*Installing Tinfoil Cap*
Because the picture can not be produced because he isn't dead.
*Removing said cap*
I have no idea.
*Installing Tinfoil Cap*
Because the picture can not be produced because he isn't dead.
*Removing said cap*
I have no idea.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
―Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin
I wonder how this would fly.. Legally..
Can a Lawyer chime in and explain what would happen if someone actually tried this please?
Above the waist I think is a good measure.
"Let's be careful w/our words here. No, that cop wouldn't have been "right". He would have been enforcing the law, yes, but that isn't the same as "right". Human beings have a responsibility to refuse to obey bad orders, no matter their vocation."
By right, I should have said, "He was acting as per the directions of the police force at the time. He was performing his job as described". I did not mean ethically right. But he would not have gotten in trouble for it.
"You didn't see the cop punching the guy in the stomach AFTER he'd been taken down? And please don't come back w/the "that's what they're trained to do" nonsense. If that's what they're trained to do in situations like this, then their training is horribly wrong...."
I did not notice that. As I stated, I can't go back and rewatch it. But I will be doing so when I get to a non-secured computer.
"Yes, what happens if you don't abide is you are told to leave the premises. You are not body slammed to the ground and handcuffed."
No. That only happens if you refuse and then actively work against (note I said actively) being put under arrest.
Also, it wasn't a bodyslam. It was a takedown move, yes. But it's not like the cop lifted the protestor over his head and threw him down to the mat and hit him with a chair... oh.. wait.. Sorry.. Got off tangent there. It wasn't a bodyslam.
The difference is that if Rosa Parks kept on sitting and grab onto the seat when the officer told her to stand up to be arrested (Not go limp, but actively resisted the order), then the cop even back then would have been in the right to force her to get into the cuffs.
Did anyone notice (I don't know which video this was as I'm at work and it's blocked) the cop in one of them ask the protester to put his hands behind his back and gave him 3 warnings before taking him down? 3 warnings. That's way more then reasonable.
Yes, it's a stupid law. Yes. I'm all for the protest. Yes. The cops acted reasonably to the situation. I didn't see any kicking while they were down, any tasers, any takedowns without plenty of warnings. If you want to protest peacefully, then when the cop tells you that you are under arrest, go limp and let them cuff you and drag out your body. Don't be a dick like these people (most of the people. The Woman and the older man IMHO weren't resisting).
As a side note, if you can point me to a URL that quotes a valve employee by name and says this, I would be most grateful.
BTW, any gaming site that has this MUST state what Valve actually said. Allot of them say, "According to Gabe, they will offer it after Valve goes bankrupt". This is not a valid quote. I want to see the actual words spoken (or listen to them if on a video).
Actually, I've been hunting this down for awhile now and have come to the conclusion that this is incorrect.
No where does a Valve Employee ever state that they will do this. They might have said they have the potential to, but no one has ever said they WILL do this.
This is a myth. Pure and simple.
"Hmmm...No need to worry...At least for 18 months...Then you're screwed."
Umm.. No.
"A back up copy of these Digital Good(s) will be available to you for download for up to eighteen (18) months from the date of purchase. "
18 months is the max. They can turn you off 1 week after you bought it.
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter." - Gerald Seymour
You guys are right. The world will be like this in 30 years. We are all doomed. :)
"from the it's-a-stretch-to-call-this-fiction dept"
If anything, I'd say he's arguing that it's so close to the truth that it almost isn't fiction.
Yes. I feel comfortable labeling it impossible for a kid of 10 being sued and them being responsible for it. Also, sued in the womb is going a bit to far.
It just reeked a bit to much like someone who sees only bad in the world. Not my personal cup of tea.
You know. I thought it was the same guy. Now I see the first one was Dark Helmet (which I always read his comments with a grain of salt and humor) and this other guy.
Sorry guys for mixing you two up. I still think this post is absurd, but perhaps he was trying to joke as well?
Is this the direction Techdirt is now heading? I admit, we all have our biases, but c'mon man. This is the second post by you that is so far on the left side, I can't see straight.
Seriously. If this is the way TechDirt is going in the future, I'm out. If it was a joke post, perhaps a hint or 2 would be helpful.
I presume then there is no "Gamma Control" that they can up the level of light?
Let me sleep on it.. Baby baby.. Let me sleep on it...
Let me sleep on it.. I'll give you an answer in the morning..
Let me sleep on it.. Baby baby.. Let me sleep on it...
Let me sleep on it.. I'll give you an answer in the morning..
Let's not forget to think of the childre... oh.. nevermind.
Re: Re:
BURNED!!! DDDDDaaaaaammmmm....