more than anything, in my opinion, this shows that government is NOT happy until it has ruined someone's life, not just their career, in pursuit of a prosecution. the prosecution is the ultimate goal but if that fails, as it did in this case, doing anything to get revenge for that failure then becomes the next ultimate desire. accusations abound with no evidence other than what the DoJ or whoever can dream up and once those accusations have been thrown about, although they may well be totally unfounded, without any sort of proof, it's up to the poor person concerned to prove innocence and then try to get some sort of a life back. how the hell can anyone justify this sort of thing?
"Two FBI agents approached her, their faces stony. “Do you know any foreigners?” they asked."
Forget how idiotic that question is in reference to her role and history, just consider how idiotic it is in terms of an attitude to law enforcement. Knowing people from other countries is now a potential offence in the minds of those upholding the law?
I'm assuming the quote is from the paywalled WSJ article linked, but even if that's a paraphrase of the conversation and they only means people from Pakistan, that's an astoundingly xenophobic attitude. As someone who is currently sat in an office with at least 20 different nationalities sat around me, it's incredible.
Amazing how the US thinks that its sugar coated sporting "products" are somehow important. The rest of the world doesn't understand them and cares even less.
However the use of sports "rights" as a toehold and a lever to bully people into taking up a new service is quite a traditional thing now. It is the way in which satellite and cable got off the ground here in the UK.
Of case the basic model is usually not to "offer something new" but rather to take something familiar away from its traditional venue in an attempt to force people to take up a new service. That is how Rupert Murdoch bullied his way in to the UK TV scene.
So long as the cable companies continue to show the events Amazon's offering will not make a huge impact.
What they need to do is to put up a big enough bribe to the sports associations to get themselves an exclusive deal. If that happens then it really is curtains for the cable providers. If you are simply
"I thought his comment was bad, but your response is so hateful"
Sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek, etc. are more apt descriptors.
"People that don't agree with liberal ideals are vile scum?"
When the ideals are like the ones I mentioned, yes. Or, do you have a nicer word for people who oppose equality? It's interesting that you're more concerned with the names I call such people than the ideas they hold. Thin skin does seem to be a strangely common trait in people who disagree with "liberals", it seems.
"I don't think I would want to subscribe to ideals that teach me that anyone that doesn't think as I do are "vile scum"."
You wouldn't want to subscribe to ideals that tell you that racist neo Nazis are vile scum, for example? Interesting. I wouldn't want to subscribe to ideals that tell me that their words and actions are acceptable, personally, but to each their own.
It is lawful by definition only. It is still mugging, when you take into account, how many of those warrants are being obtained: Be a cop, go to the judge of your liking and the judge will just sign it without even reading. That's probably not what the lawmaker intended.
I agree that it would be better if the trademark didn't apply at all. My point was, since it historically applies in one place then it's not idiotic to allow it to apply across the EU since the company trades and has merchandise in multiple EU countries.
If you think this stuff is silly and complicated now, imagine what it would be like if trademarks could be retroactively removed just because people didn't think of something at a time it was granted or you start expanding into other markets (as was the AC's idea above).
It looks to you...? Have you not seen the rabid attacks we've had from people bashing us for daring to criticise St. Donald of Trump?
If that's not "acolyte levels of attention," what is it?
Protip: don't build a cult of personality around your Glorious Leader; it makes [rhetorical] you look ridiculous.
It's true, though; the Dems are all over their fallen idol like flies on... that stuff... whingeing about the Russkies stealing the election and handing it to Trump. She's a neocon warmonger and we're better off without her.
I'd say it's actually quite likely. It's well documented how close they are to the **AAs of the country, and it's well documented how much those people *hate* having to go after the people actually infringing rather than the nearest available scapegoat.
This will backfire, in that sense, as all it will do is make the smaller sites shut down easier and faster, while consolidating more successful services with the likes of Google who have the resources to fight them. But, they've never been particularly good at doing things correctly.
"What the border agents did was perfectly legal, because border agents have virtually unlimited powers. Problem is not border agents... problem is rules"
Really? It's not the border agents' fault for acting like this because nobody's stopping them? Sorry, but that means it's absolutely the agents' fault for acting like this.
A case of it not being their fault would be "I would have treated the guy correctly but statute X means I would be liable for prosecution if I did" not "there's no statute saying I have to act correctly".
But!... even W-O-R-S-E than the arrest and detention of "journalists" in various HOTSPOTS around the world, is the "CYBER ARREST AND DETENTION" of netizens' otherwise FREE EXPRESSION on the Net!... and, within the very Elite Corporate sites that these "journalists" often report to! . Above and beyond the arbitrary removal of Comment Logs/ Clogs from websites as SPAM, Spam, spam, is the INSIDIOUS denial of Clogs, A-L-T-O-G-E-T-H-E-R! And my recent "CYBEREPHIPHANY", and "CYBEREURIKA MOMENT" concerning C-O-M-P-L-E-T-E C-L-O-G D-E-N-I-A-L, has been to suggest a wholly new method for RESPONSIBLY RANKING Search Engine search results (regardless of the Search Engine!), wherein and wherewith Elite Coorporate media interests are desparate to be seen!... and my method, it is as follows... . IT IS MY POSITION THAT ALL SEARCH RESULTS (REGARDLESS OF THE SEARCH ENGINE BEING USED!) SHOULD BE "M-A-N-D-A-T-E-D" TO BE W-E-I-G-H-T-E-D I-N F-A-V-O-U-R OF RESULTS, THAT ALLOW FOR F-R-E-E (BOTH UNINTERMELLED, AND COST-FREE!) P-U-B-L-I-C C-O-M-M-E-N-T-A-R-Y (AND THUS, REQUIRING A COMMENT LOG/ CLOG SECTION TO BE PRESENT WITHIN SITES, IN ORDER FOR A WEBSITE TO BE GRANTED "PREFERENTIAL RANKING" BY, AND WITHIN, A-N-Y SEARCH ENGINE!)! AND THUSLY!... ELIMINATING THE CURRENT PRACTICE OF SEARCH ENGINES... AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS"!... FROM INDIVIDUALLY, OR JOINTLY "M-A-N-I-P-U-L-A-T-I-N-G" "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY AWAY FROM "TOP BILLING (THROUGH PERVERSE 'SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMIZATION'/ SEO ALGORITHMS!... AND/ OR, OTHER 'A-N-T-I SEARCH NEUTRALITY' AND 'A-N-T-I NET NEUTRALITY' ALGORITHMS!)"!... AND THEREBY, PLACING CLOG-FREE WEBSITES (MANY OF WHICH, ARE MEDIA SITES!) AT THE TOP OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS! AND, SIMPLY BECAUSE, SEARCH ENGINES!... AND/ OR "CERTAIN" THIRD-PARTY "ELITE INTERESTS"!... FEEL THAT THESE (INTERESTS!) ARE DIRECTLY, AND/ OR INDIRECTLY, ADVERSELY "POLITICALLY/ SOCIALLY IMPACTED (BY COMMISSION AND/ OR OMISSION!... DIRECTLY AND/ OR INDIRECTLY EVIDENCED!)" BY THE O-T-H-E-R-W-I-S-E "SEARCH ENGINE ALLOWED" "RESULT RANKING" OF SUCH "POLITICALLY CHARGED", OR "LEANING" COMMENTARY (E.G., THE MESSAGE YOU ARE NOW READING!)! . (IN OTHER WORDS, DO YOU THINK THAT THIS MESSAGE YOU'RE NOW READING WOULD EVER BE SEEN ON A MEDIA SITE, IN ORDER TO PROFFER CRITICISM OF YET OTHER MEDIA SITES?) . AND THUSLY!... NO "NEUTRAL WEBSITE (I.E., ONE HAVING N-O CLOG!)" WOULD BE ALLOWED AT THE TOP OF SEARCH RESULTS RANKINGS!... P-E-R-I-O-D!! UNLESS!... AND OF COURSE!... N-O C-O-M-M-E-N-T-S HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED WITHIN THE SUM NUMBER OF THE T-H-E-N "COMMENTS FACILITATING SITES" LISTED WITHIN A SEARCH ENGINE'S SEARCH RESULTS (RESPECTIVE OF A GIVEN SEARCH EXPRESSION USED!)!... OR!... THE SITE DOESN'T LEND ITSELF TO "PUBLIC COMMENTARY (I.E., THE NATURE OF THE WEBSITE, 'LOGICALLY PRECLUDES' FACILITATING PUBLIC DISCUSSION!)"! AND THIS-- THEN!-- WILL MEAN, THAT, F-R-E-E D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-U-B-L-I-C E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N WILL "HOLD SWAY" OVER A-N-Y A-N-D A-L-L O-T-H-E-R "RANKING CONSIDERATIONS", RE THE RANKING OF SEARCH ENGINE SEARCH RESULTS! . To sum up... it's one thing to "cry foul" when a journalist is said to be denied his/ her Right to FREE EXPRESSION, but it's quite another for the "Media Interests" behind such a "journalist", to deny this very same Right to netizens who may frequent their media websites! HYPOCRITES!... I say! . And so!... although I can-- and should!-- sympathize with the plight of a "journalist" who is being denied his/ her Right to communicate some "TRUTH" to the world, I have NO SYMPATHY for any media outlet that/ which would turn around and deny the very same Right to those who would be users of their respective media platforms! . And as for those media sites that/ which DARE provide a voice for netizens, an important step would be to address the Digital Human Rights violations inhere within the very design of respective site Clog windows, that/ which disallow LINKING, "CRITICAL COMMENTARY (BUT, ETC.!)"!... and facilitate IP Address theft, and manipulation! . Please!... no emails!