In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
TRUMP OPPOSES PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO SURRENDER AMERICAN INTERNET CONTROL TO FOREIGN POWERS
"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.
The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost." - Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
Is Cruz now Donald's tech advisor? ICANN has nothing to do with censorship or muh freedom
It really takes a simpleton to want to repeatedly claim Obama is serving foreign interests.
Trump isn't interested in understanding stuff like this. He is just trying to distort reality as much as possible in a way that benefits him by repeating lies. It is the same thing he is trying to do with the lies he constantly tells about Clinton's gun and immigration policies.
On September 22 2016 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Judging by the responses none of you even know what I'm talking about?
I'm not talking about the twin towers at all. I'm talking about WTC-7. Sounds like you guys are like me and just wrote it off as Alex Jones stuff without looking much deeper.
If anyone knows anything about WTC-7 I'd be interested in hearing from them.
Actually I do:
A large chunk of the building was burning, so you should take it easy, and not call people out without some thought first.
Those are just typical office fires, if those made buildings like that prone to near 0-resistance collapse, no one would go in them.
Most things are designed to withstand any one bad thing happening to it at once, so a fire for example, sure. It's tough to anticipate a large combination of things at once, and usually this results in the negative effects amplifying themselves many times.
I remember watching a documentary years and years back that said something about bad fireproofing standards on the steel, then you have a massive shock to the foundation when other things are collapsing, that's the building going through an earthquake. You have debris hitting the building from the other stuff happening. Combine that with the fire going on for hours on end.
And now when quickly skimming wikipedia, I see some stuff about a sprinkler system needing manual initiation, low water pressure to deal with the flow rate of water needed, and who knows, maybe some minor construction faults as well.
Point is, a reasonable number of buildings would have fallen in these circumstances... Would all? Unlikely, but it's completely feasible for it to happen, say the average skyscraper would have a 30-50% chance of falling in this situation. When you girlfriend told you she finished eating the food you made she didn't like and there was a 50% chance she ate it and a 50% chance she threw it out, is your reaction to go check the garbage can?
It's a completely realistic thing to happen, and I don't know why people keep trying to hang onto these things so tight.
I'm feeling like that's a no to reading the NIST report. The official report discounts any "large combination of things" they say it was the fire changing the loads alone that caused a near zero-resistance collapse.
Also the odds are nowhere near 30-50% by any measure. There have been lots of fires in tall buildings, some that were clearly worse, the only time they've ever collapsed like that, in all the time they've existed, happened on that day.
But as Nec pointed out this just acts as a distraction. The bottom line is that I do own what I'm voting for.
On September 22 2016 08:30 Plansix wrote: Great, now we just need a doctor to talk about vaccines and the cycle will be complete. Then we can send Jill back to her very expensive house in Lexington.
I think I'm going to call you out on this one and see what happens. GH was bringing up a very reasonable point against you two pages ago. Notice how you completely ignored it and just came back now that the truther talk is happening so that you get to look reasonable again even though you have discontinued the other conversation?
What is this reasonable point? I have previously stated that I do not fully trust Clinton and I am not 100% happy with my choice. I have said this several times. I also do not prescribe to GHs view on the center left in any way. I fully support Warren and her push to regulate the banks and move from criminal charges against Wells Fargo and others. I believe that criminal penalties is the only way to prevent CEOs and the higher ups from allowing this to happen. I talked about that long before this election started, in this thread. It is not my problem that GH does not approve of this or the way I walk about Clinton, that I am not negative enough for tastes.
Clinton is the only path to what I want. I do not hold as negative a view of her as others, but I do believe she will compromise with the republicans in an attempt to stabilize the government. That is what I want. I do not want to cram far left platform down county's throat just to lose the senate in a mid term election. I did that once already.
I want many of the things GH wants. But unlike him, I accept that a lot of the country does not agree with me and gets to vote. So I have opted for the most likely path to get there and to vote for the people I think will convince the US that its a good plan. So vote for Warren, Obama and Clinton when given the chance. GH talks about voting for Jill Stein out of protest.
On September 22 2016 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote: But as Nec pointed out this just acts as a distraction. The bottom line is that I do own what I'm voting for.
No, this was all very relevant to the discussion of why no one wants to try having intellectual honest discussions with you anymore.
On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote: Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job.
trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time.
tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially.
Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
I want many of the things GH wants. But unlike him, I accept that a lot of the country does not agree with me and gets to vote. So I have opted for the most likely path to get there and to vote for the people I think will convince the US that its a good plan. So vote for Warren, Obama and Clinton when given the chance.
What we disagree on is whether he'll actually get closer to what he wants or if he'll just get sold that whatever watered down version Republicans pass is acceptable progress and that we should focus elsewhere now.
And whether this was foreseeable and preventable.
This recent Trump stop and frisk thing is a great example.
I'm supposed to be worried about Trump because he would try to implement a policy like that, problem is that stop and frisk isn't a creation of the right, it's of the center left.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Don't understand the relevance. Laws don't care how you got there. The election is not some spiritual trip, what matters if you're a liberal person is electing people who do liberal things.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Don't understand the relevance. Laws don't care how you got there. The election is not some spiritual trip, what matters if you're a liberal person is electing people who do liberal things.
The relevance is pretty obvious. If you say you want the same thing GH wants and you're voting for Clinton against Trump, it's different from saying you want the same thing GH wants and you're voting for Clinton against Sanders... And everyone here, including GH as I quoted above, recognizes that.
To be very clear, I do not believe Bernie Sanders could have accomplish the things I want. I reviewed his track record in congress and how willing he is to compromise and found it lacking. By the time the primary got to my state, Clinton was my own option.
On September 22 2016 09:03 Plansix wrote: To be very clear, I do not believe Bernie Sanders could have accomplish the things I want. I reviewed his track record in congress and how willing he is to compromise and found it lacking. By the time the primary got to my state, Clinton was my own option.
I feel like I've asked this before, but what specifically do you think she will accomplish that Bernie wouldn't have?
On September 22 2016 08:16 zlefin wrote: Oh, and back on the PTO stuff; I remembered and looked up what the old stuff was about; a trademark was issued that is facially invalid under the law, but was never challenged; some scum trademarked "tower defense" for games. *eyeroll*
and that is clearly a result of gross failure by low level staff to do their job.
trademark people have to process between 6 and 10 applications a day. how long do you want them scouring gaming forums for obscure gaming genres? if they had more time to search they might catch it, but theyd also probably be excoriated for being lazy scumbags the rest of the time when the applications take a fraction of the time.
tower defense isn't exactly an obscure genre. and a few simple google searches would've shown it was invalid. I expect them to have people knowledgeable in an area reviewing things, and not to make obvious and basic mistakes which are symptomatic of a failure to have decent oversight systems in place. that you make the unsound claim of tower defense being obscure reduces the strength of your point substantially.
ok im not defending it. im saying that its understandable how a bad trademark gets issued. imagine some middle aged woman getting the application. it's not that hard to see how any combination of two words that is not already in the trademark database in the computer games market would be prima facie valid. i don't really view it as the main problem affecting the IP system; in fact i don't really view it as that big of a problem at all. trademarks are pretty worthless without tangible evidence in litigation, and a trademark on tower defense is obviously a flimsy legal document.
there are a number of bad patents issued every year too. just google ip blogs making fun of idiotic patents that were issued. but in any organization with 10,000+ examiners issuing millions of intellectual property rights you are going to have some things fall through the cracks. i don't think the tower defense anecdote amounts to much.
TRUMP OPPOSES PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO SURRENDER AMERICAN INTERNET CONTROL TO FOREIGN POWERS
"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.
The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost." - Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
Is Cruz now Donald's tech advisor? ICANN has nothing to do with censorship or muh freedom
It really takes a simpleton to want to repeatedly claim Obama is serving foreign interests.
Trump isn't interested in understanding stuff like this. He is just trying to distort reality as much as possible in a way that benefits him by repeating lies. It is the same thing he is trying to do with the lies he constantly tells about Clinton's gun and immigration policies.
This is a real press release? It's not the onion or something. ...???
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
On September 22 2016 07:55 GreenHorizons wrote: And I actually understand people who came to Clinton after she won the primary, people who supported her during the primary got here under very different circumstances.
Those who supported Clinton in the primary are either corporate sell-outs (not liberal enough) or naive (low information)?
I would argue that if you are a social democrat and you voted for Clinton over Sanders, you did something wrong, yeah. Of course you don't have to be a social democrat to be honest or informed, so I reject the negative connotation that you put on the other types of voters.
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
TRUMP OPPOSES PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO SURRENDER AMERICAN INTERNET CONTROL TO FOREIGN POWERS
"Donald J. Trump is committed to preserving Internet freedom for the American people and citizens all over the world. The U.S. should not turn control of the Internet over to the United Nations and the international community. President Obama intends to do so on his own authority – just 10 days from now, on October 1st, unless Congress acts quickly to stop him. The Republicans in Congress are admirably leading a fight to save the Internet this week, and need all the help the American people can give them to be successful. Hillary Clinton’s Democrats are refusing to protect the American people by not protecting the Internet.
The U.S. created, developed and expanded the Internet across the globe. U.S. oversight has kept the Internet free and open without government censorship – a fundamental American value rooted in our Constitution’s Free Speech clause. Internet freedom is now at risk with the President’s intent to cede control to international interests, including countries like China and Russia, which have a long track record of trying to impose online censorship. Congress needs to act, or Internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost." - Stephen Miller, National Policy Director
Is Cruz now Donald's tech advisor? ICANN has nothing to do with censorship or muh freedom
It really takes a simpleton to want to repeatedly claim Obama is serving foreign interests.
Trump isn't interested in understanding stuff like this. He is just trying to distort reality as much as possible in a way that benefits him by repeating lies. It is the same thing he is trying to do with the lies he constantly tells about Clinton's gun and immigration policies.
This is a real press release? It's not the onion or something. ...???
On September 22 2016 08:57 Nyxisto wrote: Yes, if you want what GH wants there's literally only one vote to maximize the chance of that happening and it's voting for the democratic candidate. Every other vote increases the chance of Trump winning. It's as simple as that.
Assuming either Hillary or Trump wins 100%, a vote for a third party is the same as not voting.*
*If a third party candidate gets 5% or more of the vote, that party gets federal funding for the next presidential election.
And by this logic voting is the same as not voting unless the election is won by one vote.
The chance of third party candidates not mattering is significantly higher than the chance of the election being won by a vote. Voting for the third party in this election is counter productive if you're a liberal
EPT
