If you're referring to Syria, they did do a pretty good job before coalition forces destabilized the area again leaving a power vacuum for ISIS to take over
Don't conflate all of the Arab Spring with ISIS. Protests and fighting had been going on since 2011 as the Arab Spring spread. Being able to topple the monarchy in Tunisia and the military dictatorships in Libya and Egypt emboldened the people in other countries to demand regime change.
Bashar al-Assad vowed that he wouldn't fall to the same fate that Mubarak and Gaddafi and he pulled out all the stops, massacring his own citizens, indiscriminately shelling towns with artillery and chemical weapons. The harder he pressed back, the more Syrians joined the opposition parties, which is usually what happens to the US in the region. Much of that fighting has been on the western portion in the country. But in the eastern section, ISIS has arisen, so the middle is in a bit of a pinch.
If i would be photographing fashion-models....the clothing is copyrighted, and the work of the fashion-stylist is copyrighted and the work of the make-up-artist is copyrighted.....I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
It also gets a bit more complicated depending on whether you have a model release or not. IE, you could take the photograph, but whether you could publish it without a release varies by jurisdiction/country.
As the other commentator mentioned, it's per work infringed, which is why they can bring claims of huge damages against a file sharer even if they don't have any evidence that the file was shared with anyone other than the MPAA/RIAA/whomever is checking.
I suppose the unanswered question is, why is Sony searching for and flagging content that they don't own? Is it because it's "mixed" content with Sony-owned and non-Sony-owned content alike, and the only easily-searchable/scannable part is the one they don't own?
If you run a totally automated flagging system with no personal followup, then it's not credible to state that Sony acts in good faith to prevent false positives.
Yes, filed on the shelf right next to Bend-ghazi, and also Benghazi—both of which were "scandals" manufactured by slimy, dishonest partisans with a political agenda to push.
Huh. So you're saying there was no problem with an undersecured compound, no terrorist storming of the building, and no ambassador was killed?
Using your logic, we should never do anything. What the hell, if might not come out perfect or on budget - so we shouldn't do it. And it's not like this project would create good paying jobs or that those people would be paying into our tax coffers, no, none of that makes any difference.
What annoys the hell out of me is that they were never honest -- the cost value they gave was a fraction of what it would take, because they needed voter approval... and the voters would not have approved if they'd been given valid figures for the project cost and what the project would eventually deliver. "$68b? Well, a bit pricy, but if we can get a high-speed corridor between Northern and Southern California, then maybe.."
All of this for a train which no one is interested in taking and will be too slow to be accurately called "high speed rail" anymore. When every project is mismanaged scam to enrich contractors and unions, yes, after awhile voters who foot the bill get sick of the pie-in-the-sky
So the Chinese have a rail system that actually works and that people want to use? Good for them. They have a system of governance that can actually get this sort of thing done. In California, the idea of holding people accountable is anathema. $68b project balloons to $250b, and will be 10+ years behind schedule? Well hell, we'll just have to pour money into it to make it work. The people are too disconnected from the bureaucracy to even be able to hold Caltrans accountable for the disaster that is the SF/Oakland Bay Bridge.
Our jets were also preserving our names on the list and our place up against the wall when the revolution comes.
If an ISIS revolution comes, they're not going to give a shit whether you sent jets or not. They'll want you dead either way. Maybe it'll change the manner of your execution, but death is pretty much a guarantee unless you fly the black flag and wholeheartedly endorse their twisted philosophy.
Everything funded by the government MUST comply with government rules. And not paying taxes means that you take money from the government.
So does that mean that as a private citizen with an income too low to pay taxes, I'm not allowed to dislike homosexuality, while a rich person who pays lots of taxes can hate on homosexuality as much as he likes?
If I don't pay taxes, I'm "funded by the government," right?
Pretty sure "Jane" is a repressed gay man. They tend to be the only people who love delving that much into the nasty details of the sex they claim to hate.
I had read that Zemeckis and Gale didn't want to try to "accurately" predict what would be future possible because people would just nitpick it and it was all going to be wrong anyway. They were pretty sure we would NOT have flying cars, but they really wanted flying cars, so they decided to just have fun with it and come up with funny predictions. Hoverboards, self-drying clothing, self-tying laces, etc.
Coming into money, especially quickly (e.g. winning the lottery) has been shown time and time again to leave people in a MUCH WORSE situation than they started from because they don't know the first thing about handling that much money responsibly.
When I was a starving student in school, with little income of my own, I learned how to stretch the dollars. I found the bargain pack of 20 sausages for $5 that I could mix with various other things to create a full week's meals. I avoided unnecessary expenses. I tinkered with some low-end castoff computers to learn some tech skills (And Linux was free, save for the floppy disks it came on), and eventually got a starter's full time tech job with a base salary double that of anything anyone in my family had ever earned. Did I buy fancy watches? A flashy car? Did I fritter away money eating out at high-class restaurants all the time, or go on trips or cruises? No, living without money I had learned to live without all those things. Having a real salary certainly eased any pressure that the bills and debt had brought before. But I could still live frugally because I had.
The one thing that did change, I could afford to live on my own instead of with roommates. And I bought a used car to get to work, which I still drive 17 years later. >_>
Oops - wait - your brother wasn't the 'won't lend money' person - my bad. Still true though, only an idiot wouldn't loan money. It's a rather lucrative process.
It takes a fair amount of investment to do it right. I've loaned money to various friends before. Some were close friends at the time, and they're still close friends now. I've only ever had one of them pay me back. I'm not particularly keen on playing the whole "Where's my money, bitch?" because I know they don't really have much money to spare. They're poor, and part of being poor means you hope someone will quietly forgive or forget about your debts.
I think many people who are well-off enough to loan money don't because the whole "debt collection" part could strain a friendship that both enjoy otherwise. People, on both sides, get funny about money.
On the other hand, the cost to live -under-a-bridge- eating out of dumpsters in Beverly Hills is about the same as the cost to live under a bridge anywhere else.
If you're taking something that's free, well, of course. Free is free. But a bag of rice in New Mexico is going to cost more than a bag of rice in rural China, even if it came from the same place, and/or is the same quality rice. Green onions (and not froo froo "organic" or heirloom or whatever labels we want to use) in Germany will just cost more than scallions in Sri Lanka. Empty land, not even a house, but a plot of dirt that you could put a shack on costs a hell of a lot more in California than it does in Niger. Now when you start adding in more advanced things, like indoor plumbing, of course the costs grow much faster.
But that's because the other way works just as well. A carpenter in California doing the exact same work as a carpenter in Argentina is quite likely to be earning quite a bit more. Is he living the high life? Doubtful. Carpenters don't make that much money in the US, and Argentina isn't exactly a third-world country either.
You could go live int he slum, and keep your money in your wallet instead. Then, with huge amounts of cash in your wallet it would be obvious - even to you - that you're rich.
Or he could use direct deposit, and no one would be the wiser!
If not, you actually have no fucking clue what you are talking about. As such, you are not in a position to determine how easy it is to do, or how stupid rich people are for not having done it.
Didn't Bruce Wayne do that? Left Wayne Enterprises in other hands while he went around the world getting jailed in vaguely Asian countries.
The problem there is people have a nose for the independently wealthy. Someone's always eating out?
I'm not "wealthy," but I'm well off enough to eat out every day if I wanted to. I don't, I prefer cooking most of my meals.
Never without cash?
When I was broke, or close to it, I always had cash on hand, because I paid for everything with cash, and I tried to live as frugally as I could.
Always has free time?
You'd talking about the "idle rich," most wealthy people don't fit into that category. Though I suppose that if a wealthy person really was going to play Prince and the Pauper for awhile, it'd be an idle-richer.
But the enjoyable jobs (musician, artist) don't pay well even if you're okay at it, so eventually someone will figure out you're wealthy
Oh man, I'm not sure if you should go there. Maybe if you're talking about big-name artists... but I have a lot of artist friends who try to make being an artist a full time job, even though they're nowhere good enough to make a comfortable living off of it. Somehow, they end up subsisting, though there will be times when they swallow price and resort to begging friends/acquaintances for cash (to flat-out give.. not to purchase art, because that's a separate income stream that's not enough). When that time period passes, they convince themselves, somehow, that being a full time artist is still a good idea, and the cycle continues. Though it beats abject poverty.
Thread creep, but my dogs will do nothing of the kind with dog food. I really can't say what ONE of them would do with unlimited angus steak, but TWO or MORE of them will eat it as fast as they can to keep the other dog(s) from getting it. There is a metaphor in here somewhere, I think the overlord class sees money as a zero-sum game where they win if they get the most.
Some birds will do it. Baby house finches in particular will eat themselves to death. Of course, they only end up getting the food that the parents will feed them, but if they're babies that the human has to feed, said human has to be careful not to overfeed.
Or how about collecting it for public financing of all campaigns, you know so our politicians don't have to spend all their time begging people for money and becoming beholden to special interests and can actually have time to govern?
As long as it takes money to get your message out there (and it will always cost a lot of money to get your message out there), then campaigning will be considered free speech. As long as it costs lots of money to get a message out there, political advertisements will be considered free speech, as will contributing money to those causes.
All this unless, of course, we pass a constitutional amendment that excepts political speech from free speech. But of course that would just as quickly mean the end of the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, the NRA (as a political organization), EFF, and pretty much every other political advocacy group.
If communications cost money, public financing won't help. Everyone will always need more. More gives you the edge, and you can't limit "more" without limiting political speech.
Why don't you have several months' worth of savings saved up, like everyone should?
Have you ever been poor before? Do you know how difficult it is to get out of that cycle? When everyone around is in poverty and there are no nearby jobs available? You have to have money to move and set up in a new city. You have to have a decent income to be able to save it. If you earn $300/month, how do you save that? How are you supposed to survive on that? Do you get sick? Do you think jobs like give you health insurance?
Do you know how difficult it is when there are no jobs in the area that pay more than minimum wage on a part-time schedule? The corporate masters you seem so fond of have done amazing work lowering the real wage further and further and further in the past several decades. Do you think the various parents in this country, and there are many, who work two or three shitty jobs for shitty wages do it because they're FUN? Or is it because businesses think that it's ok to pay less and less each year for the same work, decade after decade?
Why can't you go to charities or family members, where people are willing to help you out of their own benevolence, instead of stealing it from everyone?
Oh, so you favor "nothing."
And the answer is, because plenty of people don't have family that can help them. Plenty of people have family that don't like them and -won't- give them a time. Maybe they're gay and their family wants nothing to do with them. Or they fell on hard times and the only family member they have is some asshole who will give nothing but a lecture about how his kid/brother/whatever is a lower-47% "taker."
But most of all, it's because most of us think that a guaranteed level of service is far better than a flaky or incomplete level, and because it's fucking 2015, and a modern advanced society doesn't let grandpa starve to death in the street.
I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
The government disagrees with you. They think anybody that actually has a job is rich. Anybody that has never had a job is poor (but not somebody that had a job and then lost it, they are still rich and not entitled to long term benefits). And with the governments current policies, it won't be long before there IS only poor and rich, and there will probably be a lot more poor when people figure out they can live a more fulfilling lifestyle by being poor than working their but off being "rich".
Wow. What country do you live in? While things aren't that great in my country (USA), they're a hell of a lot better than whatever place you described. That's crazy town.
Stop treading on their libertarian utopia. Also never bring up that Ayn Rand was on welfare or came from a communist country that significantly colored her view of the world and her writing. She writes like a Russian, overly wordy without getting anywhere.
Objectivists don't mind the fact that Ayn Rand was on welfare. Objectivism is all about taking whatever is available. Rand saw welfare was available for her, and she took it.
Remember, it's about your rational self-interest, not the other guy's rational self-interest. If someone else is stupid enough to give you a handout, you take it, but you don't make the same mistake.
That's Objectivism in a nutshell, just without the noble/bullshit trappings that go along with it.
It's not like they're hoarding it all in their basements like Scrooge McDuck.
No, it's functionally exactly like that.
No, it's functionally nothing like that. It's all put into businesses that make things and employ people and pay their salaries, yours included. Money that just sits around, entirely untouched, is considered a waste. The wealthy rarely want to "stand pat."
Slashdot Mirror
If you're referring to Syria, they did do a pretty good job before coalition forces destabilized the area again leaving a power vacuum for ISIS to take over
Don't conflate all of the Arab Spring with ISIS. Protests and fighting had been going on since 2011 as the Arab Spring spread. Being able to topple the monarchy in Tunisia and the military dictatorships in Libya and Egypt emboldened the people in other countries to demand regime change.
Bashar al-Assad vowed that he wouldn't fall to the same fate that Mubarak and Gaddafi and he pulled out all the stops, massacring his own citizens, indiscriminately shelling towns with artillery and chemical weapons. The harder he pressed back, the more Syrians joined the opposition parties, which is usually what happens to the US in the region. Much of that fighting has been on the western portion in the country. But in the eastern section, ISIS has arisen, so the middle is in a bit of a pinch.
If i would be photographing fashion-models....the clothing is copyrighted, and the work of the fashion-stylist is copyrighted and the work of the make-up-artist is copyrighted.....I would own the copyright of the image but can not claim the copyright of the others....
It also gets a bit more complicated depending on whether you have a model release or not. IE, you could take the photograph, but whether you could publish it without a release varies by jurisdiction/country.
As the other commentator mentioned, it's per work infringed, which is why they can bring claims of huge damages against a file sharer even if they don't have any evidence that the file was shared with anyone other than the MPAA/RIAA/whomever is checking.
I suppose the unanswered question is, why is Sony searching for and flagging content that they don't own? Is it because it's "mixed" content with Sony-owned and non-Sony-owned content alike, and the only easily-searchable/scannable part is the one they don't own?
If you run a totally automated flagging system with no personal followup, then it's not credible to state that Sony acts in good faith to prevent false positives.
In the real world we live in the little guys got crushed, every. single. --freaking-- time
Not so. If there is a good claim, the little guy can win a decent amount of the time...
But it often isn't worth it.
Yes, filed on the shelf right next to Bend-ghazi, and also Benghazi—both of which were "scandals" manufactured by slimy, dishonest partisans with a political agenda to push.
Huh. So you're saying there was no problem with an undersecured compound, no terrorist storming of the building, and no ambassador was killed?
Using your logic, we should never do anything. What the hell, if might not come out perfect or on budget - so we shouldn't do it. And it's not like this project would create good paying jobs or that those people would be paying into our tax coffers, no, none of that makes any difference.
What annoys the hell out of me is that they were never honest -- the cost value they gave was a fraction of what it would take, because they needed voter approval... and the voters would not have approved if they'd been given valid figures for the project cost and what the project would eventually deliver. "$68b? Well, a bit pricy, but if we can get a high-speed corridor between Northern and Southern California, then maybe.."
All of this for a train which no one is interested in taking and will be too slow to be accurately called "high speed rail" anymore.
When every project is mismanaged scam to enrich contractors and unions, yes, after awhile voters who foot the bill get sick of the pie-in-the-sky
So the Chinese have a rail system that actually works and that people want to use? Good for them. They have a system of governance that can actually get this sort of thing done. In California, the idea of holding people accountable is anathema. $68b project balloons to $250b, and will be 10+ years behind schedule? Well hell, we'll just have to pour money into it to make it work. The people are too disconnected from the bureaucracy to even be able to hold Caltrans accountable for the disaster that is the SF/Oakland Bay Bridge.
Our jets were also preserving our names on the list and our place up against the wall when the revolution comes.
If an ISIS revolution comes, they're not going to give a shit whether you sent jets or not. They'll want you dead either way.
Maybe it'll change the manner of your execution, but death is pretty much a guarantee unless you fly the black flag and wholeheartedly endorse their twisted philosophy.
Sorry, but no.
Everything funded by the government MUST comply with government rules. And not paying taxes means that you take money from the government.
So does that mean that as a private citizen with an income too low to pay taxes, I'm not allowed to dislike homosexuality, while a rich person who pays lots of taxes can hate on homosexuality as much as he likes?
If I don't pay taxes, I'm "funded by the government," right?
Pretty sure "Jane" is a repressed gay man. They tend to be the only people who love delving that much into the nasty details of the sex they claim to hate.
I had read that Zemeckis and Gale didn't want to try to "accurately" predict what would be future possible because people would just nitpick it and it was all going to be wrong anyway. They were pretty sure we would NOT have flying cars, but they really wanted flying cars, so they decided to just have fun with it and come up with funny predictions. Hoverboards, self-drying clothing, self-tying laces, etc.
Coming into money, especially quickly (e.g. winning the lottery) has been shown time and time again to leave people in a MUCH WORSE situation than they started from because they don't know the first thing about handling that much money responsibly.
When I was a starving student in school, with little income of my own, I learned how to stretch the dollars. I found the bargain pack of 20 sausages for $5 that I could mix with various other things to create a full week's meals. I avoided unnecessary expenses. I tinkered with some low-end castoff computers to learn some tech skills (And Linux was free, save for the floppy disks it came on), and eventually got a starter's full time tech job with a base salary double that of anything anyone in my family had ever earned. Did I buy fancy watches? A flashy car? Did I fritter away money eating out at high-class restaurants all the time, or go on trips or cruises? No, living without money I had learned to live without all those things. Having a real salary certainly eased any pressure that the bills and debt had brought before. But I could still live frugally because I had.
The one thing that did change, I could afford to live on my own instead of with roommates. And I bought a used car to get to work, which I still drive 17 years later. >_>
Oops - wait - your brother wasn't the 'won't lend money' person - my bad. Still true though, only an idiot wouldn't loan money. It's a rather lucrative process.
It takes a fair amount of investment to do it right. I've loaned money to various friends before. Some were close friends at the time, and they're still close friends now. I've only ever had one of them pay me back. I'm not particularly keen on playing the whole "Where's my money, bitch?" because I know they don't really have much money to spare. They're poor, and part of being poor means you hope someone will quietly forgive or forget about your debts.
I think many people who are well-off enough to loan money don't because the whole "debt collection" part could strain a friendship that both enjoy otherwise. People, on both sides, get funny about money.
On the other hand, the cost to live -under-a-bridge- eating out of dumpsters in Beverly Hills is about the same as the cost to live under a bridge anywhere else.
If you're taking something that's free, well, of course. Free is free.
But a bag of rice in New Mexico is going to cost more than a bag of rice in rural China, even if it came from the same place, and/or is the same quality rice. Green onions (and not froo froo "organic" or heirloom or whatever labels we want to use) in Germany will just cost more than scallions in Sri Lanka. Empty land, not even a house, but a plot of dirt that you could put a shack on costs a hell of a lot more in California than it does in Niger. Now when you start adding in more advanced things, like indoor plumbing, of course the costs grow much faster.
But that's because the other way works just as well. A carpenter in California doing the exact same work as a carpenter in Argentina is quite likely to be earning quite a bit more. Is he living the high life? Doubtful. Carpenters don't make that much money in the US, and Argentina isn't exactly a third-world country either.
You could go live int he slum, and keep your money in your wallet instead. Then, with huge amounts of cash in your wallet it would be obvious - even to you - that you're rich.
Or he could use direct deposit, and no one would be the wiser!
You misinterpreted what he said, and you broke out the most overrated logical argument, the fallacy that is the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Are you a rich person who has done this?
If not, you actually have no fucking clue what you are talking about. As such, you are not in a position to determine how easy it is to do, or how stupid rich people are for not having done it.
Didn't Bruce Wayne do that? Left Wayne Enterprises in other hands while he went around the world getting jailed in vaguely Asian countries.
The problem there is people have a nose for the independently wealthy. Someone's always eating out?
I'm not "wealthy," but I'm well off enough to eat out every day if I wanted to. I don't, I prefer cooking most of my meals.
Never without cash?
When I was broke, or close to it, I always had cash on hand, because I paid for everything with cash, and I tried to live as frugally as I could.
Always has free time?
You'd talking about the "idle rich," most wealthy people don't fit into that category. Though I suppose that if a wealthy person really was going to play Prince and the Pauper for awhile, it'd be an idle-richer.
But the enjoyable jobs (musician, artist) don't pay well even if you're okay at it, so eventually someone will figure out you're wealthy
Oh man, I'm not sure if you should go there. Maybe if you're talking about big-name artists... but I have a lot of artist friends who try to make being an artist a full time job, even though they're nowhere good enough to make a comfortable living off of it. Somehow, they end up subsisting, though there will be times when they swallow price and resort to begging friends/acquaintances for cash (to flat-out give.. not to purchase art, because that's a separate income stream that's not enough). When that time period passes, they convince themselves, somehow, that being a full time artist is still a good idea, and the cycle continues. Though it beats abject poverty.
Thread creep, but my dogs will do nothing of the kind with dog food. I really can't say what ONE of them would do with unlimited angus steak, but TWO or MORE of them will eat it as fast as they can to keep the other dog(s) from getting it. There is a metaphor in here somewhere, I think the overlord class sees money as a zero-sum game where they win if they get the most.
Some birds will do it. Baby house finches in particular will eat themselves to death. Of course, they only end up getting the food that the parents will feed them, but if they're babies that the human has to feed, said human has to be careful not to overfeed.
Or how about collecting it for public financing of all campaigns, you know so our politicians don't have to spend all their time begging people for money and becoming beholden to special interests and can actually have time to govern?
As long as it takes money to get your message out there (and it will always cost a lot of money to get your message out there), then campaigning will be considered free speech. As long as it costs lots of money to get a message out there, political advertisements will be considered free speech, as will contributing money to those causes.
All this unless, of course, we pass a constitutional amendment that excepts political speech from free speech. But of course that would just as quickly mean the end of the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, the NRA (as a political organization), EFF, and pretty much every other political advocacy group.
If communications cost money, public financing won't help. Everyone will always need more. More gives you the edge, and you can't limit "more" without limiting political speech.
Why don't you have several months' worth of savings saved up, like everyone should?
Have you ever been poor before? Do you know how difficult it is to get out of that cycle? When everyone around is in poverty and there are no nearby jobs available? You have to have money to move and set up in a new city. You have to have a decent income to be able to save it. If you earn $300/month, how do you save that? How are you supposed to survive on that? Do you get sick? Do you think jobs like give you health insurance?
Do you know how difficult it is when there are no jobs in the area that pay more than minimum wage on a part-time schedule? The corporate masters you seem so fond of have done amazing work lowering the real wage further and further and further in the past several decades. Do you think the various parents in this country, and there are many, who work two or three shitty jobs for shitty wages do it because they're FUN? Or is it because businesses think that it's ok to pay less and less each year for the same work, decade after decade?
Why can't you go to charities or family members, where people are willing to help you out of their own benevolence, instead of stealing it from everyone?
Oh, so you favor "nothing."
And the answer is, because plenty of people don't have family that can help them. Plenty of people have family that don't like them and -won't- give them a time. Maybe they're gay and their family wants nothing to do with them. Or they fell on hard times and the only family member they have is some asshole who will give nothing but a lecture about how his kid/brother/whatever is a lower-47% "taker."
But most of all, it's because most of us think that a guaranteed level of service is far better than a flaky or incomplete level, and because it's fucking 2015, and a modern advanced society doesn't let grandpa starve to death in the street.
I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
The government disagrees with you. They think anybody that actually has a job is rich. Anybody that has never had a job is poor (but not somebody that had a job and then lost it, they are still rich and not entitled to long term benefits). And with the governments current policies, it won't be long before there IS only poor and rich, and there will probably be a lot more poor when people figure out they can live a more fulfilling lifestyle by being poor than working their but off being "rich".
Wow. What country do you live in? While things aren't that great in my country (USA), they're a hell of a lot better than whatever place you described. That's crazy town.
Stop treading on their libertarian utopia. Also never bring up that Ayn Rand was on welfare or came from a communist country that significantly colored her view of the world and her writing. She writes like a Russian, overly wordy without getting anywhere.
Objectivists don't mind the fact that Ayn Rand was on welfare. Objectivism is all about taking whatever is available. Rand saw welfare was available for her, and she took it.
Remember, it's about your rational self-interest, not the other guy's rational self-interest. If someone else is stupid enough to give you a handout, you take it, but you don't make the same mistake.
That's Objectivism in a nutshell, just without the noble/bullshit trappings that go along with it.
They have been lying about the definition sense 1945. Before that though, they were honest.
Same rule as the "bad roommate." If everyone but you uses one definition and you use another, then you're the one with the wrong definition.
It's not like they're hoarding it all in their basements like Scrooge McDuck.
No, it's functionally exactly like that.
No, it's functionally nothing like that. It's all put into businesses that make things and employ people and pay their salaries, yours included. Money that just sits around, entirely untouched, is considered a waste. The wealthy rarely want to "stand pat."