Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: The End of Trust, in reply to Marc C,
NO media seemed much interested to report on this.....It seems to work so often to offer “stories” for certain people with vested commercial or political interests.
I appreciate that Paul's background is in tech, where by definition you'll be writing about gadgets and stuff that sells, and clearly he's writing about his own experience. But I think you're hitting the nail on the head here: There's no mention in the article of non-monetary public interest - the entire vibe is 'who is selling what to whom' and whether that needs to be more transparent.
If you don't have a financial interest of any sort, it would appear that you simply don't exist, as far as today's media is concerned. Except possibly as the occasional freakshow segment.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
a particular belief
'Belief' is not next to 'evidence' in the thesaurus, unless you happen to be looking at the antonyms portion in certain editions.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to BenWilson,
This kind of obtuseness is exactly what I mean by you not engaging.
To continiue your Dojo analogy, I think it's more like practicing on a punchbag, or one of those wooden wing chun dummies. No matter how skilled and powerful your strikes, the dummy (being an inanimate object) is essentially unchanged and is incapable of launching an effective return. All you're really doing is sharpening up your own skills and possibly showing off for 3rd parties.
-
We were somewhere around Waiouru on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like "I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive..." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to RotoVegas. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Rob Stowell,
So not really the same…
Not the point. Contrast and compare how roughly similar situations were covered by the media.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Jake Starrow,
Remember Auntie Harold's campaign against the electoral finance act? 72-point headlines screaming 'ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY'? Acres of newsprint devoted to reporting on (badly-attended) marches? Ring any bells? C'mon, it ran for weeks, it must stir a faint memory.
Contrast and compare their coverage.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to WH,
Having gone all Voltaire on your behalf
Although no-one is actually stopping UT from freely expressing themselves. Even if they're copping some flak here, they have their own blog, which has been linked to at least once. If anyone suggested forming a mob armed with torches and pitchforks to cleanse it with fire, I must've missed it.
Being free to express an opinion doesn't necessarily mean I have to listen to it, respectfully or otherwise. Or respond/not respond, respectfully or otherwise.
-
Yeah, this is going to get messy. Vegetarians and those of a nervous disposition look away now.
-
Southerly: Sign this Petition, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I see it more as a mad scramble by the railway children, through dense bracken and against the clock, to alert the Honeytown Express driver that the Mad Meccano Mob have been tampering with the supports of the upcoming viaduct, bridging the vast chasm of disbelief and ennui.
A structure already strained by prevailing winds, and non-Euclidean geometry.
They were alerted to this by snuffy, their feral fox friend finding felonious fingerprints in filched files…
Now they know they have to act…
If they make it they could at least slow it down a bit, to minimise the inevitable trainwreck… even stop it.We'll keep the red flag flying here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GVOWas1ZyQA#t=61
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to UglyTruth,
The problem is that the US doctrine of fair use is not part of NZ law, so whether or not the act of copying data is illegal depends on which legal jurisdiction you are under. Since NZ gets so much US video which pushes the idea that copying is theft, the idea that copying is unlawful has made it’s way into the public consciousness here.
And once again, when challenged on an issue, you alter your initial positon to try to pretend that what you said wasn't actually what you meant.
You said: "Copying data is not unlawful."
That's a blanket statement that is so straightforwardly difficult to interpret in any other way that I'm having trouble actually thinking of a way in which it could be paraphrased or simplified. It also happens to be simply not true, in literally hundreds of different scenarios. Copyright law not to your taste? How about contract law? Or copying data relating to an online credit card transaction without authorisation?
Your standard pattern is showing that there's not a lot of point trying to debate with you, whether in good faith or not.