Completely misleading article title. Especially if you click through the links and read the actual chat logs. Saying "i f-ing struck oil" while talking about what illegal things you can do with the information paints a pretty clear picture, and their actions afterwards don't appear entirely noble.
I never liked that line of thinking. Facts are not based on perception, they are things perceived. The persuasion in your example was a distortion of the individual's perception, not of the facts themselves. Did they do a fact-by-fact comparison between all accounts and report the numbers that were in-sync version those conflicting, and so on? Considering it was from the Discovery channel, I would doubt it.
"The question of whether cameras can be seized on the grounds of containing evidence has arisen in previous discussions of the order and of incidents in other cities. ...snip...
Gondola said Rubino made that argument to her.
“This is not the guy committing the crime,” she said. “This is the police doing the crime.”"
So she says right there that the video was of the police committing the crime -- evidently the previously mentioned roughhousing of a fully shackled offender. We've even got a nice pic of Rubino in that article with his foot on the perp's head to lend a little credibility to the accounts of the two women. Or, is stepping on the head of a subdued perp normal?
It's called Eidetic memory, and it's not limited to imagery.
I have it to some degree, and it's strange to me to think that other people may not have the same type of memory that I do.
I've never actually questioned anyone about how they remember things, though, and I've only become aware of the fact that I have it in the last few years, as I never really cared enough to think about it.
I am sure I have it, though, so I have no doubt others have it.
Thanks for linking to that recollection by Twain of his testimony. Whether it's satire or not, I got the impression that he firmly believed there should be no limit on copyright, and his argument actually made a lot of sense... and of course, it was a great read.
Why you, Mr. Masnick, think there's some contradiction in his two very different lines of thinking -- one on plagiarism and one on copyright -- is beyond me. And how you could categorize his very excellent reasoning as whining is also beyond me. The clarity of it, when compared with most political arguments, is very refreshing to me.
So, why not remove the limitation on copyright, as he suggests? Or, perhaps, limit it to the life of the blood-line, until no heir to the throne comes forth, as it were? What would be the down side, other than that those media corporations which you, Mr. Masnick, are always complaining about, would not have any right to profiteer off work that is not their own?
Ridiculous. Something's wrong with... with people. What could make anyone think that a search engine is responsible for the content it contains? I bet they think Google's employees are typing in the search results manually...
Either way, this reminded me of people saying Hitler was Jewish, so I decided to play the "how many letters until" game with Google's autocomplete. I kid you not, I didn't even have to type the first H in "was hitler jewish" to get it at the top of the list. I would have expected something about Elvis up there.
I hope the French don't sue me for searching for that.
Is it really that uncommon for a group of people -- or even a single very opinionated person -- to state that something is useless while a large group of other people have found some use for it?
This is part of human existence... it's been going on with TV vs. books forever -- I still hear far too frequently from TV haters that TV rots your brain and is worthless and how they can't understand why anyone watches it.
I find this kind of thing amazing, actually, because those opposed evidently lack the wisdom to ask the people who watch TV or use the internet WHY they use it, and IF they've found some value in it.
I'm also amazed that anyone is surprised that the TV vs. books mindset has translated into Social Media vs. books.
What is it with people needing to promote their way of doing things as better than others when it comes to such pretentious shit as reading books vs. socializing?
Maybe they're just jealous :) Nothing fans the flames of indignation like not being included.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by scichotic.