talmand

That's not the reality of the story being told; that's the embellishments of the narrator when telling the story to the second wave of soldiers the night before battle.

I always understood that Section 508 applied only to US Federal agencies and any third-party products they make use of.

Or just about any year of your choosing. Today it's phones, before then it was newspapers, before then it was the town square, before then it was the village crier, before then it was the guy that talked to spirits/gods/sky, and so on...

This is not a new thing.

>> Speech without thought isn't free speech.

That's a rather strong opening to limiting free speech. Who gets to decide that my speech was without thought? Is there an approval process? Can I repeal the decision? Do I have to document my thoughts before I speak to prove later that I did indeed think before I spoke out against the people that make those distinctions?

>> The obvious answer seems to be moving to somewhere nearby that's cheaper and roomier. But people seem very resistant to this for some reason.

Because that requires money.

I, for one, listen to everybody I'm allowed to listen to.

At what point do such things change into a public discourse problem?

Do we wait until it can be shown that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. influenced elections because they refused to serve information from a candidate they didn't like? If we aren't already there, it's not long before it is.

What do you think would happen if these "private companies" with such deep hooks into our communication infrastructure suddenly decided to remove all data associated to the Republican Party? For that matter, the Democratic Party?

It seems to me that Facebook and Twitter are trying to have it both ways. They can choose to police the content provided by their users but can't be held responsible for said content? Are they a publisher or a platform?

I don't think comparing old thinking based around old methods of communication compares to what we have today, it requires new thinking. These aren't like newspapers sold by kids on the corner in a city that can have dozens of newspapers countering each other. Imagine if there were only three newspapers in the entire country, soon the world, controlled by a small group of people who wish to use their publishing for their own agendas.

Tim Pool is right, at this rate, sooner or later, the Feds will come knocking and will shut that party down.

A simple, yet clearly unsympathetic, view to take is that a business does not hire you to make sure you are happy. That your needs to meet a fruitful and positive life are actually met is not necessarily in the best interest of the business. Granted, not all companies have that attitude but for most, that's the way to go to survive in most economic systems in place around the world.

As for the burger flipper, I'm willing to bet there are barriers in place that prevent the flipper from living the life you describe that has little or nothing to do with the joint they work for. Often times there are exterior forces being applied that people are more than happy to ignore so they can blame the wrong target for their own agendas.

It's not like paper in boxes don't have their own maintenance costs.

When I point out obvious problems such as that I'm told to stop being negative.

Speaking of the alleged problem as reported is not necessarily a comment on the UX, it can be simply a reporting of the problem.

A horse was the result of the Design an Animal for Traveling Through the Desert Planning Committee.

For anyone who hasn't seen it...

First, go watch it before the rumored Ryan Reynolds remake. It's a fun movie and holds up fairly well.

Second, when released for home they rolled all three endings into the storyline so you get to see all three.

Three, watch it again after the viewing the endings to see how all three actually do work in the story. May require more than one additional viewing to get it all, but worth it in my opinion.

Four, relatively safe for children and my kids love it.

What determines a "spy"? What prevents every other contact from being a "spy"? What prevents a foreign US agent approaching a target to have them tagged as a "spy"?

The whole thing is a farce designed from the beginning to be abused.