Yep, this is the point I was trying to make above.
Also, in the case of schools, they will often do a play like this in conjunction with reading it in an English class. I doubt the teachers are going to be thrilled with putting on the new show, which apparently deviates significantly from the original source material.
True, but don't statutory damage awards (which they threatened) require proof of financial harm? I thought it did, anyway, but freely admit I may be misunderstanding since I'm not a law expert.
I fail to even understand what the point is. Is he using some sort of warped logic that John from Podunk, Idaho who went to see a production near Boise somehow represents a lost sale? Where exactly is the actual harm?
I was going to say I can't believe this is devolving into an argument over semantics, but then I remembered the FCC's entire case seems to be predicated on 'telecommunications' vs. 'information service.'
So, if congress doesn't believe there's a first amendment problem with this, I wonder if they'll argue it's because it is aimed at corporations instead of individuals. That would throw a monkey wrench into the net neutrality debate.
So, possibly a stupid question, but for those of us who aren't super technical:
Let's say, in addition to turning off anything 'smart' in the menu options, I block my tv at the router level from accessing the net - does this help anything? Or are all of these exploits beyond my ability to mitigate? I'd avoid 'smart' altogether if finding 'dumb' wasn't becoming almost impossible.
My problem is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with either side
I think this is probably true of most of us, but the extremists tend to yell the loudest.
It certainly would explain why the majority of comments I see on mainstream sites these days contain:
A. It's Obama's fault/he's the evil one/etc! B. It's Clinton's (either one or both) fault/(s)he's the evil one/etc! C. Shut up libtard/special snowflake/etc! You lost! Get over it! D. Trump's done more in a week than Obama did in 8 years! E. Fake news! F. We're making America great again! G. All of the above!
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire here in the U.S. and start our own comment army.
Psych eval and a civics exam. I unfortunately live in this idiotic state, not all that far from his district. I can tell you this kind of b.s. is just a typical day in this hell hole.
Re: Re: you will care....
Maybe they'll care when they can no longer afford their trolling hobby, or the sites they like to troll most are throttled/blocked.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Another win for leftist censorship
Because y'know. Black holes. Just read all of Stephen Hawking.
Re: Re: UPDATE: Rudin Allows Local Theaters to Perform Sorkin's
Yep, this is the point I was trying to make above. Also, in the case of schools, they will often do a play like this in conjunction with reading it in an English class. I doubt the teachers are going to be thrilled with putting on the new show, which apparently deviates significantly from the original source material.
Re: Re:
True, but don't statutory damage awards (which they threatened) require proof of financial harm? I thought it did, anyway, but freely admit I may be misunderstanding since I'm not a law expert.
I fail to even understand what the point is. Is he using some sort of warped logic that John from Podunk, Idaho who went to see a production near Boise somehow represents a lost sale? Where exactly is the actual harm?
Re: Re: Hijacking
I was going to say I can't believe this is devolving into an argument over semantics, but then I remembered the FCC's entire case seems to be predicated on 'telecommunications' vs. 'information service.'
Re: But the reasoning for banning it does make sense.
Pretty sure you're confusing hate speech with a hate crime.
So, if congress doesn't believe there's a first amendment problem with this, I wonder if they'll argue it's because it is aimed at corporations instead of individuals. That would throw a monkey wrench into the net neutrality debate.
Re: The software without the browser plugins is almost useless.
I also go with the c/p method. A plugin just adds another point of vulnerability, especially with the way Firefox has now hobbled extensions.
Re: Re: Clinton News Network should be censored
What does any of this have to do with this article? How about you go troll elsewhere, and let the rest of us stay on topic?
Google ought to make a statement by blocking any Canadian IP from all Google sites and assets. Have it redirect to a page explaining why.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, my idea is just not to let it into the router at all and use a steamlink for any streaming.
Re: Re:
Thanks, Mike!
So, possibly a stupid question, but for those of us who aren't super technical:
Let's say, in addition to turning off anything 'smart' in the menu options, I block my tv at the router level from accessing the net - does this help anything? Or are all of these exploits beyond my ability to mitigate? I'd avoid 'smart' altogether if finding 'dumb' wasn't becoming almost impossible.
Re: Re:
My problem is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with either side I think this is probably true of most of us, but the extremists tend to yell the loudest.
Re: Re: Re:
Lol, of course. I'm still waiting on my acceptance letter to Trump Uni.
Re:
Nah, just the alt-right ministry of alt-facts Conway/Bannon/Spicer triumvirate. Trump always has to do things bigger.
It certainly would explain why the majority of comments I see on mainstream sites these days contain:
A. It's Obama's fault/he's the evil one/etc!
B. It's Clinton's (either one or both) fault/(s)he's the evil one/etc!
C. Shut up libtard/special snowflake/etc! You lost! Get over it!
D. Trump's done more in a week than Obama did in 8 years!
E. Fake news!
F. We're making America great again!
G. All of the above!
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire here in the U.S. and start our own comment army.
Re: Re:
Psych eval and a civics exam. I unfortunately live in this idiotic state, not all that far from his district. I can tell you this kind of b.s. is just a typical day in this hell hole.
Re:
Perhaps an anti-SLAPP type statute aimed at malicious criminal prosecution.