So your point is that maybe he's just afraid of being rich, for a reason? But it's too late! The money is already his, and half of the stuff you described is already happening.
He needs to accept that there's a world full of people out there, and guess what, he's in it. And however sad that may be, saying "leave me alone" is sometimes not enough. People sometimes get to you anyway. Of course, publishing a life-changing mathematical proof doesn't help.
Now that he's already in the spotlight, and especially if he wants to be left alone, he needs to take a stand regarding the prize. Either he takes it, or he calls Millennium and get them to withdraw/donate/whatever, or he refuses and tells the media why... something. The money is already in his porch, and he needs to deal with it. Doing nothing is only making it worse.
Will: Oh, come on! What? Why is it always this? I mean, I fuckin' owe it to myself to do this or that. What if I don't want to?
Chuckie: No. No, no no no. Fuck you, you don't owe it to yourself man, you owe it to me. Cuz tomorrow I'm gonna wake up and I'll be 50, and I'll still be doin' this shit. And that's all right. That's fine. I mean, you're sittin' on a winnin' lottery ticket. And you're too much of a pussy to cash it in, and that's bullshit. 'Cause I'd do fuckin' anything to have what you got. So would any of these fuckin' guys. It'd be an insult to us if you're still here in 20 years. Hangin' around here is a fuckin' waste of your time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but TFA only shows that:
- BEFORE the merger, Youtube was intentionally lax about video copyright;
- Google knew it.
That can be easily downplayed in court by Google, by saying "yes we knew but that's why we bought it, so we could fix that part". Plus, Google's got plenty of evidence of their effort to remove copyrighted stuff AFTER the merger.
Now, about countering "your evidence of infringement was uploaded by yourself"...
2. You don't have the right to know all indisputable facts. I don't have the right to know your sexual orientation, what medication you may or may not use, who you voted for in the presidential election, where you live, your social security number or your bank account PIN.
True, but while no one's claiming to have the right to know, Wikipedia is claiming to be unbiased. And bias towards noble intentions is still bias. WP should have stuck to its encyclopedia roots, and allowed any edit backed by reliable sources. Of which there were a few.
And on that "noble intentions" bit, there was no way to be absolutely sure that suppressing the news about the kidnapping would help. Maybe that could have caused the guy to die. And WP, by taking the same side of other media outlets who complied with the blackout, would be accountable. Instead, if they had just reflected what's been reported elsewhere, they could have kept their distance from whatever outcome.
NOOOOOO IT'S REAL IT'S REAL.
Posted 22 Hours Ago
Church of Scientology
Given that this is the same author of the original post, and that there is no link to a CoS website source anywhere, I guess that's not really Mr. Miscarriage's opinion. Not that it would surprise me if it were.
ESPN is just trying to stick to their classic business model.
When the only way to get ESPN was cable TV, they lobbied the cable companies to make sure ESPN was included on as many channel packages as possible, even if it meant ignoring consumer requests. That way more people paid their fee, even if they were not watching the shows. And they made money off people who never watched their channel.
This is just an attempt to repeat that model. Now cable TV is the net, cable companies are ISPs, but even though ESPN is on all packages by default, they're not making money off non-watchers anymore.
Guess what ESPN, proxies and offshore ISPs will not go away. So I guess you're gonna have to depend on the quality of your shows in order to make money. Bummer...
"Aww, if you make me cry anymore, you'll fog up my helmet." -- "Visionaries" cartoon