No, it's something slashdot did, since I never had the scroll before and didn't change any settings.
ãWhat do we call "taking something you didn't pay for" again? I know there's a word for it, but I forget...
There are several. Depending on context it could be called 'public property', 'marketing material ', 'free samples', 'your birthday' or even 'copyright infringement '.
I find it odd that you only seem to know one name for it and apparently assume that all other variations are that name being euphemised. Doubly ironic when you realise that the name your thinking off actually isn't what that is called. The definition of stealing has nothing about payment anywhere in it. It's defined by lack of consent - which may or may not be gained with payment and it doesn't apply to all things. No amount of lack of consent will make copyright infringement "stealing" for example.
His actions may or may not be illegal but they sure as fuck weren't theft.
You are crazy. Here is an example of the democratic process working, yet you desperately have to search for some conspiracy theory to continue your irrational hatred of the USA.
No. It's an example of a republic not working. What history books tend to call "decline and fall" when it's happened in the past. It is what happens when governments completely lose sight of, and concern with, and respect for, the principles that brought them into being.
This is real life, not a Tom Clancy novel.
Oh, we know. In Clancy's works the US TLAs are the good guys. That's not been the case for decades now.
It's deep, but it's dry. And it has a sharp rock floor at about the 100 foot level.
If we got rid of those damned banks, we would have to come up with a financial policy that encouraged manufacturing, since we do not have any raw materials and there is not much farm land either.
I fail to see how not having banks bleeding us dry would be a bad thing. (How many negatives can you get in a sentence?)
Why the hell not? I was doing quite well at forgetting France till you reminded me!
It is a recurring thing... and the polls show that this issue is a generational thing.
No one is reading 10,000 emails. You're going to want someone to pick an email interest out of the flock. for closer scrutiny.
As to WSJ being non-credible... tell us MR AC why is that?
You do realize that they're saying the same thing on this issue that the New York Times and MSNBC are saying right? There is no political division in so far as the facts are concerned here. The left wing media is turning on hillary. Its already over. All that remains is stripping anyone in her coalition dumb enough to think they can shrug this off of any remaining credibility. This is going to get uglier and uglier. And you're not going to be able to count on any credible media allies to back you up. The establishment media has already abandoned you. And most leftwing alternative media has also abandoned you. That includes politico and huffington post. Its over.
Do as your allies already did... turn on hillary and save what remains of your credibility. If you don't... you'll just lose.
Honestly, I hope as many of you refuse to listen to that sage advice as possible. It will just make the political bloodbath to come all the more complete.
I'm starting to understand why fire axes are so popular in the zombie apocalypse... they don't run out of ammo. These people are so fucking stupid. They just come at me drooling all over themselves while chewing their own tongues. I load another shell of logic into my boomstick of reason... blow the top of their rotten face off with an obvious fatal counter argument... then cock another logic shell and move on.
But my god there are a lot of these idiots.
No. Tautology means you're defining a given with itself.
If I say someone is a thief because they're a thief then that is tautology.
It is a kind of circular logic.
You're saying news corp is untrustworthy... this is a given from you. You're not offering any justification for it.
Then you use that given to say that subsidiaries of news corp must be untrustworthy as well because news corp is untrustworthy. This is one of the several false association fallacies.
And then you're saying that because those subsidiaries are untrustworthy a given story from those subsidiaries is untrustworthy... even though the story in question is a FUCKING RAW DATA DUMP. This is another false association fallacy compounded with blind fucking pigheaded mulishness when confronted with fucking facts. That isn't even a fallacy. That is just some retard pointing at the Sun and saying it isn't there.
That's bullshit. And if you don't see the several logical fallacies in that then you're an idiot.
First, the entire line of logic is fallacious.
Second, even if news corp -> WSJ -> this story were untrustworthy, the issue is that this is a RAW data dump and therefore the trustworthiness of the people posting it is irrelevant unless you're claiming that the data itself has been tampered with?
Your entire position is laughable from any rational stand point. You're wrong. And I just validated that position above quite firmly. I am not interested in you wasting any more of my time. You can either apologize for being a jackass or I will just say "good day, sir".
Your choice. Either way, I'm done with you.
And IBM wanted to charge silly money for the licence to make peripherals.
This was the ultimate demonstration of locking out third parties as a way to derail your project. Shame the lesson has not penetrated a few console manufacturers.
It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
You're saying a parent organization doesn't share your political leanings and so all subsidiaries are going to be polluted with BADTHINK and BADTHINK is all lies and UNGOOD because it wasn't approved by one of your ministry of truth censorship outlets.
The WSJ is releasing the RAW emails. Explain to me how the Rupert Murdock cooties get on your new messiah's emails when they are not altering them at all?
Actually don't. There's no excuse for your position. Any source offering the RAW data cannot impune the raw data... by definition. The data is fucking raw. If I am the slimmest liar ever and I give you raw unmodified records then those records include none of my slimy lies because its fucking raw.
The pathetic kneejerk reaction against anything not part of the leftist echo chamber should make you ashamed of yourself.
Are you really so far gone that tautology doesn't look like a fallacy for you?
You say they're not credible... why? Because they're not credible? Oh well, glad that got sorted out.
So you must accept that the God invented the universe etc as well right? Because that is also backed up with tautology and circular logic.
You're expecting me to accept the GIVEN that a host organization is inherently non-credible and that therefore all subsidiaries are not credible and therefore that a given story submitted by such a subsidiary is also not credible.
Your entire argument is a cascading waterfall of fallacious shit where the shit flows through a logic tree supported by assumed givens at the top then pools at the bottom where it is pumped up and pours through the system all over again.
As to you saying a financial adviser is credible or not... exactly how do you substantiate that position? You just saying " they don't know what they're talking about" is meaningless without some sort of supporting argument. Absent that you have an unqualified opinion that isn't worth anything.
I will take news from ANY source and evaluate it rationally. MSNBC does some good reporting sometimes and sometimes Fox does some good reporting. No one is all bad or all good. And discounting any given story simply because of the source is fallacious.
Let me explain what that means again because I don't think you understand what a fallacy is in the first place.
A statement is fallacious if it is not 100 percent true. If you say "everyone in my car is hungry after six hours in the car"... well, you might know YOU are hungry and MOST of the people in the car might be hungry but you don't know that EVERYONE in the car is hungry. It is fallacious because it isn't known to actually be true. It doesnt' follow that because YOU are hungry and everyone else SHOULD be hungry that they all actually ARE hungry. Maybe someone is dead. Maybe someone has been pigging out in the back eating snacks. Maybe anything. You don't know.
That is what it means for something to be fallacious. This passive slippery shit logic that so many people are comfortable with is inherently fallacious because people are not giving any attention to whether things MUST be true or MUST be false. You simply go with "probably" and "maybe" and "should" and thus don't actually fucking know anything.
As to bias, simply dismissing a source out of hand especially when they're passing no judgement on the source material but literally offering the RAW data for public evaluation is itself bias... on your part.
Admit it, apologize, and promise not to do it again. Or surrender any shred of intellectual credibility you were presumed out of common courtesy.
I have no patience for this shit.