ilarynx

globby said:

paisleydisco said:

foregoneconclusion said:

Appleinsider: softball with the EU and hardball with the United States. 

Eliz W deserves to be laughed at. 

Please, let's be respectful of her and use her "spirit name", Fauxahontas. Her whole career started with, uh, "taking" a job from a real Native American, so she knows a thing or two about stealing.

Also interesting that these lawfare attacks on Apple (in the US) are just before election time ... shakedown, anyone?

9secondkox2 said:

Probably the same zealots trying to force unions on Apple employees. 

thrang said:

I saw this over the weekend with my son and his girlfriend. While not bad in any way, and the acting is excellent throughout, I was underwhelmed by the actual script. I don't mind very long films, but this Killers did not earn the length even remotely. The real story is unquestionably worth hearing, but without getting into details, they probably should have stuck the the structure of the book (as I understand it), as it would have provided a narrative with discovery and sense of propulsion. The first two plus hours of Killers, while technically well done and acted, becomes a largely inert and repetitive affair. Only when the feds arrive is there more structure that frames the story, but by then it's somewhat too late.

It also tries to apply a moral ambiguity (I think?) in DiCaprio's character which does not really jibe with the intentions and actions throughout, and, as I understand, not with the real Burkhardt. In essence, other then being sympathetic to the plight of the Osage, the film is filled with people you simply dislike - which is fine to a certain level, as these were terrible people - but in a film narrative (and a very long one at that) it does not provide much for an audience to latch onto more deeply, and with little sense of chance of growth or redemption (which there was in efforts and outcome of the federal investigation).

The coda. designed to wrap up what happened to the people in the film, was not a very good ending to the film either, making an oddly and subtly whimisical left turn in a film that rightly had not earned that at all.

The theater was packed, but not one person applauded, and most everyone got up and left quickly without contemplation.

Welp, its just one opinion!

Stabitha_Christie said:

foregoneconclusion said:

davidw said: That's the function of "mute". That is still available. A user can "mute" another user and not ever have to see any of their comments. That's your  right to "freedom of association". However, when a user "block" another user, that is preventing other users from exercising their "freedom of association". Even if the other users completely agree with you that the comments of the user you blocked, are BS, they might have a better understanding of the "spirit of the law" we here in the US refer to ....... as our 1st Amendment rights. 

1st Amendment rights have ZERO RELEVANCE TO PRIVATELY OWNED SERVICES. Elon Musk can ban, censor or encourage whatever speech he wants BECAUSE ELON MUSK HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYONE'S RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. 1st Amendment rights are specific to government actions because that's where your freedoms actually come from: the government, not the private sector. 

Anyone who thinks Elon Musk is protecting their freedom of speech or 1st Amendment rights with his actions on a social media app is completely mistaken. 

Thank you! 

It is astounding how many U.S. citizens fundamentally don’t understand the First Amendment.