They don't arrest them on the spot, they wait until there's enough dots to connect to charge them with something and THEN they arrest them
You almost seem to say that like you would rather that they actually *DO* go and arrest people who haven't done anything illegal. Obviously that's absurd.
You clearly can't suggest that it is somehow wrong for them to not arrest somebody who hasn't actually done anything wrong, even if they may expecting them to do so eventually.
Are you suggesting, then, that it should be wrong for them to expect anyone to possibly break the law when they haven't actually done so?
Because that treads dangerously close to suggesting that certain thoughts should be criminal.
Who suggested that I needed anybody here to defend what I'm saying? if NFL's lawyers actually came down on me for daring to describing a game that they had televised to somebody else (they probably wouldn't even ever do that, but let's say just assume that they did), I would expediently point out those facts to them, at which point they would promptly drop any intention of pursing it further, since I would have shown that I won't be backing down,and would only be costing them money to try and make a case they couldn't actually prove in court.
Their cost = lawyers fees. My cost = $0.
You would only go bankrupt if you are paying a lawyer. You don't need a lawyer to state what is simple objective truth, that is, that facts are not actually copyrightable. The NFL is perfectly welcome to claim that they prohibit it, but they have precisely zero ability to actually enforce that except against people who either can't be bothered to stand up for themselves, or are too fearful to because they believe that the NFL might have such jurisdiction. They do not. I know that. And I know beyond any shadow of doubt, to the point that I would willfully stake even my very life on it, that it would cost me precisely zero dollars to educate their lawyers of this fact. Of course, it won't come down to that, because they know that they really don't have that ability, and the instant that anybody actually ever tried to point this out to them, they would back down in heartbeat to avoid the legal expense it would incur.
It should be criminal to sue somebody over a matter that you actually have no lawfully recognized jurisdiction in, but it often isn't... and so the NFL can continue to get away with such tactics for as long as people are either too ignorant to realize that they do not have such authority or are too indifferent to bother to try to defend themselves.
They would not get with it with me, however.
Wouldn't work.
My hair is curly, which means unless I have it convict short, it needs cutting with some degree of skill for me not to look like Marge Simpson.
Maybe not.... but is plainly calling someone by a derogatory and racist term suspension worthy? In many jurisdictions it is.
Like witchcraft, words do not have any power themselves to do harm, but the notions can nonetheless be hurtful to those that it may be used against, even if the person who is being spoken does not believe that there is any credibility to it. It is that potential to do harm that the school is trying to address... not that they suggest they should take such threats as being remotely credible.
geekdom is a counterculture, [
In a lot of ways geekdom is no longer counterculture. You made a reference there ot one of the most profitable book series of all time. That's hardly counterculture. And look at how many of the recent most highly profitable movies have been sci-fi or comic book based.
I stand with you feminists!
No, you don't. Because the people in the article are actually doing something about bringing equality. All you've done is list a bunch of causes but not lifted a finger t odo anything about them.
If you actually care, pick a cause, find the relevent organisation and join/volunteer/donate money. Unless you're doing that, all you're doing is complaining that someone's pet causes aren't the same as yours, and you don't really stand with anyone.
Well and good. But straight men go to barbers, not hairdressers.
Both of the last two hairdressers I've used have been men. Both married and therefore presumed straight. I say the last two, but I've had the odd intermediate one who was terrible.
And these are genuine hairdressers, not barbers. They mostly cater to women. They still od a very good job on my hair, as it's rather tricky to get right.
A rising tide raises all boats.
I think we should introduce more nautical analogies. How about:
To tacking upwind, you must go a bit sideways.
Or
Ah but we need to put three sheets to the wind.
Or
Splice the mainbrace ye scurve dogs. Avast! And blast ye to Davy Jones Locker.
Listen up MPAA, here's the key: Make it easy for customers to give you money and receive the product they want in the time frame they want it.
Their current strategy is:
Hey you paid money. Fuck you!
Have obnoxious unskippable trailers and ads and stupid menus, and a BR player that needs to be connected to the internet and let us shout at you not to be an evil pirate, even though you paid us money you scum.
Or there's TPB, which does none of that.
The adversary mentioned in Job is not "Satan the Devil". It's in fact not a name, but a non-proper noun. "The adversary" "The opposer"
Nor is it in any way clear that it is somehow an adversary to God. It can, and probably should, be read as an adversary to Job himself.
Are you still required to follow the rules the ticket purchaser 'agreed' to?
The rules apply if and only if you use said ticket. So yes, you are still required to agree to the rules to use the gift.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
