I guess my question to the NYT would be why even leave the article up? It's not like there was a mistake in reporting on the story or some fact slip up, or that the story was super relevant to anything going on. It was a fluff piece that was, for all intents and purposes, totally made up. Dump it. Especially if they knew in advance and posted it anyway.
I hope if they paid Cohen for the piece they politely (and forcefully) asked for their money back.
Really? They must hire some "special" folk at the patent office if they granted a patent on "announcing x on social medium y." I'd have to assume something like wedding announcements in a newspaper would be prior art, but maybe not since they're not domain name registrations and not "on the internet." Totally different, I guess.
Obviously, as an elected representative with the responsibility to make laws, what better way to understand the greatly-in-need-of-being-legislated moral degradations facing society than to experience them first hand?
What kind of representative would they be if they tried to outlaw giant boobs in your face without having first had said giant boobs in their face?
As (somewhat) common as the language is today, it would be kind of rough for the little kids and would probably not be acceptable for casual Friday. Though I admit, I am grossly tempted to pick one up anyway.
Perhaps a future/alternate version could replace "Motherfucking" with "[REDACTED]", or just an asterisked version of the word?
I guess my question would be is there any recourse after going to court to get the ticket dismissed? As someone else pointed out, you're out whatever your costs for that day were just to fight a ticket you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. If you win, can you counter-sue for harassment or something? Not that I'm a big proponent of encouraging lawsuits, but maybe getting slapped back harder a few times would make someone in power wake up and look for a solution.
Sadly, said solution would probably be to make it actually be illegal, raise the fine tenfold, and give any agent who gives out a ticket a $10K bonus for a job well done.
I read it that way too the first time. This is one of those instances where punctuation really comes in handy.
I'm assuming (ass, u, me, etc.) the line was intended to read:
To paraphrase George W(ashington)., "God and the [C]onstituition give us liberty, arms in the hands of the people are the teeth."
BTW, in the course of verifying it was Washington and not another George W, it appears the quote the paraphrase comes from is fake. Also there's no mention of God in any of the variations, so not sure where that came from. But enjoy some free enlightenment.
I don't believe it says anything about Wikipedia losing editors, just that some of the editors question if Wikipedia is losing neutrality by participating in the blackout.
Although really, it's kind of hard to be neutral when one side is basically getting permission to shut down your entire site (or at least large chunks of it) because somebody may have posted something that somebody didn't like.
Here's the reply I got from my Senator, who at least seems to have a little bit better of an idea what the deal is:
Dear Mr. [NTC],
Thank you for sharing with me your opposition to S. 968, the Protect IP Act of 2011. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
The widespread use of digital media is still a relatively new phenomenon, and the law has not caught up with all the capabilities available to anyone with a computer and Internet access. This has prompted a vigorous debate on how digital copyrights should be protected, particularly with respect to the ongoing conflict between the rights of artists and producers to protect their intellectual property versus the recognized right of consumers to make recordings for personal use.
While I believe that we must ensure the continuing integrity of our important copyright laws both domestically and abroad, I agree that enforcement must take place in a manner that protects the rights of all parties involved. I will closely follow consideration of S. 968 in the Senate Judiciary Committee with your concerns in mind.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Knowing your concerns is helpful to me.
Forever ago I went to see a Reel Big Fish concert with a few friends, and for one of their more popular songs (I suppose maybe their only popular song depending on your taste in music), they let people come up for each of the instruments (drums, guitar, etc.) and let them play as an impromptu band. I don't recall it going so well (as some of them may have exaggerated their ability to play their selected instruments), but it was still wildly amusing and a great example of how to get fans involved and make sure they know how much the band appreciates them.
The other interesting thing to note is that there appears to have been another fight at UFC 91 a few years ago that's still readily available on YouTube. It seems to not be quite as nasty as the one at 129, but you can see the ring for a couple of seconds. But still, these videos have obviously been on YouTube for years now, so why the sudden change of heart on the most recent?
Kind of reminds me of the Pelosi informing the nation that we really won't know what's in the health care bill until it's passed.
This isn't quite the same. Pelosi's full comment that so many people love to take out of context was "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."
That second half of the sentence is actually quite important. She wasn't saying (as the trade minister is stating) that you have to pass it so you can see what's in it because we're not going to tell you (the healthcare bill itself was available to read for several months, iirc) and no one really knows what's in it (the healthcare bill was picked apart by damn near everybody). In the case of that bill, the common person had been told it was full of language intended to fund abortions with tax money, kill your grandparents with "death panels" and make it legal for the FBI to strip search your pets. The implication with her statement was once it was passed, it would become apparent what was real and what was made up by scaremongers to keep you in line and feeding at the teat of shock media.
This, like ACTA, is another instance of "We're totally committed to making this transparent, but really, shut up, stop asking questions, and accept it because we say its good for you, and by good for you, we mean great for the people that bought us in the last election. HEY, LOOK OVER THERE!"