Slashdot Mirror

As far as I know, faces of people can't be used for commerce without permission from the "owner". A notable exception to this are pics, photos or caricatures of politicians in certain context.

Has Apple trademarked Jobs' image? Or is there some kind of international law that covers selling the likeness of someone without their permission?

I'm not being snarky, I genuinely don't know.

I had this same thought, and further, I'm pretty confident that there's no trademark issue here. Apple doesn't make figurines. The whole thing is a caricature and doesn't threaten the computer business in any way. Now, if Apple WERE in the action figure business, or had entered into a contract with someone who was, then we might have an issue of greater importance.

That came out 4 years ago, like most of the information in 'cablegate'. The rest are caricatures of politicians inline with what gets posted on internet message boards. All this will do is cause the US to be less transparent.

At some point there was a nice caricature about that subject (venting) -- I can't seem to find it, even if I could it's in french -- so here's a translation/description:
2 exact replicas of the same image (a president talking to his people), one is a dictator saying : "ferme ta gueule!!" --meaning "shut the fuck up or else"--. The other is a democratic president saying : "Cause toujours!!" -- which is an expression to say : yeah yeah, speak as you want, as if I'm listening to you --. It is based Quote from Citations de Jean-Louis Barrault: "La dictature, c’est ferme ta gueule; la démocratie, c’est cause toujours.

Dude. Seriously.

You need some way to constructively handle your anger - and I find it sad that you've chosen to let it come out in portraying whole groups of people in totally bogus caricatures .

You haven't used obvious racist language, such as naming black people, latinos etc, but pretty much any one can certainly hear that dog-whistle very clearly.

People are people.

Undocumented immigrants, blacks, latinos, and white people *all* have those individuals who care and those that don't.

Rather than grouping your ire for whole groups of people, how about addressing individual behavior.

[And that's not even focusing on the fallacious nature of your arguments...but I felt the "racial" and "group" intolerance needed addressing.]

Not really. This is a lot like the Sony Nightshot porn stories from about a decade ago - garish green images with too much contrast aren't really something to get the blood pumping IMO. Same thing with these security images. Anybody who gets aroused looking at these grotesque caricatures probably needs therapy.

If you want to get serious about it, it all can be traced to the societal psychosis of celebrity worship that presents life as one gigantic casino: "You *too* can be a WINNER!!" (in tiny print: your odds are 1 in 4 billion, disqualifying conditions will apply, see lawyer before entering etc).

The con-men who benefited from this worked tirelessly for decade upon decade to slowly reshape the entire economy and the "common wisdom" of Americans to the point that things like "Credit Default Swaps" and "5th tier derivatives" are looked upon not only as a serious endeavor but as a legitimate "investment", while some 200 years back they would be seen as a joke of a scam.

Similarly, the average worker has become so confused that he disassociates his lot in life and reality from his make-believe "future" of a billionaire "winner". He is also told (and most amazingly he believes it) that the casino winners are wholly and single handedly responsible for him even having a roof over his head and food to eat and that he should be grateful to them for it and defend them, his current "benefactors" and future "peers" - no doubt in his mind about that, from any and all harm.

In short, America (and most of the "business" world) has become a vicious caricature of what a sane economy looks like and where the least valued activity (and lowest paid) is actual work to produce anything and the most revered kind of activity is high-stakes gambling with con-job money.

Some people believe, and I tend to agree with them, that the pivotal point at which this enormous scam became mainstream (at least in the financial realm) was when the fiat currencies became the norm instead of an exotic weirdness confined to impoverished countries run by "rulers" who sat on their suitcases ready to escape in the middle of the night at the first sign of the populace starting to catch on...

Trident = wielded by Neptune (or Poseidon),

Pitchfork (most often with 4 or more tines) = only sometimes wielded by Satan in humorous caricatures

Dig a little deeper. I know this because I followed the whole thing incredibly closely and I remember my anger at Jobs when he appropriated the DRM-free movement without so much as even a nod towards the people that had been fighting for this for so long.

I don't have a problem with Apple. I do have a problem with Steve Jobs, primarily because I think he's deceitful. I don't understand why saying something unfavorable means that I hate Apple, and from your reaction it really looks like you idolize them (or Jobs, or both). No company is worth that. But as I said, to each their own.

Your original post said something about us being thankful to Apple, which made me puke a little because Apple in no way led the movement, they merely used it to escape regulatory scrutiny in Europe, the timing was brilliant for them, and as usual their PR was masterful. They did good by offering us the privilege to buy non-DRMed tracks for 30 cents extra. But thank them??? Hell fucking no.

Anyway.. I'm breaking my own rules now.. threads like this rarely result in anyone changing their mind, and I hate becoming a caricature of the internet tough guy meme.. I hope I have the strength to not respond to the next message on this thread.

Hello Teabaggers and my fellow Government conservatives! These scanners are just one big pile of stinking pork AND it's a violation of our beloved Constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution>The Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.

TSA searches are granted by the Constitution as an "administrative search." Look it up. When you decide to fly, the airline fuels the plane, trains pilots and brings a bunch of pretty faces aboard to serve a fraction of your needs. When you approach these aircraft, the Government steps in because it has been granted control of airport operations thanks to the FAA, and now more specifically, DHS. Getting close to an aircraft means that you are under Government protections. Part of these protections is provided through the screening of your person and property that is brought aboard. The security comes with how you and your property screened for threats, but also everyone around you has been screened as well.

This is a prime example of where "if you do nothing wrong; then you have nothing to worry about" is shown to be bullshit.

These airport scanners and pat downs dishonor our troops and everyone who has ever died fighting for our country!

We are supposed to be the home of the free and the brave, let's act like it! The Europeans don't do this. They don't even allow the scanners! Are they braver and more free than we are?! It sure looks like it!

I think everyone on both sides can agree, this is just too much!

Take your hyper-patriotism rhetoric and shove it. Hundreds of thousands of people go through airport screening every day and most of them have no problem with it. Those that do have a problem with it gain the attention of people who you don't really want watching you. Causing trouble at a checkpoint is, itself, perceived as a threat to security and will be dealt with as such. Think about it.

This is the home of the brave, where millions can fly to their destination every month without any fear of the plane going down.

To be the land of the free, the price of freedom must be paid. In this case, that price is an elimination of this illusion of privacy that we hold when our very lives are at stake. Ask anyone who serves; they know of this price. The so-called "privacy" that you protect is nothing more than a caricature of the human form. What you persecute is a ghost and a vision, but is no real threat to our Constitutional rights.

Abolishing our security is the real threat. While Benjamin Franklin did say, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," (and before you rebuke, that is the historically accurate quote) the saying does not foresee the times we live in now. When Benjamin wrote it, it was only a note aside two proposed acts in Massachusetts that would basically legislate them into martial law while under British threat. The statement is a reaction to the idea that the citizenry shall not be subjected as an accused person would be. We're talking curfews, arrests, and arbitrary executions here... not pat-downs. When that was written, the idea was to protect our rights to freely move about, engage in citizenship without fear and basically live our lives. So, what essential liberty does the body scanner threaten?

There's brave, then there's stupid. You want to be brave? Join your local law enforcement. Start an airline. Become a pilot. But for f*ck's sake, don't go splattering your ignorant opinions on-line and insist that everyone respect it as Truth. Grow a pair, then we'll talk.

Your different assumptions lead to a different conclusion. Then you make a caricature of your imagined opponent and blame his understanding of statistics. Well done, you should post on 4chan.

You're so full of pretentious shit...

"The concept"? There is no concept, sweetheart. Time to stop pretending, okay?

"urban environment"? the fact that you can't spell "city" only increases my belief that you're a pretentious moron, one of which his / her own family feels embarrassed.

"to see what happens" is that artsy for you? How about we spit on some wall "to see what happens"? Or we place a banana peel on the sidewalk "to see what happens"? Got my point? Ouh, almost forgot how stupid you are: "to see what happens" has zero conenction with art or in general with meaning.

"creating a parallel (and sllightly subversive) infrastructure"? Honey, you can't create anything at all, stop dreaming. Pretentious idiots can't even understand what "subversive" means, too.

"in new and original ways"? LOL

"as we say in Art"? Frankly most of the times I think people like you are just caricatures, made-up ideas with no real counterpart in real life. Wow!

"The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

I just hope she pays attention to her new party. They actually support quite a few wealth-redistribution programs, such as social security, farm subsidies, medicare, the Retiree Drug Subsidy, etc. Compared to the Libertarians, the Republicans are basically socialists.

I have to wonder if the 'liberal gene' isn't also something along the lines of a 'empathy gene.' I don't mean this purely in the virtuous sense. Empathy can be paralyzing and, if taken to extremes, make for some pretty bad law. The caricatures of the effete liberal too afraid to hurt someone's creativity or wound someone's feelings are all tied to an excess of empathy. Conservatives seem to think that people who are bad off just deserved it. Well, unless it's *them,* in which case the liberals killed their inner John Galt.

So cheap, shiny things like bluetooth ear-pieces, chrome wheel spinners, and big necklaces became a sort of caricature of the desperation to appear wealthy.

And what a target market that is!

Only Apple-lovers will know the significance to white vs. non-white. The rest will just assume that the iPhone being white was meant to match the ugly white ear-buds that came with it.

I think a more visible sign of wealth is walking into an office full of suits when one is wearing jeans and a sweater, without anyone thinking it out of place... Which leads right into the idea behind bling: people without wealth are more concerned about their outward appearance than people with wealth. So cheap, shiny things like bluetooth ear-pieces, chrome wheel spinners, and big necklaces became a sort of caricature of the desperation to appear wealthy.

Yes, it's the Progressives projecting their own caricature of business are obsessed with profit that tries to define fiduciary duty as "maximize profit".

Fiduciary Duty:

When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter. The client is entitled to the best efforts of the fiduciary on his behalf and the fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client. A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client.

"We demand the version which is illegal to release."

Either you just don't get it, or you are a blind advocate for President Obama.

Any version of his B.C. would be illegal for Hawaii to release. What's odd is that he didn't release the version everybody else would have (e.g. as McCain did) -- showing the hospital where he was born, etc. Instead, he produced a B.C. summary computer printout created around the year 2007. Now, I believe it's an official Hawaiian document, and I believe he was born in Hawaii... but it's obvious to me and to most Americans that he's hiding something embarrassing. And darn it, we want to know what it is.

Aren't you curious why he had a new document generated in 2007? Don't you want to take a peek at his original, long form B.C.? Many very respectable people and organizations including the NYT have been curious, and very much wanted a peek... however for whatever reason, Mr. Obama refused to grant access. If he just said the word, Hawaiian officials would trip over themselves in a rush to make public whatever information they have. Saying (as you did above) that the long form is somehow specially illegal is just... silly. You think Hawaii wouldn't comply with a request from Pres. Obama to release it?

Besides, he said in one of his books that he had his B.C. lying around with other papers. How about a peek at that, Mr. President? If the NYT is curious, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to be as well. :P

If you say it's none of our business because he's entitled to privacy as an American citizen, then I guess you have a point as far as that goes. But a counter-point could be made that the American people have a legitimate interest to know all the details of his background in order to judge his suitability for the top job. When an immigrant is naturalized and becomes an American citizen, he swears an oath that he disclaims and rejects any loyalty or fealty to a foreign country. Does Mr. Obama have any baggage like that? Is he, or has he ever been, a dual citizen? The secrecy surrounding his past has sort of blocked discussions of this nature. He can keep the mask of secrecy if he likes, but based on some national polls, I think it will contribute to his being a one term president.

Vimperator actually. Viewing documents, like images and videos, is a visual task for which a GUI is useful. For actually interacting with the document, I still prefer a command environment.

So you open it up in Vimperator (which appears to be Firefox), but keep a CLI handy in another window (or another computer entirely-- after all windows are a nasty GUI concept you hate!) with Lynx to fill-in forms? One GUI browser to look at the pretty pictures, and another CLI browser to interact with the document?

Yeah, right.

Not sure why you'd do that.

There's a kajillion reasons, but I doubt you care because you're stuck in self-destructive a "no software made after 1977 can possibly be any good" mindset.

What more can you do? What can you do with a CLI that you can't with a GUI?

Loops, variables, pipes, etc.

What TASKS do you do with a CLI that you can't with a GUI?

Excuse me, for a moment there I thought I was talking to a normal human being speaking normal human being English, and not some kind of ridiculous caricature of a bearded Unix hacker. If you're unable to separate the concept of "tasks" from "features", then I guess it's pretty hopeless, huh?

The learning curve is irrelevant when you're comparing capabilities. What matters is how much can be done, not how much can be done by a naive user within 10 minutes.

Why? By what metrics?

Similarly an OS might be easy to use, but over the long term less useful than one that takes longer to learn but can do more.

Ok I'll bite: what OS is "less useful" than another? In what way?

Your example is bogus. The 777 is easier to learn to fly,

The example didn't use learning curve as a parameter. Congratulations! Not only did you fail to understand it, you failed to even COMPREHEND it! The rare Double-Fail.

The moderators should go to the northern territories of Pakistan, set up easels, and publicly sketch Mohammed caricatures to entertain the local populace.

Some kind soul should should make a video of them as they do so that we may share in the entertainment.