Regional distinction here, lots of places (including where I grew up) call it 'pop', but it depends on where you're from. Personally, I've never run into a place where 'coke' is used as a generic name for it, and I haven't a clue what falls into the 'other' category...

http://www.popvssoda.com/countystats/total-county.html

Hi, you must be new here, welcome to Earth.

Just to catch you up a bit, we allow idiots to become judges here. And to hold political office. It's a kind of 'equal opportunity' thing, you might want to keep that in mind.

Enjoy your visit!

Mock all you want (and sorry to derail this rant), but if these people are internet-savvy enough to google a script to do a simple DDoS, they should be able to understand that none of the people they're attacking, or their bosses or politically-connected friends, can do anything about this. Even more so if they're more sophisticated than I'm giving them credit for...

Best thing to do about the 'movie' would have been to ignore it. It would have died the horrible, lonely death it deserved if people had simply not made a fuss about it. Maybe that is beyond their reasoning, but the idea that you can't make something disappear from the internet shouldn't be.

No, I think they're using the movie as an excuse to deflect from the real reason they're doing this. Honestly, what that would be is beyond me, but maybe the tin foil hat crowd here can come up with a more plausible end game. There has to be a small group of people that are trying to profit or get something more concrete out of this than making a horrible, horrible movie disappear.

Personally, I don't care if the software 'knows' I'm there, if no one else ever knows. If no one looks at the recordings, no one really saw me.

Now, that assumes I'm not also mugging an old lady at the time, but if that's the case I probably have other issues I should be worrying about...

If you dig a big hole in your end of the field, because the other team dug a big hole on their end of the field...I'm not sure that 'level' would be a good description of the playing field.

IMO, if the cops doctor evidence, they should be held accountable, by law. And if the 'news' or anyone else doctors evidence, they should be held accountable as well. I think that by publishing this sort of footage, you're effectively presenting evidence, albeit not in a court of law in the case of the news, but there should still be punishment (assuming there isn't some libel law already in place for this...IANAL by any stretch of the imagination).

[obligatory] Why, what did she tell you?

Evaluating the source is most useful when you don't have a good basis to determine the validity of the information yourself. This isn't as crucial as it was pre-internet, since it's not hard for most (?) people to do a little googling to find out more, but there are time where I don't care enough or don't have the bandwidth to find the background. In those cases, if I know the background of the source, I can sometimes easily decide if it's worth remembering or discounting out of hand.

I totally agree with AC posting, but as has been stated, most inflammatory AC comments will usually just get dismissed on the spot, which is perfectly OK since most are deserving of being ignored. The ones that are worthy of being read will stand on their own, and it's not hard for most (sane) people to know the difference.

More importantly, if people tend to look at completely baseless AC posts (or other drivel) and jump on them like they were fact...well, now I can generally dismiss THOSE people as well. Helps me figure out which people have no sense of logic and can't be trusted to come to rational decisions or opinions.

From your lips to God's ears...not so much that I care one way or the other who gets rich from the artists (and it will likely not be the artists...), but at least if those groups started mucking around in the RIAA's affairs more, the lawyers on BOTH sides would be well funded, instead of just one side.

OK I think I just figured out who would get rich from the artists in that scenario...but still, IMO if it's not the RIAA, I'm fine with it.

Citation needed?

The way I see it, they just want to have another place to file a lawsuit (the ISPs). Why file against just the 'infringers' when you can file against everyone who has anything to do with the internet.

Next up, log visitors and file against anyone who saw that there was infringing content but didn't report it.