You may not realize this but most people are incapable of seeing the future and/or being able to listen in to the backroom deals involved with this sort of thing, so it's only when it's a done deal that the public is finally able to find out just how they've been screwed.
'Vote for someone better the next time then!' I hear you say, to which the response is great, nice idea, now what happens when the next guy is voted in and finds out that yeah, contract the previous person agreed to means they're stuck, they can't do squat unless they want to trigger massive penalties?
Or they find out that hey, the ones who wrote this contract are much more generous than what they get from serving the public, and since the public can at worst only replace them every few years, and being 'fired' will likely lead to a lucrative 'retirement' offer if they make themselves valuable enough to the ones buying politicians, the public can get bent?
Stop tripping over yourself to blame the public for not knowing the future, and start applying that blame to those actually responsible and who know full well what they're doing, the politicians.
"Oh uh... we just... share the building... not the rent of course, but the building. Also we had no idea who they were before you told us, we had been wondering who those strangers were that were wandering in and out of the building."
Sounds like they expected Ars to just take their claims at face value and repeat them without any fact checking like the 'good' news agencies would have, and had no idea what to do when the lie was called.
Do you like chocolate? No? You must like vanilla then.
Dogs? No? Oh then you must like cats then.
Black? No? Then you must like white.
This may surprise you but it's entirely possible to believe that both are terrible choices, to believe that just because putting one is in charge is a terrible idea doesn't mean that you believe that putting the other in charge would be any better.
When I see people saying that they want to see Trump in office specifically because they think he'll make things worse in the hopes that that will be the tipping point... yeah, that's a stupid idea, and a stupid reason to vote for someone for the reason I noted above.
'Please hold all apluase until after the high-court treatment is handed out.'
Yeah, as much as I'd love to see Getty absolutely hammered here for blatant and flagrant commercial copyfraud, they're a big company, so I don't see more than a wrist-slap handed out for their 'accidental mistake', certainly not anything even remotely in the range anyone asked for, whether just a few hundred million or the higher amount of one billion.
Meanwhile individuals will continue to be slammed with insane fines for accidental or intentional copyright violations, because those that violate copyright must pay!
Yet another case where I'd love to be proven wrong, but fully expect to showcase once again high-court/low-court treatment.
'Funny' thing about elections and promises, once the former is over with there's nothing stopping someone from completely ignoring the latter.
If she is in favor of TPP, as seems to be the case, the public will only find out for sure once it's too late to change their vote and it reaches the point of 'Roll over and take it' vs 'Mass protests in hopes that the politicians pay attention to the will of the public.'
I've run across that idea before, and it never ceases to confuse and/or horrify me. It strikes me as similar to someone saying that the only way to demonstrate how bad car crashes are is to deliberately get in one, while they are in the car.
The USG is already a huge steaming pile of bad(among other things), I really don't need some narcissistic nutjob elected to what is supposed to be the highest office in the country to demonstrate this to me.
Ubiquitous violations of rights anywhere within 100 miles of the border -> No expectation of any rights within that zone.
Ah right, you said 'next', not additionally. Eh, I'm sure they'll find some way to justify screwing over the public in a new and exciting way by claiming that they've been doing it already, so no harm done continuing.
Do you have any actual argument for why he's wrong beyond 'McAuliffe is an idiot', or is that it? She and her running mate were both for TPP before and then changed their mind, the latter almost literally overnight, and people are supposed to believe that they're telling the truth now, when it's most politically expedient to be against it, as opposed to before, when it wasn't as likely to cost them votes?
Also I notice you didn't spend any time at all mentioning all the other wrongdoing by every other politician on the planet, guess that's 'not your beat, eh?' I mean come now, if you're going to mention the actions/statements of one politician you have to bring up the actions and/or statements of all of them less you be accused of only focusing on one while ignoring the other(s), that's just how it works, right?
"Elephant? What elephant? I don't see any elephants in this room."
“Yes. Listen, she was in support of it. There were specific things in it she wants fixed.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, has gone on record saying he cannot support the Trans-Pacific Partnership in its current form— a stance calculated to make him more appealing to supporters of Bernie Sanders who revile the deal.
It's a good thing that nothing like, oh I dunno, let's call it 'Fast Track Authority' is in place making it so that 'trade' deals like this are essentially given 'Take it or leave it' status for the next few years(at least), making any tweaks or changes impossible, and all those 'worries' about parts of them utterly meaningless.
Worries about pieces are meaningless unless those worries are enough to torpedo the entire thing, which I really doubt is the case, so this is nothing more than dishonestly trying to have it both ways, appearing to care about the concerns of those against the 'trade' deals while knowing full well the lip service given to those concerns are ultimately completely empty.
Re: ...this country's own information warfare efforts.
It almost makes one wonder if Comey himself is on Putin's payroll.
No need to toss around unlikely maybes when the more likely answer is much simpler:
Comey wants to undermine encryption and public safety and security not because he's on someone's payroll, but because he doesn't give a damn what happens to anyone but himself and weakened encryption makes his job easier. It's likely that simple, weaker/broken encryption means he has access to more information with less work, and since he isn't likely to be directly harmed by the fallout he doesn't care in the slightest what damage will result from broken encryption.
First of all, 'Darwinist'? Doesn't exist outside of religious apologist minds. People don't believe in evolution because Darwin proposed it, they believe it to be true because of the evidence supporting it, a good amount of it(genetics mapping) discovered after Darwin's time.
In science, unlike religion, who says something matters a lot less than what was said, so the absurd notion that anyone who believes that evolution by natural selection is a 'Darwinist' is completely absurd, and a frankly laughable attempt at projection. Just because someone is a 'Christian' because they believe in Christ doesn't make someone who believes in evolution a 'Darwinist'.
As for Hitler? Yeah, absolutely religious, you don't get to shrug him off just because he happened to be religious and did stuff you don't like. The whole 'master race' thing had nothing to do with evolution, the idea was that only the 'pure' race(Aryans) were created in the image of god, meaning interracial mixing was a sin and creating abominations.
But hey, don't just take my word for it, take his:
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
Sorry(no I'm not), but Hitler is and remains your baggage.
Elsevier can be worked around though. Even if that particular parasite has a stranglehold on a lot of older stuff they'd be in a bit of a bind if enough people stopped falling for their con and went elsewhere to publish.
Disney on the other hand isn't so easy to deal with because they're buying laws, which affect things today and tomorrow, and is a lot more difficult to just ignore and/or bypass.
When/if Elsevier starts pushing for laws making it mandatory to publish through them then I'll agree that they're a bigger problem than Disney, but as far as copyright related hypocrisy Disney is, and remains, king.
Yeah, Disney is easily one of if not the worst offender given how much money they've made off of public domain works, only to turn around and spend large amounts of it making sure that nothing of theirs ever enters the public domain.
Hey, you just watch, any day now Zombie Presley will rise from his grave, hands covered in dirt and clutching a guitar, and immediately start creating masterpieces the likes of which the music world has never heard.
Sure most of them will be on the topic of the taste of brains and how he could really do with some, but still, utter musical masterpieces, works that would never be created if copyright didn't last decades past the point of death, meaning even post-mortem creators still have incentive to create and/or rise and instigate a zombie apocalypse with stirring music playing to drown out the screams.
Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
The phrase you're looking for is 'herd immunity', where the number of people that can be infected by a given strain is drastically cut down, making it less likely that those that can't(or are too stupid to do so) get vaccinated don't get ill.
Herd immunity also has an equally, if not more important function besides making it more difficult for disease to spread in that it makes it less likely for a disease to mutate, possibly into a form that the previous vaccinations don't work against.
If a disease never manages to get a foothold in a host then it has no time to mutate and spread as it's killed off too quick, whereas if it can then there's a chance for it mutate into a strain different enough that a previously protected person is now vulnerable.
This is one of the reasons anti-vaxxers are one of the few groups that I am honestly disgusted by and hold in contempt, because they're not just putting their lives and the lives of their children(if they have them) at risk, but everyone else as well by their actions.