• Shawshank
• The Great Escape
• Beyond the Clouds
• Groundhog Day

Sure did. But I’m sure you knew that.

If something is in the public domain, there is no copyright covering it, so you should make as many copies as you feel like. Many public domain books are posted on the Internet Archive, where you can easily download them in various formats. Then you won’t have to work hard to get the data. Public domain artwork, likewise, is often available on Wikimedia Commons.

I feel like blogs are small and relatively stand alone, and nothing like large corporations or Lemmy. Visibility is a question, but that just raises more questions. How many viewers do you want each month? What if you only have a few but they really care what you say? How many views do you get here? Do people hear even care what you say? What if you started a blog but cross posted links to it here? Maybe that would take advantage of both worlds, or maybe it wouldn’t, and all of that depends on your goals and whether you have anything to communicate and whether you do a good job of communicating it.

What’s being held back, and what’s being freed? Certainly my thoughts aren’t being held back or freed.

I suppose that would be a good example, wouldn’t it.

I don’t know. I slept through a bunch of high school classes, but I heard that people studied that kind of stuff.

You know the quality is high when there’s a reminder that it’s shitposting. Wonderful.

I’m totally okay with people pointing out the fact that the man is a creepy sexist jerk face. And I’m totally okay with people doing it a lot, because he has too much power, and you can’t just pretend he doesn’t exist and that his actions don’t matter.

On occasion, racist cops will violate white folks too. They’re never perfectly racist.

Requests are optional, my friend. And the visibility no concern. We know that’s a blatant lie. You want to know how we know? Easy.

What if the cop doesn’t force him out of the car? What would the cop do? I got it! He’d go back to his police car, far from Tyreek, perfectly safe, and then he’d write up the ticket. Then he’d walk back to Tyreek and give him the ticket. The end. Almost no contact, and all of that with backup officers on hand ready to assist. No violence, no handcuffs, no nothing.

After all, most people driving expensive cars aren’t gonna stress about a speeding ticket. So give them the ticket already.

My friend, you engaged in victim blaming, and when called out on it, you doubled down. That’s uncivil and generally insulting. Meh.

Being rude is protected by the Constitution, as you learned in high school civics class. You did a perfect job of blaming the victim.

On the other hand, maybe what you were trying to say is something like, “We gotta be practically-minded because the cops are dirty racist bastards who will beat the hell out of us.”

It sounds like you think we should always lick the pigs’ boots because otherwise they’ll beat the hell out of us, regardless of what the Bill of Rights says. Is that an accurate summary?

I find it interesting that you didn’t bother to consider what a “lawful order” is. If the cops order you to brush your teeth, do you have to comply?

I’m not being facetious. Seriously, if you wanna make a list of every order that you think the cops could give you that you would have to obey, I’d be interested in reading it. We’ll be happy to go through it point-by-point and show the civil rights issues contained therein.

As we saw, it’s actually a bigger safety issue if the cops can order you to lower your window. Fortunately, you and I don’t get to decide what’s “reasonable” in this context. It would go to the appeals courts, and who knows what would happen.

I think it’s likely that the appeals courts would say that Pennsylvania v. Mimms already let cops order people out of the car, which solves the safety problem, so there’s no need to give cops extra authority to order you around willy-nilly. The ordinary person has a clear interest in knowing what exactly cops can and can’t order, and you’re proposing increasing the ambiguity of it all, which (as we just saw) is dangerous.

In other words, this is classic strong narcissism.

They aren’t confused. They want the base to understand that Trump would definitely pass an abortion ban, but they don’t want to say that outright so that they can keep a few more votes from people who aren’t paying close attention.

They all kind of know it. It’s just that probably they think that all politicians are dirty and so they are happy with their extra dirty guy. They also like the bigotry.

I think you’re mixing up conspiracy theories. Please try again, and keep your facts straight. The NSA is going to be getting data from Google no matter what happens. They don’t need another government organization to make Google spend millions of dollars on lawyers for that to continue.

I like Google’s weak argument that technology has shifted to mobile so advertising is different than it was before, and therefore they can’t have a monopoly. Because they’re not arguing that they don’t have monopoly, they’re arguing that the monopoly is less impactful. But if that’s true, then forcing them to split companies isn’t such a big deal, because surely they as a company have similarly shifted in focus, so they would only be losing a piece of their total advertising branch, not the whole thing.