Well, for one thing, not all buns are sliced the same. You could take the exact same amount of meat and the exact same size bun and make it look many different ways. Four ounces of beef can be either smashed into a wide, thin patty, or piled into a high, narrow patty. A thin, wide patty on top of a bun that was sliced towards the top is going to look puny. A high, narrow patty on a bin sliced towards the bottom is going to look large. Same bun, same amount of meat, no deception.
"Private enterprise rights" are exactly the same as "individual rights". Too bad you do not hold them on a pillar, they are the cornerstone of the country.
Of course the US has anti-discrimination laws. However, they are not some sort of brain-damaged "you must deal with absolutely everyone" laws. They mostly just state you can't discriminate against someone for something they can not (or can not be expected to) change. That is race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age. You can absolutely 'discriminate' (which is really using your own right a free assembly) against anyone at all for any other reason.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a public service (paid for by the public) and a private service allowed to be used by the public at the owner's discretion. That are not at all the same thing.
Quite the dumbass, aren't you? First, nice trick with your 'Google owns the site' block. Of course, in real life such stupidity does not work. Google DOES own the site, and they CAN do whatever they want with it.
You can sue as much as you want to? Where did you get that nonsense. In order to sue you need at least legal standing (ie you were harmed), and a legal theory for which to sue them. What is your harm? The video that you paid $0 to post on YouTube was deleted? That makes your harm $0. What is your legal theory? 'I don't like them and they're mean'? Please show the case law that supports that.
Treated unfairly? Where do you get the idea anyone legally has to treat you fairly?
You also seem highly confused by the differences between public and private. I suggest you read up on that. Google is by no means 'a public site'. It is a 100% private site that they allow the public to use at their discretion.
Congress is not a technical organization, they are a political one. They have no need to know 'how the internet works'. Most members of Congress also don't know all of the technical details of engines either, but that doesn't mean they can't create laws specifying average fuel economy. It is up to the experts in those fields to make the laws reality.
Do you have any idea how many different subjects Congress has to deal with? Do you really expect the members of Congress, elected from the general public, to be experts in all of those areas? If YOU were elected to Congress, how many areas are YOU an expert in?
Here is how you can get exactly what the picture looks like (except done with all real food, which is not practical for photography)
Befriend a manager of Burger King so you can use their ingredients Get a bun. Use a tweezers and precisely move the sesame seeds so they look most appealing Use a blowtorch to singe the edges of the bun to an appealing golden brown color Take the patty and cut it into a crescent shape. Use the beef removed from the crescent and use it to make the patty thicker. Taper down towards the points of the crescent. Use the blowtorch again, and sear the patty until it has the desired color and char Put the patty on the bottom bun, overhanging the edge in the front Now you must move quickly Get a slice of tomato. Wet your fingers and flick them at the edge of the tomato, making dewy drops. Place the tomato on the patty, set slightly back from the edge Get whatever portion of lettuce they normally use. Tear it in half and stack the halves. Use the water trick again. Place the lettuce on the tomato, again offset slightly Cap with the top bun
Enjoy! You now have exactly what was pictured, which of course is way better than what they usually serve.
They aren't trashing all post-production work, although the article tries to make it sound that way. This was about a specific case - in an ad for mascara (used to make eyelashes thicker), they used post-processing to make the eyelashes even thicker. That is deceptive - they basically lied about what the product does. However, they could (and probably did) also use post-processing to make the entire picture look more appealing. There is nothing deceptive about that as related to the product being advertised, so there is no 'ban' on doing it.
The aren't YOUR PROFITS until they are paid out as a dividend. Until that time, they are the collective profits of all the shareholders, and they have been entrusted to the company to be used as the company sees fit in the best interests of the company, and hence the shareholders. If you think the company is making donations that are not in the best interests of the company, complain to the company, start a shareholder lawsuit, etc. However, if you think that the donations, while in the best interests of the company, are not in YOUR best interest, then you have invested in the wrong company, because clearly their goals do not line up with yours.
What exactly is deceiving about it? What does the picture show you? A toasted bun, a beef patty, a slice of cheese, a slice of tomato, some lettuce. What do they deliver? A toasted bun, a beef patty, a slice of cheese, a slice of tomato, some lettuce. Now, is the bun toasted perfectly evenly, with precisely placed sesame seeds? No. Does the tomato have exactly two drops of dew glistening on it? No. Does the patty have exactly the right amount of char in exactly the right places to look most appealing? No. Does any of that detract from the fact that you paid for, and got, a toasted bun with a beef patty a slice of cheese some tomato and lettuce? Nope. People buy burgers to eat them, not look upon them as objects of art. If the restaurant took the time to precisely line up all the ingredients, changed the lighting in the restaurant to be the same warm lighting the used to take the picture, carefully placed each seed with a tweezers, etc, would that in any way affect the value of the thing you purchased? No. It would taste exactly the same, and have exactly the same (lack of) nutritional value.
The issue is not whether the picture exactly matches what you get or not, it is whether reasonable people are deceived into buying the product by the picture.
In the case at hand, they got in trouble for modifying her eyelashes to make them look thicker. That is because the product being sold was mascara, the whole purpose of which is to make eyelashes thicker. It was deceptive. People looked at the ad, wanted those eyelashes, bought the product, and found that the product did not actually make their eyelashes that thick. If they had modified another part of the picture (for instance, add or remove a mole from her face), no problem.
In the case of fast food, no reasonable person over the age of three expects to actually get a burger that looks like the picture. People do not buy burgers for what they look like. They buy burgers because they want something to eat, and the picture shows them something they would like. If the picture contained ingredients that were not in the actual product, that would be deceptive. If the picture showed three patties and you only got two, that is deceptive. Looking a whole lot more attractive than the actual product? Not deceptive.
The corporations are not using the consumers money, they are using the shareholders money, which was given to them for the sole purpose of increasing the value of said money. Once a consumer gives a corporation money (buys something), the money is no longer his, and he has no say in what the other party does with it.
Saying a consumer should be able to control how a corporation spends it's money, or that there should be laws on how a corporation spends money given to it by consumers is exactly the same as saying your employer should be able to give you your paycheck and say none of it may be spent on unions.
Those communications are an AID to the driver, not a distraction. The person they are talking to knows when is an appropriate time to talk, and only says the minimum required for the task at hand. I can guarantee you none of those racers are chatting with their girlfriends, trying to get their broker to make a trade for them, are getting the ever-so-important notice that their friend has entered a new word on words-with-friends, or any of the other 100% useless crap (for the purposes of driving) that non-racers use their phones for.
So you oppose efforts to tax the rich more (a cost to them) and give more benefits to the poorer (health care, whatever) because that would be manipulating the public policy for the profit of the poor? You oppose minimum wages for the same reason? You oppose net neutrality because that could negatively impact the ISPs financial profit, while allowing the users to profit by having the internet service they want? You oppose food safety laws that would impact the profits of food providers?
Every law impacts some people positively and others negatively - otherwise there would be no need for the law at all. What you really meant to say was that you oppose laws that positively impact certain groups you happen to not like.
You do realize that those two things are not in any way contradictory, right? A cellphone ban does not automatically stop all cellphone use. Some people respect the ban, they are safer. Many people ignore it, and make things even worse by trying to hide what they are doing. They are more dangerous.
It is not like it is difficult to test whether or not cell phone use makes you more dangerous or not. Give someone a task that requires occasional concentration/action (use a driving simulator). Score how they do. Do it again, and periodically text them, call them, expect responses. Score it again.
Cell phone use while driving is dangerous. Banning cell phone use while driving may not fix the problem.
As long as the retests (for everyone) also include things like:
Looking at text messages when driving is OK when: a) any time b) when approaching stopped traffic c) at highway speeds, as long as nothing is immediately in front of you d) never
And automatically failing anyone answering other than d.
Then, during the road test, have someone send them texts saying 'You failed', and as soon as they look at it they are done.
Yeah $29,128 TUITION. That is not completing 4 years of college for $20K. According to their own web site, the first year ALONE is going to cost you $21,098.
They can donate individually. Nothing stops them from doing that. However, there is value in doing it as a group - a check for $1M representing the 1M shareholders of XYZ Corp carries more punch than 1 million $1 checks from each shareholder representing himself. No different from people joining any other group to act as one.
As far as being asked which candidates you want to support, so what? I am guessing they also didn't ask you what feature set the next product should have, what color carpet they should install, what to serve for lunch in the cafeteria, or what brand toilet paper to put in the men's room. When you bought your shares, you put your trust in the corporation to do what is best for you. Don't like what they are doing? Vote to oust the board, or divest.
Well, economists say all sorts of stupid things. We are talking about reality here, not some fantasy land. My guess is that there is a vanishingly small number of people who turn their houses into boarding homes for the weeks of the year when their child is at school.
I think you lost the thread of this conversation. The guy you responded to is not one of the clowns claiming that living at home while attending school is always a viable option, he is responding to the idiot above who claims that a child living at home is a sign of your failure as a parent.
For the same reason we allow labor unions, the EFF, and any other group to donate to political parties. Groups of people are still people with the same rights they always had even if they were not in a group. Exercising your freedom of association does not strip you of other rights.
Sounds like you have a serious dose of reality ahead of you. Things may well be different for you, but here is the reality for us. Many (most?) of the state schools in NY are located in small towns, where there really is nothing except the college. So a town of maybe 15000 people has a college with maybe 5000 students in it. How many jobs do you think are going to be available in a town like that, even in good economic times? How many employers are going to give those jobs to students?
Also, note that I did not say I am paying their rent, I said THEY are paying their rent. In the absence of sufficient income, that means they have loans.
Well, aren't you just all high and mighty, and a damn fine parent, I'm sure. First I said IN SCHOOL. That generally means they are younger than 22. Second, who the fuck are you to determine what acceptable living arrangements are? Third, you may not be aware of this, but a significant percentage of the population is unable to afford housing through no fault of their own. Many, many, people have extended family living with them, including children (and some children have parents living with them). There is a difference between 'preferred living arrangements' and 'practical living arrangements'. You may be a superb parent (doubtful), but are surely a shitty human being if you think having your kids live in substandard housing, on the streets, or taking on excessive debt just so they have a place to live is preferable to having them live at home.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, for one thing, not all buns are sliced the same. You could take the exact same amount of meat and the exact same size bun and make it look many different ways. Four ounces of beef can be either smashed into a wide, thin patty, or piled into a high, narrow patty. A thin, wide patty on top of a bun that was sliced towards the top is going to look puny. A high, narrow patty on a bin sliced towards the bottom is going to look large. Same bun, same amount of meat, no deception.
"Private enterprise rights" are exactly the same as "individual rights". Too bad you do not hold them on a pillar, they are the cornerstone of the country.
Of course the US has anti-discrimination laws. However, they are not some sort of brain-damaged "you must deal with absolutely everyone" laws. They mostly just state you can't discriminate against someone for something they can not (or can not be expected to) change. That is race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age. You can absolutely 'discriminate' (which is really using your own right a free assembly) against anyone at all for any other reason.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a public service (paid for by the public) and a private service allowed to be used by the public at the owner's discretion. That are not at all the same thing.
Quite the dumbass, aren't you? First, nice trick with your 'Google owns the site' block. Of course, in real life such stupidity does not work. Google DOES own the site, and they CAN do whatever they want with it.
You can sue as much as you want to? Where did you get that nonsense. In order to sue you need at least legal standing (ie you were harmed), and a legal theory for which to sue them. What is your harm? The video that you paid $0 to post on YouTube was deleted? That makes your harm $0. What is your legal theory? 'I don't like them and they're mean'? Please show the case law that supports that.
Treated unfairly? Where do you get the idea anyone legally has to treat you fairly?
You also seem highly confused by the differences between public and private. I suggest you read up on that. Google is by no means 'a public site'. It is a 100% private site that they allow the public to use at their discretion.
Congress is not a technical organization, they are a political one. They have no need to know 'how the internet works'. Most members of Congress also don't know all of the technical details of engines either, but that doesn't mean they can't create laws specifying average fuel economy. It is up to the experts in those fields to make the laws reality.
Do you have any idea how many different subjects Congress has to deal with? Do you really expect the members of Congress, elected from the general public, to be experts in all of those areas? If YOU were elected to Congress, how many areas are YOU an expert in?
Here is how you can get exactly what the picture looks like (except done with all real food, which is not practical for photography)
Befriend a manager of Burger King so you can use their ingredients
Get a bun. Use a tweezers and precisely move the sesame seeds so they look most appealing
Use a blowtorch to singe the edges of the bun to an appealing golden brown color
Take the patty and cut it into a crescent shape. Use the beef removed from the crescent and use it to make the patty thicker. Taper down towards the points of the crescent.
Use the blowtorch again, and sear the patty until it has the desired color and char
Put the patty on the bottom bun, overhanging the edge in the front
Now you must move quickly
Get a slice of tomato. Wet your fingers and flick them at the edge of the tomato, making dewy drops.
Place the tomato on the patty, set slightly back from the edge
Get whatever portion of lettuce they normally use. Tear it in half and stack the halves. Use the water trick again. Place the lettuce on the tomato, again offset slightly
Cap with the top bun
Enjoy! You now have exactly what was pictured, which of course is way better than what they usually serve.
They aren't trashing all post-production work, although the article tries to make it sound that way. This was about a specific case - in an ad for mascara (used to make eyelashes thicker), they used post-processing to make the eyelashes even thicker. That is deceptive - they basically lied about what the product does. However, they could (and probably did) also use post-processing to make the entire picture look more appealing. There is nothing deceptive about that as related to the product being advertised, so there is no 'ban' on doing it.
The aren't YOUR PROFITS until they are paid out as a dividend. Until that time, they are the collective profits of all the shareholders, and they have been entrusted to the company to be used as the company sees fit in the best interests of the company, and hence the shareholders. If you think the company is making donations that are not in the best interests of the company, complain to the company, start a shareholder lawsuit, etc. However, if you think that the donations, while in the best interests of the company, are not in YOUR best interest, then you have invested in the wrong company, because clearly their goals do not line up with yours.
What exactly is deceiving about it? What does the picture show you? A toasted bun, a beef patty, a slice of cheese, a slice of tomato, some lettuce. What do they deliver? A toasted bun, a beef patty, a slice of cheese, a slice of tomato, some lettuce. Now, is the bun toasted perfectly evenly, with precisely placed sesame seeds? No. Does the tomato have exactly two drops of dew glistening on it? No. Does the patty have exactly the right amount of char in exactly the right places to look most appealing? No. Does any of that detract from the fact that you paid for, and got, a toasted bun with a beef patty a slice of cheese some tomato and lettuce? Nope. People buy burgers to eat them, not look upon them as objects of art. If the restaurant took the time to precisely line up all the ingredients, changed the lighting in the restaurant to be the same warm lighting the used to take the picture, carefully placed each seed with a tweezers, etc, would that in any way affect the value of the thing you purchased? No. It would taste exactly the same, and have exactly the same (lack of) nutritional value.
The issue is not whether the picture exactly matches what you get or not, it is whether reasonable people are deceived into buying the product by the picture.
In the case at hand, they got in trouble for modifying her eyelashes to make them look thicker. That is because the product being sold was mascara, the whole purpose of which is to make eyelashes thicker. It was deceptive. People looked at the ad, wanted those eyelashes, bought the product, and found that the product did not actually make their eyelashes that thick. If they had modified another part of the picture (for instance, add or remove a mole from her face), no problem.
In the case of fast food, no reasonable person over the age of three expects to actually get a burger that looks like the picture. People do not buy burgers for what they look like. They buy burgers because they want something to eat, and the picture shows them something they would like. If the picture contained ingredients that were not in the actual product, that would be deceptive. If the picture showed three patties and you only got two, that is deceptive. Looking a whole lot more attractive than the actual product? Not deceptive.
Probably because nobody in the professional advertising world (the people who make up the NAD) is using anything other than Photoshop.
Oh, bullshit. A union is there for exactly the same reasons as a corporation - to watch out for their own best interests, whatever they may be.
Please remind me which corporation is being kept in check by the most powerful union in the country (NEA).
The corporations are not using the consumers money, they are using the shareholders money, which was given to them for the sole purpose of increasing the value of said money. Once a consumer gives a corporation money (buys something), the money is no longer his, and he has no say in what the other party does with it.
Saying a consumer should be able to control how a corporation spends it's money, or that there should be laws on how a corporation spends money given to it by consumers is exactly the same as saying your employer should be able to give you your paycheck and say none of it may be spent on unions.
Those communications are an AID to the driver, not a distraction. The person they are talking to knows when is an appropriate time to talk, and only says the minimum required for the task at hand. I can guarantee you none of those racers are chatting with their girlfriends, trying to get their broker to make a trade for them, are getting the ever-so-important notice that their friend has entered a new word on words-with-friends, or any of the other 100% useless crap (for the purposes of driving) that non-racers use their phones for.
So you oppose efforts to tax the rich more (a cost to them) and give more benefits to the poorer (health care, whatever) because that would be manipulating the public policy for the profit of the poor? You oppose minimum wages for the same reason? You oppose net neutrality because that could negatively impact the ISPs financial profit, while allowing the users to profit by having the internet service they want? You oppose food safety laws that would impact the profits of food providers?
Every law impacts some people positively and others negatively - otherwise there would be no need for the law at all. What you really meant to say was that you oppose laws that positively impact certain groups you happen to not like.
You do realize that those two things are not in any way contradictory, right? A cellphone ban does not automatically stop all cellphone use. Some people respect the ban, they are safer. Many people ignore it, and make things even worse by trying to hide what they are doing. They are more dangerous.
It is not like it is difficult to test whether or not cell phone use makes you more dangerous or not. Give someone a task that requires occasional concentration/action (use a driving simulator). Score how they do. Do it again, and periodically text them, call them, expect responses. Score it again.
Cell phone use while driving is dangerous. Banning cell phone use while driving may not fix the problem.
As long as the retests (for everyone) also include things like:
Looking at text messages when driving is OK when:
a) any time
b) when approaching stopped traffic
c) at highway speeds, as long as nothing is immediately in front of you
d) never
And automatically failing anyone answering other than d.
Then, during the road test, have someone send them texts saying 'You failed', and as soon as they look at it they are done.
Yeah $29,128 TUITION. That is not completing 4 years of college for $20K. According to their own web site, the first year ALONE is going to cost you $21,098.
They can donate individually. Nothing stops them from doing that. However, there is value in doing it as a group - a check for $1M representing the 1M shareholders of XYZ Corp carries more punch than 1 million $1 checks from each shareholder representing himself. No different from people joining any other group to act as one.
As far as being asked which candidates you want to support, so what? I am guessing they also didn't ask you what feature set the next product should have, what color carpet they should install, what to serve for lunch in the cafeteria, or what brand toilet paper to put in the men's room. When you bought your shares, you put your trust in the corporation to do what is best for you. Don't like what they are doing? Vote to oust the board, or divest.
Well, economists say all sorts of stupid things. We are talking about reality here, not some fantasy land. My guess is that there is a vanishingly small number of people who turn their houses into boarding homes for the weeks of the year when their child is at school.
I think you lost the thread of this conversation. The guy you responded to is not one of the clowns claiming that living at home while attending school is always a viable option, he is responding to the idiot above who claims that a child living at home is a sign of your failure as a parent.
For the same reason we allow labor unions, the EFF, and any other group to donate to political parties. Groups of people are still people with the same rights they always had even if they were not in a group. Exercising your freedom of association does not strip you of other rights.
Sounds like you have a serious dose of reality ahead of you. Things may well be different for you, but here is the reality for us. Many (most?) of the state schools in NY are located in small towns, where there really is nothing except the college. So a town of maybe 15000 people has a college with maybe 5000 students in it. How many jobs do you think are going to be available in a town like that, even in good economic times? How many employers are going to give those jobs to students?
Also, note that I did not say I am paying their rent, I said THEY are paying their rent. In the absence of sufficient income, that means they have loans.
In fact, they did. What exactly is your point?
Well, aren't you just all high and mighty, and a damn fine parent, I'm sure. First I said IN SCHOOL. That generally means they are younger than 22. Second, who the fuck are you to determine what acceptable living arrangements are? Third, you may not be aware of this, but a significant percentage of the population is unable to afford housing through no fault of their own. Many, many, people have extended family living with them, including children (and some children have parents living with them). There is a difference between 'preferred living arrangements' and 'practical living arrangements'. You may be a superb parent (doubtful), but are surely a shitty human being if you think having your kids live in substandard housing, on the streets, or taking on excessive debt just so they have a place to live is preferable to having them live at home.