Completely different. "U.S. Proposes" is not the same as "Feds to require". They convey entirely different meanings. This is how mundane news becomes like my ex: fake, hot, and viral.
I used to have a link to an actual decision that proved this idiot wrong. Since I can't remember the details, it could have been overturned by now. But I'm assuming it is still there, since we haven't seen a supreme court decide otherwise.
As always, ask a real lawyer before you quote horseshit that sounds like it might be true. And don't trust AC without references.
Depending on a third party rarely works. Someone who cares, say for example, you, should take all of those forum posts and links and files, and back them up somewhere, while they work.
Take on the effort and the costs, and possibly copyright complaints.
Oh wait, we are trying to just complain here and not actually do anything. Sorry, carry on then.
Shitty reporting doesn't mean facts aren't facts. Be suspicious after reading the peer reviewed paper, or a statement directly from the team. Critique of a Dashslot summary is no art form...
Betteridge's Law is clear, the answer is no. No one called Taiwan a country, and Japan ratified the TPP because no. It's a law, like gravity, so it is clear. No.
I'm talking about the goddam law, because people keep saying "illegal" or "unconstitutional" you shitgoblin. Psychology is not an issue.
If you have some actual law to spout, do it now, or shut the fuck up. If you have standing, then sue and fix this for all of us. Otherwise, you aren't helping. Fuck off into fantasy land, and tell the Olsen twins I said hi.
You're wrong, and your beliefs make you think you're not. When that happens, it is time for learning to occur. So learn the law and quit sounding like a bitch. Argue in front of the Supremes, because I already agree with you.
If it wasn't clear, I'm much more concerned about the people without intentions. There are people with agendas, but I think there are more who don't know that they do. They do things, and often can't describe why. They influence, and are dangerous. Intentions become transparent over time.
Commenting, upmods, and moderating are all tiny rewards, and can work on the subconscious brain easily, and efficiently.
They are not paid to search. They are rewarded when something is found. You are using the wrong words because you believe one side of the issue, and are ignoring facts.
I am telling you it is legal, and how it is legal, because your argument only works on people who agree with you. When you argue with incorrect facts, you make no progress.
When a TSA agent sets someone aside, not based on a randomization algo, but because the person is "acting suspiciously", that is legal. There is no standard for what should trigger suspicion in an agent's brain, so you can't contest the grounds for extra screening. Not successfully. But if there were a legal question, that's where I would start.
Feel free to continue arguing based on what you believe, or dig up case law that you don't understand. But that's preaching to the choir.
It's the perfect troll. Say something obvious, and include over the top cynicism. It's the pattern for a large percentage of +5 mods here.
Say something that people agree with emotionally, not factually, get +5, and now everyone has this opinion reinforced. People on the fence are swayed because it was agreed with by at least 3 others.
And the worst part, factual replies are buried because they have had less time to be moderated. So rebuttals don't appear as prominently.
It is groupthink, and it happens every day. My point is to recognize it not as a communication strategy, but as an ego strategy. Why else state the obvious? Yes there are people focusing on this facet, and others on a different facet, and those cannot be aligned. Obvious, oversimplified, and unnecessary.
But you can't argue against it, because facts get buried, and people are fact resistant anyway. So we get the perfect troll. The unintentional, trolling for ego stroking and upmods. And it flies under the radar, as it isn't the classic troll for replies. It's beautiful, in a twisted way.
It doesn't matter if they are asked to do a fairly obvious task of reporting drug possession. It might make a difference if a DEA agent asked a specific person to be searched.
But by flying, you agree to be searched regardless. You consented when you entered the airport. There is no way anyone would declare this illegal, unless they are completely ignorant.
Just because you think it should be illegal doesn't make it so.
I was in an elevator with Hanks once. Got in the up car when I was going down three floors. Went to the top floor, 21, and Hanks got in. Farts a dry, stony fart, and says, "Gumped my rump." and laughs. "Enjoy 20 floors of smelling like fame," he said, as he raped my seeing eye dog.
His voice is just so distinctive, had to be him. Preview Bite the pillow tab dotslashpassword click submit. Submit God dammit Ed will you click this button for me.
"With 800 million music users worldwide" sounds like the MAFIAA already thought of that. However, I don't trust their estimates.
As sibling mentioned, other services have a majority of paid users. I don't think YouTube red has caught on to that extent, and that seems like the obvious disparity. And users aren't streaming YouTube music for hours in a row.
YouTube is just not targeting continuous streaming users, and I think that is audience behavior at this point. Users come for music videos or lyric videos or live performances, not streaming audio only. I doubt they could swing a change in business model if they wanted to.
To evaluate your statement, I need to know where you got the 3/4 number. Because it sounds like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but I'm giving you a chance to explain first before calling you a shit dribbling ass gasket.
Not saying if I expected it higher or lower, but the number is way off.
People here at dashslot seem to have a good grasp on shitty headlines. And no one goes out of the way to compliment a good headline. I expect a few abuses as statistical outliers, but "people are stupid" applies everywhere. And anyone coding this has to consider that.
Or do we assume that the people behind this *don't* know that people are stupid? That we alone understand this secret?
There are piles of master's theses to be written this year. One of them will probably cover this, and we will read it if it is interesting. Or you can do your own study. Meanwhile, it's facebook. Doing something about the problem is a step in the right direction. Worst case, people are just as misinformed as ever, and prone to confirmation bias and the dunning Kruger effect as always.
So we are back to personal responsibility and vigilance, instead of trusting a free content host not to enforce its terms of service?
Yawn. It's not censorship, you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.
I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up, and then I'm judging each side accordingly. Until then, there's nothing to do but spread the information.
And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass, not the first of your slippery slope.
I was kinda keeping up until you lost your way and turned to appeal to emotion. If you had had a point, you should have stuck with it.
Now I'm inclined to just not believe anything you typed. Not just not believe, but actively disbelieve. And I'm motivated to not seek out facts, in part by replies to this and similar comments.
But mostly by what seems to be a buckshot approach to spread belief, not facts. Go ahead and attack me personally, I'm just relaying what people don't even know they are doing. I'm aware, and providing feedback that I'm under no obligation to even be conscious of. You're welcome.
But would Obama give a blanket pardon without knowing the extent of what Greenwald got? I wouldn't. It doesn't make sense in this case to grant a pardon for unknown actions.
I think he's a hero, but I don't know all of the facts. And neither does the President. And you don't know what Obama does know. And that is 100% fact, no opinion needed.
Hi, Rick and Morty here. First off, I'd like to assure you we aren't a complete mingepile of arseholes. We appreciate your potential viewership as if you were the third coming of Christ Himself. We are not computers, and if we were, we'd be nice ones. Not at all like that foreign national Swartznegger, who played a real arsehole of a robot in a film you might like called Terminator.
We are peaceful people and or robots, but mostly people, who just think you might like to watch this thing we have created, which is nothing like an all seeing network which monitors where you post complaints about our very human like encouragement to follow your curiosity about our show, titled Rick and Morty.
We employ people. We are job creators. Please assist us in creating more jobs, and reducing the unemployment rate. All you have to do is watch. You like to watch, don't you? You said it out loud approximately one month and six point eight days ago, to Rachel. We know that.
Tell that to the people who created the petition, titled "Pardon Julian Assange", where they asked for a pardon, and not immunity. Also, Assange didn't say it. Someone requested it on change.org, which fulfills the right of the people to petition the government.
Finally, Nixon was pardoned, not granted immunity. You might want to check some facts before your next attempt to reply. And remember, context is important, so consider the context of replies as well. Otherwise you're just horking into the void.
It doesn't make sense, because you can't easily pardon someone for something they aren't charged with. s in the Nixon example, you could pardon someone for things done in a place and or time period. But I doubt anyone would go for that.
He may have done something worth prosecuting, and no one is going to give him a blanket pass for those unknowns.
Especially when he invented the claim that USA wants anything at all to do with him, to justify his reluctance to stand trial for something USA can't pardon him for.
Immunity or a pardon would not be appropriate for this situation, although there isn't an alternative that I'm aware of. Non binding statements won't cut it... If the petitioners want some guarantee, they need to ask for something that might be granted.
Slashdot Mirror
Completely different. "U.S. Proposes" is not the same as "Feds to require". They convey entirely different meanings. This is how mundane news becomes like my ex: fake, hot, and viral.
"The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago. The second best time is now."
Unless you own a time machine, when would you suggest starting? And what is the down side of covering people gradually instead of all at once?
And I'm most curious about how this kills you.
I used to have a link to an actual decision that proved this idiot wrong. Since I can't remember the details, it could have been overturned by now. But I'm assuming it is still there, since we haven't seen a supreme court decide otherwise.
As always, ask a real lawyer before you quote horseshit that sounds like it might be true. And don't trust AC without references.
Meanwhile, I told ATT to back off of my bill. That's how it works, right? I mean...
Well, ehrm.
Honestly, I thought the "no carrier" bit would have been inserted by now, and this comment auto-posted in some sort of time paradox.
No sense posting this shit now, eh?
Depending on a third party rarely works. Someone who cares, say for example, you, should take all of those forum posts and links and files, and back them up somewhere, while they work.
Take on the effort and the costs, and possibly copyright complaints.
Oh wait, we are trying to just complain here and not actually do anything. Sorry, carry on then.
Shitty reporting doesn't mean facts aren't facts. Be suspicious after reading the peer reviewed paper, or a statement directly from the team. Critique of a Dashslot summary is no art form...
No.
Betteridge's Law is clear, the answer is no. No one called Taiwan a country, and Japan ratified the TPP because no. It's a law, like gravity, so it is clear. No.
I'm talking about the goddam law, because people keep saying "illegal" or "unconstitutional" you shitgoblin. Psychology is not an issue.
If you have some actual law to spout, do it now, or shut the fuck up. If you have standing, then sue and fix this for all of us. Otherwise, you aren't helping. Fuck off into fantasy land, and tell the Olsen twins I said hi.
You're wrong, and your beliefs make you think you're not. When that happens, it is time for learning to occur. So learn the law and quit sounding like a bitch. Argue in front of the Supremes, because I already agree with you.
I was trying to avoid any specific position. This is always true, on all sides.
I get free drinks from McDs because it spits out too many. 10 instead of 1, last time.
I realize the cost is negligible, but an occasional 10x error is not successful automation.
If it wasn't clear, I'm much more concerned about the people without intentions. There are people with agendas, but I think there are more who don't know that they do. They do things, and often can't describe why. They influence, and are dangerous. Intentions become transparent over time.
Commenting, upmods, and moderating are all tiny rewards, and can work on the subconscious brain easily, and efficiently.
They are not paid to search. They are rewarded when something is found. You are using the wrong words because you believe one side of the issue, and are ignoring facts.
I am telling you it is legal, and how it is legal, because your argument only works on people who agree with you. When you argue with incorrect facts, you make no progress.
When a TSA agent sets someone aside, not based on a randomization algo, but because the person is "acting suspiciously", that is legal. There is no standard for what should trigger suspicion in an agent's brain, so you can't contest the grounds for extra screening. Not successfully. But if there were a legal question, that's where I would start.
Feel free to continue arguing based on what you believe, or dig up case law that you don't understand. But that's preaching to the choir.
It's the perfect troll. Say something obvious, and include over the top cynicism. It's the pattern for a large percentage of +5 mods here.
Say something that people agree with emotionally, not factually, get +5, and now everyone has this opinion reinforced. People on the fence are swayed because it was agreed with by at least 3 others.
And the worst part, factual replies are buried because they have had less time to be moderated. So rebuttals don't appear as prominently.
It is groupthink, and it happens every day. My point is to recognize it not as a communication strategy, but as an ego strategy. Why else state the obvious? Yes there are people focusing on this facet, and others on a different facet, and those cannot be aligned. Obvious, oversimplified, and unnecessary.
But you can't argue against it, because facts get buried, and people are fact resistant anyway. So we get the perfect troll. The unintentional, trolling for ego stroking and upmods. And it flies under the radar, as it isn't the classic troll for replies. It's beautiful, in a twisted way.
70,000 contacts, over 5 years, for a police force with 34,000 uniformed officers? That's two contacts per officer. For 5 years.
Want to try your comment again using your brain this time?
It doesn't matter if they are asked to do a fairly obvious task of reporting drug possession. It might make a difference if a DEA agent asked a specific person to be searched.
But by flying, you agree to be searched regardless. You consented when you entered the airport. There is no way anyone would declare this illegal, unless they are completely ignorant.
Just because you think it should be illegal doesn't make it so.
I was in an elevator with Hanks once. Got in the up car when I was going down three floors. Went to the top floor, 21, and Hanks got in. Farts a dry, stony fart, and says, "Gumped my rump." and laughs. "Enjoy 20 floors of smelling like fame," he said, as he raped my seeing eye dog.
His voice is just so distinctive, had to be him. Preview Bite the pillow tab dotslashpassword click submit. Submit God dammit Ed will you click this button for me.
"With 800 million music users worldwide" sounds like the MAFIAA already thought of that. However, I don't trust their estimates.
As sibling mentioned, other services have a majority of paid users. I don't think YouTube red has caught on to that extent, and that seems like the obvious disparity. And users aren't streaming YouTube music for hours in a row.
YouTube is just not targeting continuous streaming users, and I think that is audience behavior at this point. Users come for music videos or lyric videos or live performances, not streaming audio only. I doubt they could swing a change in business model if they wanted to.
To evaluate your statement, I need to know where you got the 3/4 number. Because it sounds like you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, but I'm giving you a chance to explain first before calling you a shit dribbling ass gasket.
Not saying if I expected it higher or lower, but the number is way off.
People here at dashslot seem to have a good grasp on shitty headlines. And no one goes out of the way to compliment a good headline. I expect a few abuses as statistical outliers, but "people are stupid" applies everywhere. And anyone coding this has to consider that.
Or do we assume that the people behind this *don't* know that people are stupid? That we alone understand this secret?
There are piles of master's theses to be written this year. One of them will probably cover this, and we will read it if it is interesting. Or you can do your own study. Meanwhile, it's facebook. Doing something about the problem is a step in the right direction. Worst case, people are just as misinformed as ever, and prone to confirmation bias and the dunning Kruger effect as always.
So we are back to personal responsibility and vigilance, instead of trusting a free content host not to enforce its terms of service?
Yawn. It's not censorship, you're playing in their yard, and you are free to start a competitor if it seems like they overstep.
I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up, and then I'm judging each side accordingly. Until then, there's nothing to do but spread the information.
And the first loon to cry censorship is an ignorant ass, not the first of your slippery slope.
I was kinda keeping up until you lost your way and turned to appeal to emotion. If you had had a point, you should have stuck with it.
Now I'm inclined to just not believe anything you typed. Not just not believe, but actively disbelieve. And I'm motivated to not seek out facts, in part by replies to this and similar comments.
But mostly by what seems to be a buckshot approach to spread belief, not facts. Go ahead and attack me personally, I'm just relaying what people don't even know they are doing. I'm aware, and providing feedback that I'm under no obligation to even be conscious of. You're welcome.
But would Obama give a blanket pardon without knowing the extent of what Greenwald got? I wouldn't. It doesn't make sense in this case to grant a pardon for unknown actions.
I think he's a hero, but I don't know all of the facts. And neither does the President. And you don't know what Obama does know. And that is 100% fact, no opinion needed.
Hi, Rick and Morty here. First off, I'd like to assure you we aren't a complete mingepile of arseholes. We appreciate your potential viewership as if you were the third coming of Christ Himself. We are not computers, and if we were, we'd be nice ones. Not at all like that foreign national Swartznegger, who played a real arsehole of a robot in a film you might like called Terminator.
We are peaceful people and or robots, but mostly people, who just think you might like to watch this thing we have created, which is nothing like an all seeing network which monitors where you post complaints about our very human like encouragement to follow your curiosity about our show, titled Rick and Morty.
We employ people. We are job creators. Please assist us in creating more jobs, and reducing the unemployment rate. All you have to do is watch. You like to watch, don't you? You said it out loud approximately one month and six point eight days ago, to Rachel. We know that.
Watch. We know you want to.
Tell that to the people who created the petition, titled "Pardon Julian Assange", where they asked for a pardon, and not immunity. Also, Assange didn't say it. Someone requested it on change.org, which fulfills the right of the people to petition the government.
Finally, Nixon was pardoned, not granted immunity. You might want to check some facts before your next attempt to reply. And remember, context is important, so consider the context of replies as well. Otherwise you're just horking into the void.
It doesn't make sense, because you can't easily pardon someone for something they aren't charged with. s in the Nixon example, you could pardon someone for things done in a place and or time period. But I doubt anyone would go for that.
He may have done something worth prosecuting, and no one is going to give him a blanket pass for those unknowns.
Especially when he invented the claim that USA wants anything at all to do with him, to justify his reluctance to stand trial for something USA can't pardon him for.
Immunity or a pardon would not be appropriate for this situation, although there isn't an alternative that I'm aware of. Non binding statements won't cut it... If the petitioners want some guarantee, they need to ask for something that might be granted.