That John Stewart bit was funny, but ultimately ironic. His chief complaint about Chicago stuffed pizza apparently consisted of his determining that it was more like a casserole than a pizza, then he proceeded to show us all how to eat a New York flaccid pizza piece like a burrito. I was more than a little surprised at the hypocrisy.
Plus, a Chicago style pizza actually has ingredients you can taste, whereas a New York pizza is fried flatbread with once-tasty but now rendered flavorless toppings....
There used to be an old joke floating around the NASA brass that if you took all the staff that worked on any Apollo mission, lined them up, and shouted "Zieg Heil!", roughly half of them would respond....
Re: Simple solution. Lower then speed limits and shorten the yellow light period
Lowering the speed limit doesn't do the trick. As long as we're only BARELY pretending that this isn't simply about revenue, why not go all the way?
The Dark Helmet City Beautification and Enrichment Proposal: variable speed limits! That's right, Mr. Mayor, we create a jobs bill based strictly off of replacing those old metal speed limit signs in the entire city with digital display speed limit signs. Then, we incorporate ASL into the mix: Adjustable Speed Limit.
Speed limits will change throughout the day in random intervals under the bullshit excuse that we're watching traffic patterns and making shit safer for puppies or whatever. What it ends up meaning is that you have no idea what the speed limit on your own block is day to day, or even minute to minute.
THINK OF THE MOTHERFUCKING REVENUE, YOU MANGLED-HANDED MONSTER!!!!
"I guess my first question to you is how we determine what this "best system" would look like."
You model which would result in the most economic and/or artistic output. You study different government's systems which will necessarily have different levels of protection and you measure their output per capita.
"What you think is best likely differs from what I think is best."
Output is the measure the framers were interested in. It's the entire point of copyright.
"I think the empirical approach raises more questions than it answers, and as far as foundations go, it's not a very good one."
Then we have nothing, because we're certainly NOT going to make good policy based on feelings and/or anecdotals.
Just want to point out that this is pure troll. AJ/antidirt was challenged to prove his statement with a citation. Instead of doing so, which would have vindicated him, he instead issues a counter-challenge that has nothing to do with his previous assertion.
1. It is possible to think authors generally shouldn't have exclusive rights to their works in the form of copyright and not "smear" them for standing up for those rights.
2. This one is easy. Techdirt lauds well-used trademark, for instance. I've written those articles myself.
"I am certainly welcome for you to provide how this would not be leftist in nature."
I've now read this sentence three times and I can't figure out what kind of English this is supposed to be. As for leftist/right-wing, this story is apolitical. I can't understand why anyone would think that the world needs to be divided into left/right on every last stupid thing....
"Last time I checked most people on the right do not flip out cause their kid drew a gun or bomb."
You're kidding me w/this, right? The right wing has multiple time lost their collective shit over anything to do w/Islam in schools, suggesting that it's linked to terrorism and whatnot. Terrorism = violence, by guns or bombs. You're wrong.
"Namely, The Fine Young Capitalists, a feminist group, was harassed by Zoe Quinn and it was not reported."
Because, in the context of the "mass" video game media, it's barely a story. I'm an AVID gamer, and I'd never heard of either Zoe Quinn or the FYC before this stupid "controversy" broke out. None of this matters. It's not worth the bandwidth the story would take up.
"Not by you"
You and I have been specifically discussing this in comments and in the chat room on an ongoing basis. Both are public forums. This bullshit about demanding that independent media outlets cover according to your demands is insane. Who do you people THINK you are?
"Further, you skipped right over how 32,000 comments were deleted from Reddit when they were talking about it."
Yes, that was bad, and shouldn't have been done. It also represents a big fat nothing with regard to the larger "controversy" GamerGate portends to be about. You people are all over the map, which is what I've been saying all along.
Your movement was hijacked from its onset, it has no clear and concise complaint, it often makes accusations that turn out to be blatant falsehoods, and it has allowed itself to be characterized by some of the most vile human shitheads I've ever heard about who think it's fun to threaten death and rape upon people who don't deserve it. It's broken, and it was NOT broken from the outside, so start it anew, make it make sense, stop bitching about tiny little sub-issues that don't mean anything in the larger context, and stop with the petulant demand that major and minor media outlets cover every story you seem to think is worth covering, and I'll get right on board with you. Gaming journalism is broken, but what you're talking about with the Zoe Quinn "scandal" is akin to the airplane being on fire and you're insisting we all talk about how it's made the soda cans too hot to drink. THE PLANE IS ON FIRE. Focus on that.
Are you KIDDING ME!??! The entire concept of her being "abusive" in her relationship is from a one-sided account. The late-comers might want to cry ethics, but this whole thing started because a bunch of people got upset at a woman in gaming who had a sex life.
For all I know, Zoe Quinn is a worthless person, a jerk, someone who I'd hate to spend time with. That still doesn't mean she isn't allowed to fuck dudes or make games, and I STILL haven't found where she received positive coverage on a game, or had a game pimped for her, due to her sleeping with someone. Despite all the fervor, STILL no evidence of that. Only a tiny mention in an unrelated article by a guy she is accused of banging AFTER the article came out.
"What it appears to be entirely about (and has since the very start) is anger that women gamers and developers actually exist and are speaking in public."
I actually think that's unfair to the majority of the people in the gamergate movement. I believe what most of them are fighting against is exactly what they claim to be fighting against: SJWs, social justice warriors. I think they're sick of discussions about how the games they love should be judged for how they portray women instead of simply being enjoyed for fun. I think they believe it's silly to critique video games the same way we do television, art, and literature. I think that they believe video games are for light-hearted, often mindless fun, not for social critique.
They're INCREDIBLY WRONG on every count, mind you, but I don't think the majority of gamergaters actively hate women or don't want women in their games industry. They just don't want to have to think about the social context of those games, what those games have to say about all of us playing them, or how the industry functions.
And, as I said earlier, until they can control the violence-threatening, idiot minority in their own ranks, they don't get to set the agenda. The dickheads have set it for them.
"Feminists have been making death threats as well."
Show them to me and I'll happily condemn them as well. However, unless we're talking about threats in the same amount and level of seriousness as SEVERAL female developers and journalists have received, we'll just call that a sad attempt at false equivalency and move on, I think....
I HATE arguments like that. The "the crazies don't represent us", or "the women-haters are a tiny minority of the movement" sounds great, except it's irrelevant as an argument, and here's why.
It's a simple matter of priorities. I know 2 things about GamerGate.
1. A lot of late-comers to the movement have a sincere and vested interest in gaming journalism and their interest in games reporting should is a good thing. They even have some valid criticisms that should be listened to, though there is a TON of misinformation out there.
2. Some percentage, I don't care how much, is TRULY harassing women, attacking women and feminists simply for voicing their opinions, and almost certainly committing crimes of harassment and threats of violence in the process.
Now, until we ALL, including the "moderate" gamergaters, get that 2nd issue under control, issue number one is going to be off the table. It won't be addressed, because it's less important and, like it or not, it's spotlight has hijacked whatever legitimate movement you might have once had.
GamerGate is over, and it was killed from the inside. Rename the movement, re-brand it, and launch it again with the legitimate questioning of gaming journalism minus the feverish childish bullshit anti-women antics, and I'll get on board with you. Until then, you're the "moderate religious" who don't blow themselves up but still think apostasy is a crime punishable by death, and you're my enemy.