Thank you for informing us that the term "journalism" has become a proper noun. I'm sure everyone is glad to know "you're" is now spelled "your'e" as well. Do you still feel clever?

Aw, poor baby, did I touch a nerve? Grow a pair, jackass.

I certainly hope so; I'd have to rate you as severely cognitively impaired otherwise. Please be advised that I'm a former service member and a firm believer in the exercise of second amendment rights. Have a great day, and if you're thinking of coming to visit, enjoy your flight!

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. It would seem that unless ISIS initiates content removal requests, the media in question would not be subject to ordinary reproduction restrictions, as it was released for public distribution by ISIS. This said, I urge you to consult competent legal counsel regarding jurisdictional considerations.

I don't care about relevant rules/restrictions/regulations/laws adhered to the by people the UK in matters such as this; that's largely my point. My immunity starts where their jurisdiction stops.

I'd love to offer you the excuse that you must be unfamiliar with the way the UK treats freedom of expression, but judging by your last sentence you're plainly aware of the true state of affairs. You didn't even do a passable job of prettying it up with your preceding statements. At least we're in agreement that the UK clearly operates under different rules. Public communication of possible state criminal prosecution due to the dissemination of information such as the video in question amounts to one thing only: a veiled threat, no matter how politely put it may be. I don't have to accept that from where I sit.

Internet tough guy? I post with my full name, and my residential address is easy to come by. Please tell me you're not so cognitively impaired that you can't figure it out. I'll be glad to have this discussion with you in person if you like; please feel free to swing by the house whenever you like. I do ask that you provide a bit of advance notice, as I wouldn't want to mistake you for an unwelcome guest and take unfortunate adverse actions upon your arrival.

You're absolutely correct that the AC I responded to has a right to his privacy. I have a corresponding right to call him a coward, and not simply in the AC sense. As for considerations regarding Foley's family wishes, he was a United States citizen. As soon as I receive a valid written communication from the his estate to the effect that they don't want people directly appraised of the savage acts committed against him, I'll gladly act in accordance with said wishes. As for your wishes on the matter, I suggest you print them out on quality cardstock, roll the pages into a neat little cylinder, and go fuck yourself with it. Enjoy, champ.

Copyright doesn't apply to productions made in the course of a criminal act, and with that, we're done.

I firmly dispute the ability to move faster and easier with a weapon at hip level, and this is from personal experience moving while firing. Firing a rifle from the hip while moving is at best a waste of ammunition which you're likely to wish you'd used more carefully thereafter, and at worst an invitation for adversaries to leverage the opportunity to eliminate you with reduced fear of being hit themselves.

That fits the context well enough with regard to certain parties being welcome to go fuck themselves.

I'll add one point to my last comment. Please attempt to have me brought up on charges; I'm not difficult to find. Given your position on these matters, I'd adore the opportunity to leverage the justice system and whatever ancillary measures are necessary to discover and publicize your identity. You speak boldly, but I doubt you possess the fortitude to see your name attached to your statements.

I am, however, acquainted with the fictional journalist Zoe Barnes. The re-imagining of "House of Cards" has been a good series thus far.

Thanks for the clarification; I have not heard of her, as I am not at all interested in videogame journalism.

Nonsense on two counts. (1) Who are you to dictate the ethical positions of those viewing this information? I find the information in question to be a remarkably effective tool for educating others about the realities of such savage acts, and to urge them directly defy those who directly sponsor such savagery. (2) Even assuming the material is considered to be in support of terrorism by officials in a particular portion of society, that their citizens have decided to permit silly and hazy laws to be enacted against distribution of such material instead devoting government resources to combating actual acts of terror, and that those citizens have decided to permit their elected officials to threaten their little corner of the planet with those laws, I don't give a damn. My portion of society isn't affected by those threats, and thus those who might consider attempting to threaten me under inapplicable jurisdictions are welcome to go fuck themselves. Apparently, you're invited to the latter party. Would you care for some lube?

KSM efficacy is of course workload dependent; I specifically nodded to this factor as follows:

I'm not experiencing issues with memory performance. Could you cite specific data you've collected in your environment? Perhaps huge pages would be helpful for your use case.

Assuming more than a handful of application instances, a container solution is nearly certain to be less prudent. Please feel free to reach out to me via email if you'd like to collaborate on potentially better approaches to the problems you're tackling.

Obligatory.

You seem to be wagering that the police in question are very good in bed, or at least better in bed than those who would prefer more widespread dissemination (not to be confused with other terms ending in "ination") of this sort of information. I question the wisdom of that bet.

Did I miss some sort of /b/ or film reference here? I've been out of the loop for a while owing to more pressing concerns.