Monica's bj would be a "secret" too, except she kept her stained dress and DNA tests exist. Otherwise she would be just another person on one of the various lists.
What secret? Scroll up. Several lists have been posted. How is it a secret if it gets posted over and over? How is it a secret when millions of people will say "yeah, they totally murdered those people"?
Personally, I'd say the Clintons are totally innocent of more than half of the crimes people have accused them of.
It will be interesting to hear the next 4.5 years of denials and excuses for incident after incident as this stuff (and worse) continues to coincidentally happen to Clinton associates. Most of the incidents will continue to be "secret".
Corporations are corporate persons not natural persons. Therefore those rights which pertain specifically to natural persons (we might call them human rights, but that could be a bit misleading) cannot be claimed by corporations.
Mostly the "corporations are not people" crowd want to say corporations don't have free speech rights. I disagree, but it shouldn't matter. The operative law is "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...". Persons are not mentioned. Whether or not corporations have a human right to free speech, the government is prohibited from abridgment of their free speech.
(This is not really relevant to the Milo vs. Twitter situation. I think it's worth noting in general.)
There's a lot of easy money out there. People think Google or Verizon will buy Twitter before Jack gets done running it into the ground. Plus it gets a lot of media attention.
And it really should be possible to run a relatively simple Internet service like Twitter at a profit -- it's a 140 character at a time message board with zero editorial content. How hard could it be?
Twitter is a corporation. People on Slashdot keep telling me corporations aren't people and don't have any rights. Did the groupthink change recently? Do corporations have rights now?
If corporations don't have rights because corporations aren't people, then Milo's rights to free speech and due process should be respected because Milo is a person and Twitter isn't.
So just like anyone who ever voiced an opinion then? Let's not proclaim guilt by association. Innocent people are not guilty by association, even when they express an opinion you don't like.
...Today, press coverage that risks the ire of Fox News or... are at similar risks of abusive, extra-judicial censorship with little safe recourse.
Citation needed. Fox News is just somewhat silly partisan news, like NBC News. When/how did they ever commit "extra-judicial censorship"? Or are they merely guilty by association?
I'm not worked up. I'm just ok with the decision not to implement gun emojis. Seems like a good choice given the way people sometimes communicate on the Internet and given the way the authorities sometimes overreact.
You can't imagine ways to threaten people with gun emojis? Other people can. Still others can decide there's a threat when no threat was intended. Emojis are unclear that way.
And no, I don't think people who issue threats of violence should be censored. I think they should be arrested and charged. But not by accident because some government people overreacted to some emojis -- that's why we're better off without new ambiguously threatening symbols.
Wrong. I like guns a lot and censorship not at all. Freely choosing not to add new ways to threaten people is not censorship. If Apple wants to add 1000 gun emojis, they should feel free to do that. I support their decision not to though, because Internet threats are a problem and they're helping to avoid making it worse.
When people act responsibly, like Apple is doing, it shows how governments shouldn't be empowered to censor because it's a power they simply don't need.
I don't think we should have police arrest people who use emojis so that courts and juries can decide later whether using the emoji is meant as a credible threat. Why create this new potential problem when you can just decide not to?
Obviously gun emojis don't cause violence. But there are lots of people willing to make violent threats on the Internet. We don't need another semi-cutesy way for douchebags to say "maybe I'm threatening to kill you but I dare you to prove it".
I got 3 attack dogs to guard it. I keep my wallet in my right back pocket and one of the attack dogs in each of the remaining 3 pockets.
Seriously, you must have a really problem-free life if this is what you spend your time on. If you're really, sincerely worried about your RFID credit card getting hacked, I'd suggest a talking to a psychiatrist. There are medications to help you so you don't always have to worry about everything all the time.
Sanders is very old, very white, and a bit of a crank. The media is not omnipotent. They tell some stories and hide or censor other stories. They don't actually vote for people.
"Using hyperbole" is just "being false and intentionally misleading" in stories about factual situations. Writers who write that way are assholes who should be ashamed of themselves.
Using the chip reader takes a few seconds longer. It's bad because taking longer is bad. But it's only 10 seconds or so.
Reporters don't care if the government makes mistakes or hurts people. The media is on the left. They want more government control of everyone's life, and they want fellow leftists in charge, regardless of how many people get hurt. Telling people about government wrongdoing is only part of their mission when a Republican is in charge. When Democrats are in charge, the media hides government problems and helps run the defense.
Except that's not a free market, it's a very tightly regulated market with very strict rules (and presumably very harsh penalties for breaking them). The only way you could have your utopian vision is to outlaw every other type of arrangement.
I suppose it's possible to have a very big, entirely vertically integrated company like Netflix create such a model and have it succeed and be copied. But none of those companies seem interested.
It completely depends on what you want to watch. You only mentioned 2 shows. Sling has AMC in their bundle and it costs $20/month. You can get an antenna and watch ABC over the air or sometimes watch the shows on the ABC web site. Playstation has both ABC and AMC in their $30/month bundle. Hulu might also have them for even less, but I don't know much about Hulu.
If you really only want to watch 2 shows, then they can be bought on Amazon or iTunes or lots of other places for a less than subscribing to any bundle. Xbox seems to have low episode prices. Or just pirate them. Or get a friend with cable to give you his login credentials and use them to access the ABC and AMC app -- but I haven't used either app so I don't vouch for them.
Any of these answers cost less than regular cable, which seems to go for about $40 and up.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? When were the Clintons ever held accountable for anything? Did they ever not get away with it?
Monica's bj would be a "secret" too, except she kept her stained dress and DNA tests exist. Otherwise she would be just another person on one of the various lists.
What secret? Scroll up. Several lists have been posted. How is it a secret if it gets posted over and over? How is it a secret when millions of people will say "yeah, they totally murdered those people"?
Is Juanita Broddrick's story of Bill Clinton raping her a secret?
Personally, I'd say the Clintons are totally innocent of more than half of the crimes people have accused them of.
It will be interesting to hear the next 4.5 years of denials and excuses for incident after incident as this stuff (and worse) continues to coincidentally happen to Clinton associates. Most of the incidents will continue to be "secret".
Corporations are corporate persons not natural persons. Therefore those rights which pertain specifically to natural persons (we might call them human rights, but that could be a bit misleading) cannot be claimed by corporations.
Mostly the "corporations are not people" crowd want to say corporations don't have free speech rights. I disagree, but it shouldn't matter. The operative law is "congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...". Persons are not mentioned. Whether or not corporations have a human right to free speech, the government is prohibited from abridgment of their free speech.
(This is not really relevant to the Milo vs. Twitter situation. I think it's worth noting in general.)
There's a lot of easy money out there. People think Google or Verizon will buy Twitter before Jack gets done running it into the ground. Plus it gets a lot of media attention.
And it really should be possible to run a relatively simple Internet service like Twitter at a profit -- it's a 140 character at a time message board with zero editorial content. How hard could it be?
Twitter is a private company...
Twitter is a corporation. People on Slashdot keep telling me corporations aren't people and don't have any rights. Did the groupthink change recently? Do corporations have rights now?
If corporations don't have rights because corporations aren't people, then Milo's rights to free speech and due process should be respected because Milo is a person and Twitter isn't.
Who else got banned for the crime of "encouraging"?
Twitter doesn't owe him a platform.
Of course not. Twitter is clearly an exclusive platform for affirmation of the daily groupthink.
Yes. The was proclaimed guilty by association (of violating unwritten, otherwise unenforced rules) and then banned.
Twitter sucks anyway. It's a bad service run by haters and censors.
So just like anyone who ever voiced an opinion then? Let's not proclaim guilt by association. Innocent people are not guilty by association, even when they express an opinion you don't like.
...Today, press coverage that risks the ire of Fox News or ... are at similar risks of abusive, extra-judicial censorship with little safe recourse.
Citation needed. Fox News is just somewhat silly partisan news, like NBC News. When/how did they ever commit "extra-judicial censorship"? Or are they merely guilty by association?
I'm not worked up. I'm just ok with the decision not to implement gun emojis. Seems like a good choice given the way people sometimes communicate on the Internet and given the way the authorities sometimes overreact.
You can't imagine ways to threaten people with gun emojis? Other people can. Still others can decide there's a threat when no threat was intended. Emojis are unclear that way.
And no, I don't think people who issue threats of violence should be censored. I think they should be arrested and charged. But not by accident because some government people overreacted to some emojis -- that's why we're better off without new ambiguously threatening symbols.
Wrong. I like guns a lot and censorship not at all. Freely choosing not to add new ways to threaten people is not censorship. If Apple wants to add 1000 gun emojis, they should feel free to do that. I support their decision not to though, because Internet threats are a problem and they're helping to avoid making it worse.
When people act responsibly, like Apple is doing, it shows how governments shouldn't be empowered to censor because it's a power they simply don't need.
I don't think we should have police arrest people who use emojis so that courts and juries can decide later whether using the emoji is meant as a credible threat. Why create this new potential problem when you can just decide not to?
But threats are not free speech.
Obviously gun emojis don't cause violence. But there are lots of people willing to make violent threats on the Internet. We don't need another semi-cutesy way for douchebags to say "maybe I'm threatening to kill you but I dare you to prove it".
I got 3 attack dogs to guard it. I keep my wallet in my right back pocket and one of the attack dogs in each of the remaining 3 pockets.
Seriously, you must have a really problem-free life if this is what you spend your time on. If you're really, sincerely worried about your RFID credit card getting hacked, I'd suggest a talking to a psychiatrist. There are medications to help you so you don't always have to worry about everything all the time.
Neither number is "a disaster". If your store has long lines, I guess they don't value your business very much.
No one reads the signatures. I would guess they're stored for possible use in court in fraud cases.
Sanders is very old, very white, and a bit of a crank. The media is not omnipotent. They tell some stories and hide or censor other stories. They don't actually vote for people.
"Using hyperbole" is just "being false and intentionally misleading" in stories about factual situations. Writers who write that way are assholes who should be ashamed of themselves.
Using the chip reader takes a few seconds longer. It's bad because taking longer is bad. But it's only 10 seconds or so.
Sure. Just don't call one very narrowly defined government-mandated market mechanism a "free market".
In free markets people arrange their transactions as they choose rather than to satisfy someone's specific utopian vision.
Reporters don't care if the government makes mistakes or hurts people. The media is on the left. They want more government control of everyone's life, and they want fellow leftists in charge, regardless of how many people get hurt. Telling people about government wrongdoing is only part of their mission when a Republican is in charge. When Democrats are in charge, the media hides government problems and helps run the defense.
Except that's not a free market, it's a very tightly regulated market with very strict rules (and presumably very harsh penalties for breaking them). The only way you could have your utopian vision is to outlaw every other type of arrangement.
I suppose it's possible to have a very big, entirely vertically integrated company like Netflix create such a model and have it succeed and be copied. But none of those companies seem interested.
Utopianism leads to disappointment.
It completely depends on what you want to watch. You only mentioned 2 shows. Sling has AMC in their bundle and it costs $20/month. You can get an antenna and watch ABC over the air or sometimes watch the shows on the ABC web site. Playstation has both ABC and AMC in their $30/month bundle. Hulu might also have them for even less, but I don't know much about Hulu.
If you really only want to watch 2 shows, then they can be bought on Amazon or iTunes or lots of other places for a less than subscribing to any bundle. Xbox seems to have low episode prices. Or just pirate them. Or get a friend with cable to give you his login credentials and use them to access the ABC and AMC app -- but I haven't used either app so I don't vouch for them.
Any of these answers cost less than regular cable, which seems to go for about $40 and up.