The ever present bogey man justification. No need to have off shore monitoring of the actual potential threats (which would be massive ass container ships which are easy to track), put everything locally and monitor locally. That should let you know where the real problems are, and it's not really the bogey man.
Unpopular? How about committing illegal acts and getting away with it, and acting as a vigilante squad on their own as I demonstrated above (and TFA discusses). This has nothing to do with "popularity", it has everything to do with a company that is behaving as a cartel.
If you want to be delusional that is fine by me, but at least be honest about your intent to remain in the dark.
In this case? With regards to an industry that could be killed tomorrow if enough people simply voted with their wallet? Yes, I do think it's wrong.
This indicates that you really don't know how the world works, especially in terms of "entertainment". Perhaps 50 years ago this point would have some merit, but not within the last couple of decades at least. Actually investigate how the industry works, then we will talk.
To give you a hint, Sony in this case is a target because it's a single entity who has repeatedly screwed over consumers. They knowingly installed malware on people's computers and faced a class action lawsuit for it, though consumers received nothing from the damages. For higher profits they have sacrificed customers again and again, all to their benefit and consumer detriment. This part I am guessing you would agree with.
To the voting with your wallet, how big is Sony and how many tentacles do they have into virtually everything from hardware to software? Monopolization has ensured that you can't destroy a company that easily, it takes Government intervention to break up a company of this size. Since there are at least several Governments that pay Sony for all kinds of things from hardware to software, that won't happen any time soon. The breach and theft of a movie won't hurt them, it generates propaganda (those evil bastards just want our freedom) and PR for the movie. Are you daft enough to believe that Kim Jong-un can't figure out a comedy? Do you still believe that the Benghazi raid was because of a class E youtube movie too?
The point here is really that the only way to harm a company like Sony is with vigilantism. I don't agree with hackers releasing Sony customer data because that harms the consumers more than Sony. If they can force Sony to change, all the better. Exposing the MPAA/RIAA for their bullshit tactics may actually reduce some of the nonsense they do on a daily basis.
Will you also be quoting the National Enquirer in your quest to demonize anyone questioning the MPAA and/or Sony's behavior?
Do you believe that vigilantism is always wrong? Robin Hood was criminal stealing from "rich" who used criminal means of gaining wealth, and the peasants he was giving money to should have lynched him on the spot? (I realize this one is a fable, but a well known one and high on moral fabric).
If you don't believe vigilantism is always wrong, where do you think the line should be? Big companies are fine to do anything they want, as long as they pay the Governments to get away with it? Do the Governments have to be the actual robbers? (see next)
For posterity, the MPAA and RIAA have already targeted domains though requests to Government agencies. In this case, the MPAA is specifically considering acting as a vigilante and bypassing the Government. Can you attack a vigilante as a vigilante? Seriously, provide a rational perspective instead of gossip rags and OPED pieces. If you can't base your opinion on reason, don't bother.
And lets take out the BS regarding the DPRK launching a massive attack on the US. If you spent a few minutes contemplating the logistics you would see that this is not valid.
No, a "False Flag" does not mean completely fabricated (made up). False Flags relate to the Hegalian Dialectic, problem reaction solution. The problem does not have to be fabricated, and in fact these events work better when they are not. Stand down police to allow something to occur, then capitalize on the aftermath. In nearly all of the high profile FBI busts in the US in the last decade, the FBI acted as facilitators to recruit "terrorists", provided plans and direction for bombings, and even the fake bombs. They did not do the dirty work themselves, it would be too easy to trace. The term "patsy" should suffice for the normal.
No! He means the majority of white people are not born into vast pools of money and privilege as certain agendas are claiming. I am such a person, born into a poor white family from Detroit. Father died when I was 12, mom struggled to raise 2 kids on 1-2 jobs. I was not spoon fed a damn thing, I was however raised to believe in the American Dream. Work your ass off and you will get ahead.
I had no handouts for college, I spent 4 years in the Army so that I could pay for college. After the Military I worked full time and went to college full time, 4 years later I had 2 degrees and my first job in IT.
Your granddad is not the only person who has to pull themselves up from the bottom, people all over do it all the time. Today however, straight white males are starting way behind everyone else in the race and being crippled along the way. All because of this delusion that all straight white males have some sort of privilege. (hint: the people in the top
It is really not so difficult to follow a link to the source, you only need to read a little bit to find the page they reference. Which claim is ludicrous, the one that backs science you don't happen to like? Got it.
I provided science from the CDC, and I did the math using data from the same source. Are you going to claim the CDC is wrong on half of their data? Or you are claiming that you only believe the science that you want to believe? You can't have it both ways and be rational.
Show me which CDC report is wrong and show me where the math is wrong. Demonstrate it! If you can't do so, then you don't give a rats ass about "science" you only care about supporting a deluded believe that your opinion trumps science.
I was hoping that somewhere on Bennett's list I would find a "Terse Text for Dummies" but alas....
We can't have a rational dialogue because you make statements like that one.
Oh, the fact that you want clarification makes it an irrational dialogue? I don't believe you actually understand what dialogue is supposed to be if that's the case, but I'll bite once. All of the information that follows is using the CDC as the source unless I provide a link.
First, you can look up the rates for Autism without any help. This is one of many neurological disorders which have skyrocketed in the US over the last 40 years. In the 1970s and 1980s we were at 1 in 2000, and today it's at 1 in 68. This is only one of many, not the only disorder that has increased. Yeah yeah, our detection is better now but the reported cases of severe autism make up the majority of those numbers.
You can also look up the fact that we have moved from 8 vaccines (1 combo 1 series) from 1960-1980 to today's 49 doses of 14 vaccines today without help as well. CDC link, and here is a breakdown link to help you get started. Oh, and this by age 6 and by age 18 this goes to 69 doses of 16 vaccines.
We have drastically increased the amount of vaccines we get in our most sensitive year of development, and at the same time seen a similar rise in Autism and other neurological problems. As I said above, this does not prove causation but sure as hell does indicate a link. The CDC guidelines show that "severe" side effects for vaccines are about 1 in 10,000 but we are giving a kid 644 vaccines by age 6 (which is what the CDC recommends) we have upped the odds of receiving severe side effects to 6.44% of the population
Lots of time, money, and effort has been spent studying vaccines in the wake of Dr. Andrew "brought the medical profession into disrepute" Wakefield's original paper (which has since been retracted along with his UK license to practice medicine).
Do you mean the correlation that I just demonstrated above using the CDC as a data source showing a correlation between increased number of vaccines and increases in the number of autism? Or are you really trying to argue that these profit generators are purely altruistic as your second portion seems to imply?
Have done away with the fast track programs for vaccines? We have forced independent study so that Merck can not do the study for a Merck vaccine, and Bayer can not do the study for a Bayer vaccine to ensure no conflict of interests exist? In fact this is not the case at all. I'm not saying that Merck and Bayer don't spend money on researching effects, I'm saying there is an obvious conflict of interest with our current laws regarding how vaccines are tested and approved for consumption. We further have known issues where contaminated (bad) vaccines have been shipped for use overseas in developing countries.
Lets also not neglect that most of a vaccine is not just the live, altered, or inactive virus but a laundry list of other things that we are exposing kids ourselves to when getting vaccinated. Vaccines contain chemicals, metals, proteins, antibiotics and human, animal and insect DNA and RNA. Those mixtures are sometimes varied batch to batch without additional testing.
Nobody in their right mind should be hedging all of their bets on one doctors paper, just like nobody in their right mind should be claiming that all vaccines are the same.
I really don't get why people are against science when it comes to vaccines. Against it to irrational religious levels.
Have to love watching this post which is neutral and promotes dialogue, research, and education go from +5 insightful to a troll in under 20 minutes. Amazing how easy it is to censor isn't it?