Comment Re:Tell me again effective identity doesn't matter (Score 1) 88
I hate the culture that causes people to point at a fifteen minute youtube video to explain something that takes 15 seconds to read.
I hate the culture that causes people to point at a fifteen minute youtube video to explain something that takes 15 seconds to read.
If the latter, there is probably some clause about the mortgage being invalid and ownership reverting to the bank if the application contained lies.
Did you mean "the outstanding balance is due and payable immediately, and the bank will foreclose on the property if no payment is forthcoming?" Because "the bank gets the asset outright" isn't a thing.
this is how the boomers screwed us. They built a socialist safety net for them (Social Security)
I was this many years old when I learned that a generation that started with births in 1946 is responsible for the creation of Social Security in 1935. It would be helpful if you could amplify on the above and let me know which time machine they used? Was it Doc and Marty's, did they hijack the phone booth from Bill and Ted (though I've gotta tell you, that would be more of a Gen-X move rather than Boomers), or did they go the long way using Professor Farnsworth's one-way machine?
I feel bad for the poor IT guy who will inevitably buy one of these TVs for a conference room or something. User tries to show a powerpoint and the device detects the static image as "paused" and starts playing ads instead.
Why can't we have films without any narrative at all, or any story. Just 90 minutes of explosions and one-liner quips seems like a healthy patriotic sort of film for high-status males like myself.
I saw a trailer for that movie, but I don't know what the release date is.
It would be the next-to-last decent film Disney made. I truly enjoyed it, watched it 6x in theater and bought the bluray the day it came out, but it was the last of the Great Films from Disney.
I'm assuming this quote reflects your desire to not talk about Bruno?
That sounds exactly like what a journalist should be doing
That's philosophy, not law. Also ignores the fact that while a journalist could receive that information if it's simply given to him, when he asks for it and provides aid in accessing/exfiltrating it, he becomes an accessory to the crime committed. The first amendment provides that congress may not abridge the freedom of speech or the press, it does not provide immunity from consequence for being part of a conspiracy to break into government systems.
esp. in hindsight since we now know manning exposed war crimes comitted by US troops in Iraq.
Did he really? I assume you are referring to the "collateral murder" video? If so, what "war crimes" are you asserting are present in that video? Firing on someone who is holding a device that is reasonably mistaken for a shoulder mounted weapon while you're in the middle of a firefight is not a war crime. Firing on a vehicle picking up combatants (even wounded ones) is not a war crime when the vehicle is not marked with a red cross or similar markings identifying it as an ambulance and protected from attack.
"I don't like what the country did" is not a license to break the law.
Does Assange have any obligation to protect US classified information? I don't think he does.
He does not. However, "instigating Manning to deliver to him secret data" would be "espionage" rather than an "obligation to protect classified information."
But that's still not my main point, the point is that there's more to the cost of the transaction that just the transaction. Fraud, insurance and more which all scale.
The above is a reasonable point--there are certainly more costs to the transaction than a simple approve/deny decision, the load on the network, and the eventual settlement. How much those costs scale with the transaction amount is debatable, but they certainly exist.
On the other hand, your original argument about "all the other things credit cards do" (for the cardholder) remains ridiculous, especially the bit about the amount of credit extended to the customer. The average credit card interest rate right now is 27.89%. Suggesting the merchant has to kick in on the card holder's debt service, which is already at usurious rates, "because it helps them spend money at your store" is crazytown.
You seem to have forgotten all the other things credit cards do. Like giving you a credit The cost of debt DOES scale by the amount. Or did you expect to have a mortgage with a "flat interest fee" because the cost of transacting loan doesn't scale with the size of the loan?
Given that the subject is fees paid by the merchant this is a ridiculous argument. Why would the amount of credit that the bank chooses to extend to you be something the merchant should pay for?
you do understand that private business (and individuals) CAN censor speech, right? The 1st amendment is protection ONLY from the government.
Yes, I understand that perfectly, which is why I said what I said. Here, let me repeat myself:
The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).
But the conclusion that the carjackers are there with or without firearms is a faulty one. All you "know" (and they didn't even know that) was that something that was stolen was in a given location, but the carjacker could have sold the airpods, given them away, discarded them (because they were aware of location data) and an innocent party picked them up and went home...
Going from "we believe stolen property is at the premises" to "there are firearms, ammunition, and accessories" is not a reasonable conclusion to make.
Twitter did just the opposite and hasn't run into any regulatory hurdles I can see.
Twitter is no longer a public company. With that said, it really shouldn't matter. The idea that a public company needs to "censor more" because of "regulatory requirements" sounds like it should be a first amendment issue (at least in the US, YMMV for other jurisdictions).
Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.
That's non-sensical. The US Code consists of laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not possess.
Bullshit. We all heard the comment. His bullshit excuse, which you mindlessly repeated like a brain-damaged cockatoo, is bullshit.
Going out on a limb and saying you didn't hear a damned thing, or you're just plain lying. Here is the whole quote:
Let me tell you something, to China, if you're listening, President Xi — and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal — those big, monster car-manufacturing plants that you're building in Mexico right now, and you think you're going to get that, you're going to not hire Americans, and you're going to sell the cars to us?
No, we're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that's going to be the least of it, it's going to be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars, they're building massive factories.
Sounds a lot less like what it's being portrayed as when it's not take out of context, doesn't it?
With all of the above said, fuck you for making me defend Darth Cheeto.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.