Kelo v. City of New London,

[Raz'r]

Judge decided. They can work the appeal process. Nothing to see here.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Judge decided. They can work the appeal process. Nothing to see here.

Judges are not always right, hence the appeals process.

We frequently comment on when judges get things wrong here at PA. I guess that's something to see sometimes?

Since you believe that the judge was right that $1.5 million is just compensation, do you think there should be some punishment for the people who offered $3.5 million more than the just value for the place? Wasting millions of tax dollars would have been a bad thing IMO.

 

[Raz'r]

nope. Offering a sweetener to avoid lawsuits is a sound practice.

 

[poopie pants]

"your" funny

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Having your property taken and handed over to developers is an obscure legal issue.

Meanwhile, eminent domain abuses continue.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I'm wondering how good googlebot's ad targeting is.

Does anyone else get this one or do they know I'm the only person here who is interested?

 

[Battlecheese]

It's based on your browsing history, not so much the page you're looking at.

 

[Bent Sailor]

If you're not blocking them (using AdBlock or similar), then the advertising companies are tracking where you go online through 'cookies'. Basically, these are small packets of information that a website can have the browser store and send back when connecting to their server (i.e. the advertising company's machines). They were originally intended for storing things like session details (so you don't log in to every page on a forum for instance), but marketing & data gathering companies found them very useful for data-mining.

Basically, if you don't block or clear your cookies frequently, you are sending to the advertising companies a unique identifier on every page you visit they are also advertising on. Read an article on WSJ they have ads on, they know the person using that browser read an article on (say) eminent domain. Then visit a forum on a (say) guns, then they know you read eminent domain articles and are interested in firearms. A couple of visits to Fox News, militia forums, and/or Glen Beck's page and they've nailed that unique identifier to a "Tea Party" profile and they start sending you gold bullion advertising.

There is a reason that the EU made it compulsory for pages hosted in their jurisdiction ask the user about cookies. The US (& Australia for that matter) is slightly less protective of people's privacy when it comes to corporate data mining, so we're still required to turn on protections ourselves on the assumption that we're being spied upon.

 

[Battlecheese]

A few months ago it was found that someone, verizone? was _injecting_ their own tracking header into your web requests, so even clearing your cache didn't keep you safe.

Edit: I guess it was 12. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/31/verizon_supercookies_disabled/

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you're not blocking them (using AdBlock or similar), then the advertising companies are tracking where you go online through 'cookies'. Basically, these are small packets of information that a website can have the browser store and send back when connecting to their server (i.e. the advertising company's machines). They were originally intended for storing things like session details (so you don't log in to every page on a forum for instance), but marketing & data gathering companies found them very useful for data-mining.

Basically, if you don't block or clear your cookies frequently, you are sending to the advertising companies a unique identifier on every page you visit they are also advertising on. Read an article on WSJ they have ads on, they know the person using that browser read an article on (say) eminent domain. Then visit a forum on a (say) guns, then they know you read eminent domain articles and are interested in firearms. A couple of visits to Fox News, militia forums, and/or Glen Beck's page and they've nailed that unique identifier to a "Tea Party" profile and they start sending you gold bullion advertising.

There is a reason that the EU made it compulsory for pages hosted in their jurisdiction ask the user about cookies. The US (& Australia for that matter) is slightly less protective of people's privacy when it comes to corporate data mining, so we're still required to turn on protections ourselves on the assumption that we're being spied upon.

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

 

[Bent Sailor]

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

I haven't seen it. Very unlikely to honestly, my web history really doesn't lend itself to the impression such advertising would work on me.

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

That's great. It was an example, not an accusation or assertion you were a Tea Party profile.

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

I do indeed have some thoughts on the matter but you're not one I'd choose to discuss them with in general. It's not worth wading through the piles of diversion, pedantry, and outright bullshit you post to get to the one or two nuggets of interesting opinion/information you might have to offer. I responded to the question you had on the advertising as I thought you'd be able to discuss that without the usual detour into tedious territory. Nothing more.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I know how cookies work. I was just wondering if anyone else got that same ad.

I haven't seen it. Very unlikely to honestly, my web history really doesn't lend itself to the impression such advertising would work on me.

This thread must have the bots mightily confused about me, since I have posted links from reclaimdemocracy.org, philly.com, and washingtonpost. com. None from Fox or Glenn Beck, as usual.

That's great. It was an example, not an accusation or assertion you were a Tea Party profile.

Since you're here in this nice thread, do you have thoughts on the constitutional issues in the topic case? I heard you were interested in such things.

Did the majority get it right in your view or do you agree more with a dissent?

I do indeed have some thoughts on the matter but you're not one I'd choose to discuss them with in general. It's not worth wading through the piles of diversion, pedantry, and outright bullshit you post to get to the one or two nuggets of interesting opinion/information you might have to offer. I responded to the question you had on the advertising as I thought you'd be able to discuss that without the usual detour into tedious territory. Nothing more.

I got a home furnishing company today. Man are they barking up the wrong tree!

So what ads do you get?

It's possible, though unlikely, that someone besides me will visit this thread someday. It only seems private, but is not. You could share your thoughts on the topic case just in case someone worthy of your great intellect comes along.

 

[Bent Sailor]

So what ads do you get?

It's possible, though unlikely, that someone besides me will visit this thread someday. It only seems private, but is not. You could share your thoughts on the topic case just in case someone worthy of your great intellect comes along.

Has nothing to do with intellect. I acknowledge you are a smart guy. You just happen to be dishonest / disingenuous in your discussions about political subjects and I have no interest in engaging you when you're like that.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

 

[Bent Sailor]

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

If I believed you'd correct a post that was dishonest/disingenuous just by having it pointed out, I wouldn't think you are dishonest/disingenuous. I don't believe that so won't indulge you by taking the bait.

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

See earlier post. I am not interested in discussing the subject with you. Find another patsy to play your games with. There are plenty of others around for you to troll and you've stated in the past that, being an Aussie, my opinion on such legal matters is not that important to you.

 

[Battlecheese]

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Let's consider the Hillary being a cunt thread: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205069
From this post I have linked and further down the page you repeatedly claim that the manual contains a warning

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205849

Multiple times on the page you also claim that the father was not charged with a crime, when of course he went to trial but was let off.

Sorry dude, you either are a hopeless liar, or you are simply incompetent.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If you can point to a dishonest post in this thread I'll correct it.

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

Let's consider the Hillary being a cunt thread: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205069
From this post I have linked and further down the page you repeatedly claim that the manual contains a warning

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=171198&page=2#entry5205849

Multiple times on the page you also claim that the father was not charged with a crime, when of course he went to trial but was let off.

Sorry dude, you either are a hopeless liar, or you are simply incompetent.

Astonishing that those traits don't show up in this thread.

Did you guys get lost on your way to Tom Ray Anarchy or something? My status as Worst Messenger Ever has its own thread.

 

[Bent Sailor]

Did you guys get lost on your way to Tom Ray Anarchy or something? My status as Worst Messenger Ever has its own thread.

Good for you. I'm not interested in engaging you in that thread either. Which is why I haven't bothered even looking at it before now. Having seen what it's about and the level of wankery from all sides (yours included), I'm still not interested.

You asked me questions in this thread and so I responded to them in this thread . If you don't want the answers here, don't ask the questions here.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

You responded to the ones unrelated to this thread.

I know that the only fit subjects for discussion are what a bad messenger I am and ad targeting because apparently I'm better behaved when those are discussed but I still want to see an answer to this one:

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

 

[Bent Sailor]

You responded to the ones unrelated to this thread.

That you posed in this thread. If you didn't want those questions answered here, it is up to you not to ask them here. Not my responsibility to sort your shit out.

I know that the only fit subjects for discussion are what a bad messenger I am and ad targeting because apparently I'm better behaved when those are discussed but I still want to see an answer to this one:

Do you agree with Trump that the liberal majority decided this one correctly?

What one wants and what one gets are very often very different things. Adults understand that. Perhaps if you hadn't proven yourself a tool so many times in the past, you'd be getting more of what you want now. I personally would be more amenable to discussing the subject with you had I not seen how you've acted in the past when I've done that.