It has nothing to do with licensing, some idiot's brain being on high (or being high), homeland "security" arresting him, or other make believe things.
If you're wanting to discuss the TV show, there are plenty of make believe places to go do that. This is not one of them.
The article is about the fraud of a man, not the show. He doesn't work with other countries to solve anything. He's a fraud. I know it's difficult to comprehend... here's the big reveal... READ THE ARTICLE UP AT THE TOP!
I love Adam. He was awesome on FireFly and he's great on The Last Ship. Heck, if you've been around you know he rocked it on Next Of Kin. (Patrick Swayze, may he rest in peace).
Walter O'Brien is a fraud. He has nothing to do with Adam (Baldwin or otherwise, although Baldwin is impressive!) This discussion is not about the TV show or the nonexistent scorpio character so guess-what... there is no such in this world.
Sometimes you have to take the head out of the sand to see the only sightless moron you're fighting... is you.
AUSA impropriety - who's going to charge him with a crime?
Niemoller... "Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
This is the US DoJ and AUSA Velamoor overreaching US Constitutional law about - freedom of speech - prior restraint and CDA wrt - Reason.com not being responsible for the content and finally - threats to reason.com for violating an order not in place at the time
WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THESE PEOPLE NOW? Because if you don't get the gist of the topic, ALREADY people are being silenced before they CAN speak for others or themselves.
This gross overreach isn't a one-time thing (the Techdirt article is instructive on the grand jury abuse) and the AUSA running it [because judge dissed] needs to be sent back to repeat law school.
Walter O'Brien is a fraud. His made up credentials is one of the reasons he and his company are hired, but they are purely false.
The article is about Walter O'Brien, the MAN. There is no discussion here about the TV show or its contents. It may be good or bad, realistic or not, futuristic or modern, but whatever it is IT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE.
We do not care about "holes in the story OF THE TV PLOT" only holes in the story that Walter O'Brien tells.
It's very narcissistic to come into a forum and without reading any of it -- or the original article -- plop down a steaming nugget of soft opinion on the show plot. Really don't do that in other people's living rooms. Leave your shit in your own outhouse.
Perhaps my fellow readers forget. When the majority leaders wants to prevent his peer from speaking, none shall speak. When he wants to prevent legislation from passing, none shall pass. This even if committee has blessed it in full.
Rand Paul can speak because strawman.
Section 215 will be reauthorized. Not because it's lawful (2nd circuit decision). Not because it was approved by the House. Because that is how the hand that strokes the other hand is rewarded.
So we have all day today (Saturday) and most of tomorrow (Sunday) to SPECULATE on "Oh wouldn't it be nice if..." but then they'll reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT's sunset sections (including 215) and there will be POMPOUS AGGRANDIZING speeches about how this is IMPORTANT AND VITAL for our SECURITY.
Except we read techdirt and know that none of this ever contributed to security or prevented any terrorist event. It just takes away our rights and gives money to assholes. I hope you don't mind my one frank word here. Please withhold judgment for 36 hours... by which time you'll either think I'm an idiot and have no faith in our elected "leaders"... or you'll be wanting to use similar language.
Walter O'Brien is a fraud. The things he claims - the basis on which he is hired - are not true and could not be true.
Dear Marie, your bull in a China shop approach to telling an entire forum of readers and hundreds of comments later to "get a life" is only as tone-deaf as William Shatner at a Star Trek convention.
The article is about the man, not the show. The discussion on this thread (absent illiterate narcissists like yourself who couldn't be bothered to actually read the article) is about the man, not the show.
While I appreciate that in the world of your own mind you can barge bull-in-a-China-shop style into anyone's living room anywhere and tell them what to do, fortunately your right to free expression only subjects you to ridicule here.
So "everyone who disagrees with me is a cynic" and "you all need love" and "leave him the hell alone" and "get a life" are a good way to let us know you're a mistreated bullied small child.
Work on your own failed relationships on your own time and place.
Normally TD is really good about showing the different marks and how there's no opportunity for confusion. This article did not include that.
Normally TD is really good about showing how one company's trade is different than the other's. Here they both talk about transportation but it's unlikely the olive-oil aussies will be going into space, launching an airline, or pretending they are real-blonde real-white-teeth 50-year old billionaires.
Normally TD does the research so when group B says "We agreed on all but one thing" we know what that one thing is so we can say "Mr. Branson's lawyers... how could you?" Yet, here... none of that.
More facts would be helpful to get a mass of support for the conclusions arrayed here...