The saying holds that the thread is supported by a chain of increasingly large misspellings. Beneath each misspelled reply is yet another: it is "typos all the way down".
Just in case any Last Week Tonight researchers are looking for their next topic of conversation, I would like to categorically state that Mike Masnick is not a dingo.
[REDACTED] is a very [REDACTED] and should be afforded the greatest [REDACTED] the US can give. Unfortunately, the [REDACTED] has caused [REDACTED] and now the US Government must now [REDACTED] themselves.
It's the old "bystander principle" - or, as Douglas Adams so succinctly satirized it, the "Somebody Else's Problem field". What's one more methhead to society?
After all, some people are irredeemable, aren't they?
After all, these people aren't exactly useful or wanted, are they?
After all, noone's gonna care if they get beaten up, are they?
Better to just stay safe and not get involved. They could be DANGEROUS, for Gawd's sake!
Thank god the police were on the scene to stop the assault on a homeless man... oh, right.
Absolutely disgraceful. I note that the Exhibit shown in the article shows Officer Ramos' elbow being bloodied. I suppose that's what happens in an all-out curb stomping.
When Ramos informed Kelly that "[his] fists" were "getting ready to fuck [Kelly] up", does that not show premeditation? Aside from that, how can Kelly be called the aggressor after being faced with such inflammatory language?
Besides, surely the goal of the police force should be to subdue the suspect, not to turn his face into something resembling a side of raw beef.
Although I know it would most likely be illegal to answer the question, I would like to know how the jurors justified letting these guys off.
This can't be OotB. This posting actually makes sense, is on topic, doesn't berate Mike, doesn't mention Google at all and is not inflammatory at all.
I don't know whether to be disappointed that someone else is using OotB's name or glad that this wasn't the usual load of horse-hockey that we usually get from this name...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The saying holds that the thread is supported by a chain of increasingly large misspellings. Beneath each misspelled reply is yet another: it is "typos all the way down".
Re: Re:
It's a copyright case centering around a goddamn monkey. How can it not be ridiculous?
I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Just in case any Last Week Tonight researchers are looking for their next topic of conversation, I would like to categorically state that Mike Masnick is not a dingo.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How about an impenetrable cable tie?
// Thought I'd simplify this thread
function Funny(comment, i){
If(i = 0) {
return comment + "ALIENS!";
}
Else {
return Funny(comment, i - 1);
}
}
Funny("funny comment about ",);
What a load of Old BullOx this case is.
I'm surprised that the WWE and Adam Copeland ("Edge") weren't hit with the same kind of stupidity when he used the "Rated R Superstar" moniker...
Re: Re:
As a programmer, I prefer tiny Raspberry Pais
Re: Re: Re: Let's just kill music
This strikes me as far too close to GEMA's usual antics (well documented on this site) to be humourous.
Re: Re: Re:
Gatesgate: the story of Microsoft.
Re:
Does that make Senator Feinstein, Dr. House?
It's never fucking lupus/the NSA...
Re: The meaning of redaction
It can't be "plain" fuckups, otherwise we'd be able to see them...
[REDACTED] Madlibs?
[REDACTED] is a very [REDACTED] and should be afforded the greatest [REDACTED] the US can give. Unfortunately, the [REDACTED] has caused [REDACTED] and now the US Government must now [REDACTED] themselves.
What do I think of this situation? [REDACTED]
Re: Re:
It's the old "bystander principle" - or, as Douglas Adams so succinctly satirized it, the "Somebody Else's Problem field". What's one more methhead to society?
After all, some people are irredeemable, aren't they?
After all, these people aren't exactly useful or wanted, are they?
After all, noone's gonna care if they get beaten up, are they?
Better to just stay safe and not get involved. They could be DANGEROUS, for Gawd's sake!
Thank god the police were on the scene to stop the assault on a homeless man... oh, right.
Re: Re:
Thank you. I plead partial ignorance due to being one of them dumb English-type people.
Having said that, humanity is/should be universal.
"In this connection, the government concedes that plaintiff is not a threat to our national security."
No threat to national security means no national security exemption from releasing the full order. QED.
Absolutely disgraceful. I note that the Exhibit shown in the article shows Officer Ramos' elbow being bloodied. I suppose that's what happens in an all-out curb stomping.
When Ramos informed Kelly that "[his] fists" were "getting ready to fuck [Kelly] up", does that not show premeditation? Aside from that, how can Kelly be called the aggressor after being faced with such inflammatory language?
Besides, surely the goal of the police force should be to subdue the suspect, not to turn his face into something resembling a side of raw beef.
Although I know it would most likely be illegal to answer the question, I would like to know how the jurors justified letting these guys off.
Re:
This can't be OotB. This posting actually makes sense, is on topic, doesn't berate Mike, doesn't mention Google at all and is not inflammatory at all.
I don't know whether to be disappointed that someone else is using OotB's name or glad that this wasn't the usual load of horse-hockey that we usually get from this name...
Perhaps Cameron was just quoting one of his favourite Simpsons characters:
"Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!?"
Re: Better than vague hope: argue against ALL software patents.
shrugs
Some of us like jazz... And is that an actual concession of a good point to BestNetTech's writing I see?
Maybe some of us should be nicer to you, Blue.
Not quite sure what part(s) of this piece you're actually critiquing, though. Elaborate, please?