
There's no contradiction in that statement.
Why run a minecraft server if you're not going to let anyone else use it?
Persistent world for the whole family to enjoy, duh.
Well, sure, by Big Brother, but not even Party members were allowed to alter their own history without express permission.
It's healthier for society to accept that people change than to let everyone reenact 1984 every time they get nervous.
I take this statement to mean you've never actually read that particular tome.
You should.
If someone wrote a book about another person, and put that persons name in the "by line", then that's wrong (assuming the true author was not also named Ron Paul). It's not an autobiography.
What.
The.
Fuck.
Are.
You.
On.
About.
Are you actually trying to say that nobody is allowed to title a book "Ron Paul" except the politician of the same name? Or do you misunderstand the term "byline" to mean "author's name?" If the former, you can't be serious. If the latter, you should retake Comp 101.
Of course, since the website in question clearly states
There's really no brand confusion at all, save perhaps among a handful of morons who obviously don't know enough about how websites work to be making commentary about them.
If this was "peopleforronpaul.com" then I'd say he should take a hike. But they're using HIS NAME.
... and it matters not a fuck. If he wants the domain, he can pay for it just like anyone else would have to. Period, end of story.
FYI, a person does not automatically get dominion over a particular arrangement of letters, just because that arrangement happens to be the name they go by. Think for a second - were that the case, every single goddamn website on the planet would owe tribute to Kim Dotcom.
Ugh.
Earl Grey should be considered a chemical weapon, and be banned per the Geneva Conventions.
Recalls, mostly.
That would seem the legitimate use case, but when you take into consideration that the government does not typically intervene in the recall process of other products, such as automobile*, that argument begins to get a bit shaky.
* Here's how automotive recalls happen, based on my experiences and education as an automotive technician:
1) the company is made aware of a major mechanical issue
2) company lawyers decide which is cheaper - performing the recall, or paying out on the inevitable lawsuits if they don't
3) if it's cheaper to let people die than to recall and repair the problem, no recall notice is issued.
Conversely, I can think of a number of nefarious purposes for such a list, especially considering that many of these implanted medical devices are now remotely accessible.
...therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone.
(http://xkcd.com/1049/)
Ah, yes, the "[Kim] Dotcom Method..."
Grammatical nitpick: He's talking about the "typical libertarian", not all libertarians, which is a rather different generalization.
Most generalizations are false, including this one. -- Mark Twain
From what I read, the $250 large is for the mailing list, not the domain, and the owner of the site is stating that this is a package deal. Don't like the deal? Don't buy the package.
It really is as simple as that.
Ugh, dude - if you're going to masturbate, at least have the common courtesy to do that shit in private...
When I was kid we used to play with an empty LAW rocket launcher tube.
See, that's cool!
I bought it at a garage sale. It's likely still in my folks house somewhere.
Let me guess, base town (i.e., a town near a military base)? Out of curiosity, how much did you give for it?
I'll sell it to you for $100.
Better not, knowing me I'd probably find a way to get myself in trouble with it :)
It could also be the clause requiring the government create a "registry of implantable devices" which some of my more paranoid friends have somehow taken to mean "a chip implanted for tracking".
Well, that does cause my paranoia to flare up as well, albeit not for such a ridiculous reason.
Why would the government, legitimately, need a who's-who list of pacemaker/hearing aid users?
I'm surprised this aspect isn't getting more press - did you see the pictures of their truck? We're not talking 1 or 2 bullet holes, it looks like it was in a war zone...
Yea, I noticed the little round-counting cards numbered to at least 46...
My guess is, the LAPD will try and keep that one on the DL until the whole Chris Dorner thing blows over, then, once the world is no longer paying attention, quietly sweep the whole mess under the rug.
I never said any of them were viable, only that they are the "legal avenues."
Not new information to me, but if you read the article I linked to, the LAPD Chief specifically stated that they had acquired a rocket launcher - he did not note that they were useless tubes of composite.
Side note: Who the hell turns in a one-of-a-kind military artifact in exchange for a $100 Walmart card? I guess the word "heirloom" is not taught in CA schools...
So... are you trying to derail the point by arguing semantics, or are you just that stupid?
Honest question.
Targeting connotates shooting/firing/use of force from the targeting platform.
No it doesn't - think of the laser designators used by the military to 'paint' targets for airstrikes. The targeting body (laser designator on the ground) is not the weapons platform.
This is basically the same situation, with roles reversed - the aircraft will provide the targeting mechanism, while the 'troops' do the killing.
Wait, they used a drone to kill the guy already? I thought they were using the drones to find him not kill him.
Find him, so they can kill him.
Just because the platform for the weapons is not the drone itself, does not necessarily mean the drone isn't weaponized - in this case, the armaments consist of the heavily-armed paramilitary group on the ground who are awaiting a target designation.
It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation.
That's probably because there aren't any.
He's killing family members too.
Allegedly, but is there any proof beyond the word of the LAPD? Not that I've seen.
RE: the point - Would you consider Eva Braun innocent of Nazi atrocities, because she was "just" Hitler's girlfriend/wife? Why/why not?
You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.
But I thought you said were weren't supposed to root for the ones engaging in extra-judicial killing sprees?
Oh, I see, the LAPD only wounded innocent people, so they're still the good guys, I guess?
Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target.
Taking bets on the end result to that one - my money is on "paid administrative leave during 'investigation,' cleared of any wrongdoing, back on the streets in 2-3 weeks"
Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.
Well, sure, if you're an honor-less piece of human detritus.
For men with honor, few as they may be, the moral is: report the abuse, get fired; take every legal avenue possible, get shut out by a system gamed against you; when all other options are exhausted, take your honor back by force.
Thank goodness the British Empire didn't have drones, or we'd all be having tea and crumpets right about now.