Now this almost certainly won't stand up in a court of law. However, to regain control of one's IP one has to hire a lawyer. This, of course, is beyond the means of many who's IP will get looted like this. Which, is, of course the point.
While it's an interesting discussion, describing the disturbing decline and degeneration of Discord, I do not necessarily recommend listening to today's episode. It goes into dreadful places. For instance, I could have lived a full, happy, and productive life never having had explained to me what the actual hell cubbycon meant and now that path of pleasant innocence is forever closed to me.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Tue Feb 19 19:46:03 2019 (PiXy!)
2
I've pretty much seen the same language on most sites that accept user content, basically saying they need you to grant them the right to serve your content. And that included modifying it (Shrinking or expanding it to fit the page format) and if they sell out, they don't have to delete your content.
And every site had a wave of people who finally read the TOS years later and are all "OMG, The Service is going to steal all my Sonic drawings and sell them! Tell them they're bad and can't do this! Boycott!"
Posted by: Mauser at Thu Feb 21 22:58:49 2019 (Ix1l6)
3
The key words are "...in connection with operating and providing the Service", and they define "the Service" as the app and website. The real gotcha is the word "perpetual"; you can never revoke their right to display anything you uploaded while you had an account. They can choose to stop displaying your content for any reason, but you can't make them take it down. -j
Posted by: J Greely at Fri Feb 22 01:06:26 2019 (tgyIO)
4
Any social media company needs many of those rights, precisely so that they can do their social media thing. But the terms, as written, suuuuuuck.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Fri Feb 22 14:02:58 2019 (PiXy!)
5
Not a fan of the TOS, which stinks because Discord is a primary way I use for IMing people ever since AOL Instant Messenger finally bit the dust (I still have a screen capture of the last moments of IM service.).
Posted by: cxt217 at Sat Feb 23 16:09:44 2019 (LMsTt)
We have too much debt and Montana is useless. Just tell them it has beavers or something.
This particularly cunning because, while Montana is replete with uses, the statement is, in fact two thirds true (The debt is too big, and Montana does, in fact, have beavers) .
As I typed this the proposal had 6,941supporters out of a goal of 7,500.
When the "Green New Deal" first came out there was a FAQ sheet and I downloaded it got halfway through page 2 and reralized that the Cray-Cray was stronger in this document than I'd thought possible...and stopped reading.
I commented on another blog that nuclear power was not just absent from the proposed solutions, it was specifically singled out for elimination.
to wit:
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.
The blogger asked for a citation saying he could not find that in the document. This struck me as odd because Lowther does his research and, as I said, it was on page two.
Well lo and behold it appears that online versions of the FAQ page are being removed and/or edited; It's just that crazy a document.
Well, I downloaded it and it's HERE (WARNING: May cause SAN loss)
It will remain here at least until Mee.nu gets blowed up.
Neo has thoughts on the purpose of releasing the document as crazy and incomplete as it is.
If it were not for all the typos, you would have thought this idiocy was the product of a false flag operation by the GOP to smear the Democrats, rather than what might come from the College Young Communists after they got done smoking a lot of opium.
Anyone can come up with something as insane as this codswallop. What is the scary part is that serious politicians on the Left believe in it enough to sign onto and endorse it (As a disclaimer, I think Neo is right to worry that a lot of voters are gullible to buy it, but I disagree in that I doubt enough of them will.). Even Huey Long was not as absurd.
Of course, it does mean we have grounds to prevent anyone supporting this from ever riding on an aircraft, or a car, again. Maybe eat steak too, but Obama already got that covered from eating thousand dollars per ounce steak when he was in office.
Posted by: cxt217 at Sun Feb 10 14:36:34 2019 (LMsTt)
3
I fear another edition of, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill." on the horizon, however this time it will be enhanced (made more confusing) by the addition of (not linking to "the tropes") Xanatos Gambit/Xanatos Speed Chess efforts...something along the lines of, "we have to pass the bill so we can stop changing it..." although I doubt that would stop 'them' from continuing to modify such bill.
Posted by: RedLeg at Sun Feb 10 18:39:49 2019 (8MSbf)
Pelosi is an expect on that as well, if the stories about how the Democrat House staffers were still writing the ACA while the final vote was being taken are true.
One major difference is that Pelosi does not have a higher party leader hounding her to put his priorities first before her party's ability to hold the House and keep her in the Speaker's chair. Given how thin the Dems' current margin is in the House, and the rumors about how unpopular AOC is among the Dems themselves (A seat, as has been noted, that is situated in the only part of NYC outside of Staten Island that voted Trump in 2016.), Pelosi might want to wait before doing something that will cause her to have to move offices again.
Posted by: cxt217 at Sun Feb 10 18:52:23 2019 (LMsTt)
Via Instapundit comes this story about the discovery of a new asteroid inside the orbit of Venus. One of the Brickmuppet's Crack Team of Science Babes explains why this is object is so potentially interes....
"Forget that! It's not important anymore.
I've uncovered proof that our society is over"
Wha..?
Well. That's it.
UPDATE: I have a question. Would this be transhumanist furries or would the lack of fur preclude that and if so would these be shinies?
1
Hmmm, not the lack of fur, but the lack of an animal basis. I do seem to recall some comic or something where there were people who believed so much in the superiority of their robot overlords they dressed in metal parts (but were not cyborgs).
(Anthropomorphic lizards, for example, are still "Furries, but also a sub-category they call "Scalies". Please shoot me because I know this....)
Posted by: Mauser at Sun Feb 10 11:22:43 2019 (Ix1l6)
