On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.
It has everything to do with his business. That's his history, running criminal enterprises. That he's a fat piece of shit just makes him easier to scorn.
Conjecture.
No, based on evidence and using common sense.
There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.
So if you don't know which is which I urge you to get a clue followed by some perspective.
I urge you to cut the bullshit. You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain. You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead. His site wasn't just a neutral download site. It was a thin veneer for piracy, and there was evidence to back that up via internal email. That's what fat shitstains do.
For all your huffing and puffing about artists, this guy was nothing but a parasite.
Actually I think her first response should have been to knock out his teeth.
And then his response would have been to justifiably knock her ass out and have her thrown in jail. Yeah, yeah, "hyperbole". It's "hyperbole" like this that tries to justify people getting punched in the streets while giving interviews and others being assaulted for going to a Milo talk.
It doesn't matter if that MP3 of Taylor Swift gets mildly corrupted (might even sound better that way, zing), but it very much *does* matter if that bank account gets a flipped bit.
Sorry to rain on your popular-bashing parade, but ordinary people actually do important things with their computers besides listening to music.
The former for all his character flaws has actually provided people a product that had a need, an improved it along the way. The latter exist solely to skim money from the middle of artists and consumers by artificially limiting supply and then suing customers.
Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.
I'd rather they spend the money on real science than dog and pony shows. Manned missions are expensive. They could launch dozens of satellites that actually do science for the cost of this one mission.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.
You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.
if anything she might be slightly better
More of your blind eye and double standards. The Clintons are near the top of corrupt politicians.
since she was trying to get rid of super PACs
Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.
Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.
Because you have double standards. They enriched themselves and their cronies and used charity as a cover to and you turn a blind eye.
don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State.
And you again turn a blind eye.
A "power player" is not a government official
But a Senator and Secretary of State is, and there's no ethical difference if you're peddling influence while running to be an elected official. The Clintons became personally very rich while being politicians. You again turn a blind eye.
The difference is that Trump is currently President.
Yes, Crooked Hillary lost. I'm not defending Trump, either, by the way. I never expected him to drain the swamp when he brings it with him.
The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation
They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.
The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.
Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.
ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.
Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?
If the police get to decide the crime being committed, and the police are biased, and the police are the ones who ultimately write the reports that were evaluated for the study, how would the study detect that bias?
Ask the author of the study. He addresses this when he says, "Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner -- making it difficult to interpret regression coefficients in the standard way. 6 It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved shootings seems unlikely."
I'll be honest, I don't know how he comes to the bolded conclusion. I have not read the entirety or even most of the 63 page PDF. That said, I trust his statistical approach a lot more than political agitators trying to spin a narrative based on a few cases.
It really does not follow to come to a conclusion that police use excessive non-violent force against blacks, but not excessive violent force.
That's also covered in the paper: "We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
But then, consider: in the past few years we have been presented with videos of officers shooting unarmed blacks, in which the blacks would have been found at fault had it not been for the video evidence.
And you can find videos for non-blacks too. You just don't get national media coverage of them and riots in the streets.
At present, I don't see how anyone can say "Clearly, blacks are not being wrongly killed."
I never said that. Please don't strawman.
As for cops vs blacks and blacks vs blacks, I see no reason why we can't strive to improve both situations.
Narratives and motives matter. You can't respond rationally to a situation when false narratives are spun by leftist agitators that draw inspiration from cop-killing, communist terrorists, and a media that is unwilling to view the situation critically. That includes responding proportionally to situations. The tangible result of Black Lies Matter are assassinated cops, riots, and a rise in murder rates, along with a country more divided by race in a long time, despite any rational reason for that to be the case.
I guess you'd prefer the New York Times then: "But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias."
Not that I needed a study by a black Harvard professor or a report by the New York Times to tell me Black Lies Matter was bullshit. Ferguson "hands up, don't shoot" was a complete lie from the beginning (the "gentle giant" Michael Brown was a thug), and they draw inspiration from a cop-killing, Black power terrorist fugitive living in Cuba (you won't see the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN talk about that much, will you). Their rhetoric has led to riots, assaults, and dead cops.
And for what? A handful of controversial cases to spin a false narrative that there was an epidemic of police shooting blacks, while more blacks kill each other in Chicago alone than police do across the entire nation.
Hey look, it's a cowardly, Islam-loving douchebag that waits 11 days and replies to a post right before the discussion is archived to get the last word.
He tells me that even adjusted for population, fewer blacks are killed by police than whites.
He's close. You have to adjust for population and crime rates. Black Lies Matter is bullshit, racist, and divisive politicking by radical left-wing agitators.
As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.
An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.
As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.
He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:
"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."
That's from the New York fucking Times, back before they completely went anti-Trump apeshit.
As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.
Because the mainstream clearly had a bias against Trump, and became "horrific shits" themselves.
As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.
A neutral and non-screechy article on the matter provides a different perspective.
As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.
Wah, wah. He's not Obama and he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.
As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.
Yeah, he fucked up.
And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...
Sounds like you're talking about it. Boo hoo, he's mean on Twitter, just like he was during the campaign.
Some other things he's done: - Put the focus back on American jobs. - Put a spotlight on government waste via over-priced mega projects. - Met with foreign leaders. - Ramped up deportation of illegal immigrants. - Set goals for reducing regulations and their costs. - Nominated a Supreme Court justice.
I'm now anxiously awaiting expert legal opinions by people who didn't even read the article, much less the patent.
My expert opinion as a software developer with an understanding of history is that the vast majority of these patents are shit and do nothing but enrich lawyers and parasite "inventors" while reducing competition and increasing the cost of doing business.
For a long time software was not patentable, and the industry boomed and innovated anyways. You know there are a flood of craptastic patents clogging up the system, and when you go to read one of these patents, it's full of arcane and obscure descriptions that could be described trivially using standard industry jargon and make bare just how trivial these patents are.
Given the status quo of shit patents, I'll put the onus on you to wade through the garbage, and anxiously await your expert opinion on just what the patent-worthy innovation was regarding sandboxes, processes, and web browsers that was not trivial or did not involve prior art.
Twitter has succeeded in creating a forum where pretty much all political views are expressed. Occasionally people get banned for harassment and doxing. Most of them are right wing martyrs who want to convince everyone that there is bias against them.
Twitter has created a forum where double-standards are applied as to what is considered harassment. If you make fun of a special snowflake, you are under considerably more risk for censure than the reverse. Twitter also considers it "doxing" if you try to uncover the identity of a thug who sucker punched another person in the street, while letting tweets about assassinating Trump run wild.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the lamest Slashdot articles I have ever seen.
You must be new here.
On a personal level, which has nothing to do with his business.
It has everything to do with his business. That's his history, running criminal enterprises. That he's a fat piece of shit just makes him easier to scorn.
Conjecture.
No, based on evidence and using common sense.
There's evidence of every company that stores or moves bits at some point discussing the use of their platform for piracy.
It went beyond that.
Yeah I will by ignoring what you say from this point.
Of course you will, because your argument is indefensible. You're defending a parasite with a criminal history.
Yes, but there was evidence that they were facilitating copyright infringement. That's a big no-no.
So if you don't know which is which I urge you to get a clue followed by some perspective.
I urge you to cut the bullshit. You already acknowledged he was a fat shitstain. You ignored what I wrote and made some shitty analogies instead. His site wasn't just a neutral download site. It was a thin veneer for piracy, and there was evidence to back that up via internal email. That's what fat shitstains do.
For all your huffing and puffing about artists, this guy was nothing but a parasite.
Actually I think her first response should have been to knock out his teeth.
And then his response would have been to justifiably knock her ass out and have her thrown in jail. Yeah, yeah, "hyperbole". It's "hyperbole" like this that tries to justify people getting punched in the streets while giving interviews and others being assaulted for going to a Milo talk.
It doesn't matter if that MP3 of Taylor Swift gets mildly corrupted (might even sound better that way, zing), but it very much *does* matter if that bank account gets a flipped bit.
Sorry to rain on your popular-bashing parade, but ordinary people actually do important things with their computers besides listening to music.
Absolutely zero.
You'd think by chance alone the occasional one would reach ground level.
The former for all his character flaws has actually provided people a product that had a need, an improved it along the way. The latter exist solely to skim money from the middle of artists and consumers by artificially limiting supply and then suing customers.
Which is which again? Because the fat shitstain was profiting from artists without paying them at all. The "product" he provided was a thin veneer for a pirate site.
I'd rather they spend the money on real science than dog and pony shows. Manned missions are expensive. They could launch dozens of satellites that actually do science for the cost of this one mission.
That's more up Putin's alley, but maybe he could convince Trump to go with him.
I meant they didn't profit personally while in office
But they did, while Hillary was Senator and Secretary of State. But you've turned a blind eye.
Not everyone who plays the game but says they'll try to end the game in office is lying.
Hillary lied and played the game as Secretary of State, but you turned a blind eye.
but she said she'd try to get rid of the PACs I don't see any reason to doubt her.
Thanks for the laugh.
When the playing field is slanted it's not discrimination to give a hand.
Sorry, I'm not interested in playing the Oppression Olympics.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.
You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.
if anything she might be slightly better
More of your blind eye and double standards. The Clintons are near the top of corrupt politicians.
since she was trying to get rid of super PACs
Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.
really do think there was a subtext of sexism
What's sexist is playing the gender card.
Baby Jesus cries.
Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.
Because you have double standards. They enriched themselves and their cronies and used charity as a cover to and you turn a blind eye.
don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State.
And you again turn a blind eye.
A "power player" is not a government official
But a Senator and Secretary of State is, and there's no ethical difference if you're peddling influence while running to be an elected official. The Clintons became personally very rich while being politicians. You again turn a blind eye.
The difference is that Trump is currently President.
Yes, Crooked Hillary lost. I'm not defending Trump, either, by the way. I never expected him to drain the swamp when he brings it with him.
The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation
They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.
The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.
Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.
ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.
Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?
Leave pedobear alone.
If the police get to decide the crime being committed, and the police are biased, and the police are the ones who ultimately write the reports that were evaluated for the study, how would the study detect that bias?
Ask the author of the study. He addresses this when he says, "Relatedly, even police departments willing to supply data may contain police officers who present contextual factors at that time of an incident in a biased manner -- making it difficult to interpret regression coefficients in the standard way. 6 It is exceedingly difficult to know how prevalent this type of misreporting bias is (Schneider 1977). Accounting for contextual variables recorded by police officers who may have an incentive to distort the truth is problematic. Yet, whether or not we include controls does not alter the basic qualitative conclusions. And, to the extent that there are racial differences in underreporting of non-lethal use of force (and police are more likely to not report force used on blacks), our estimates may be a lower bound. Not reporting officer-involved shootings seems unlikely."
I'll be honest, I don't know how he comes to the bolded conclusion. I have not read the entirety or even most of the 63 page PDF. That said, I trust his statistical approach a lot more than political agitators trying to spin a narrative based on a few cases.
It really does not follow to come to a conclusion that police use excessive non-violent force against blacks, but not excessive violent force.
That's also covered in the paper: "We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings."
But then, consider: in the past few years we have been presented with videos of officers shooting unarmed blacks, in which the blacks would have been found at fault had it not been for the video evidence.
And you can find videos for non-blacks too. You just don't get national media coverage of them and riots in the streets.
At present, I don't see how anyone can say "Clearly, blacks are not being wrongly killed."
I never said that. Please don't strawman.
As for cops vs blacks and blacks vs blacks, I see no reason why we can't strive to improve both situations.
Narratives and motives matter. You can't respond rationally to a situation when false narratives are spun by leftist agitators that draw inspiration from cop-killing, communist terrorists, and a media that is unwilling to view the situation critically. That includes responding proportionally to situations. The tangible result of Black Lies Matter are assassinated cops, riots, and a rise in murder rates, along with a country more divided by race in a long time, despite any rational reason for that to be the case.
I guess you'd prefer the New York Times then: "But when it comes to the most lethal form of force -- police shootings -- the study finds no racial bias."
Not that I needed a study by a black Harvard professor or a report by the New York Times to tell me Black Lies Matter was bullshit. Ferguson "hands up, don't shoot" was a complete lie from the beginning (the "gentle giant" Michael Brown was a thug), and they draw inspiration from a cop-killing, Black power terrorist fugitive living in Cuba (you won't see the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CNN talk about that much, will you). Their rhetoric has led to riots, assaults, and dead cops.
And for what? A handful of controversial cases to spin a false narrative that there was an epidemic of police shooting blacks, while more blacks kill each other in Chicago alone than police do across the entire nation.
Hey look, it's a cowardly, Islam-loving douchebag that waits 11 days and replies to a post right before the discussion is archived to get the last word.
He tells me that even adjusted for population, fewer blacks are killed by police than whites.
He's close. You have to adjust for population and crime rates. Black Lies Matter is bullshit, racist, and divisive politicking by radical left-wing agitators.
As well as sacking an acting-AG that wouldnt support him without question.
An Obama-appointed AG that was on their way out the door anyways and was playing leftist politics.
As well as taking a combative stance toward the judicial system that threw out his EO.
He criticized a ruling. Boo hoo. Kinda like when Obama embarrassed the Supreme Court judges at his State of the Union address for the Citizens United ruling? Actually, Obama's was worse:
"It is not unusual for presidents to disagree publicly with Supreme Court decisions. But they tend to do so at news conferences and in written statements, not to the justices' faces."
That's from the New York fucking Times, back before they completely went anti-Trump apeshit.
As well as positioning himself in opposition to all the mainstream media, and siding with a horrific shit of a news outlet.
Because the mainstream clearly had a bias against Trump, and became "horrific shits" themselves.
As well as dumping 90% of the experience of the National Security Council, and putting the former chairman of that shit of a news outlet onto the Principle Committee of the NSC.
A neutral and non-screechy article on the matter provides a different perspective.
As well as pissing off major foreign leaders.
Wah, wah. He's not Obama and he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.
As well as inviting un-vetted guests, including foreign nationals, to stand over him while he reads top secret intelligence on North Korea and south east asia.
Yeah, he fucked up.
And lets not talk about his child-like attitude on Twitter...
Sounds like you're talking about it. Boo hoo, he's mean on Twitter, just like he was during the campaign.
Some other things he's done:
- Put the focus back on American jobs.
- Put a spotlight on government waste via over-priced mega projects.
- Met with foreign leaders.
- Ramped up deportation of illegal immigrants.
- Set goals for reducing regulations and their costs.
- Nominated a Supreme Court justice.
Generally, in the post-WWII Western world, making Holocaust jokes or anti-Jewish jokes is seen at the very least in pretty poor taste
Too soon?
I'm now anxiously awaiting expert legal opinions by people who didn't even read the article, much less the patent.
My expert opinion as a software developer with an understanding of history is that the vast majority of these patents are shit and do nothing but enrich lawyers and parasite "inventors" while reducing competition and increasing the cost of doing business.
For a long time software was not patentable, and the industry boomed and innovated anyways. You know there are a flood of craptastic patents clogging up the system, and when you go to read one of these patents, it's full of arcane and obscure descriptions that could be described trivially using standard industry jargon and make bare just how trivial these patents are.
Given the status quo of shit patents, I'll put the onus on you to wade through the garbage, and anxiously await your expert opinion on just what the patent-worthy innovation was regarding sandboxes, processes, and web browsers that was not trivial or did not involve prior art.
Then what does it say that is different than what I claim it says? Who do you think you are fooling? It's a black and white statement.
Twitter has succeeded in creating a forum where pretty much all political views are expressed. Occasionally people get banned for harassment and doxing. Most of them are right wing martyrs who want to convince everyone that there is bias against them.
Twitter has created a forum where double-standards are applied as to what is considered harassment. If you make fun of a special snowflake, you are under considerably more risk for censure than the reverse. Twitter also considers it "doxing" if you try to uncover the identity of a thug who sucker punched another person in the street, while letting tweets about assassinating Trump run wild.