It should be protected, but under trademark? Or under copyright law, which is meant to deal with creative material?
Especially since, in this case, trademark essentially prevents anything from ever coming into public domain, as long as its characters are trademarked by a corporation or the trademarks pass into corporate hands.
There's not really solid proof that sexual selection is the cause of the size difference. Additionally, it's been shown that the size gap closes over time in societies where women get equivalent nutrition to males, which argues for non-sexual causation.
I'm not sure that images that aren't corporate logos are covered by trademark. We're deep into IANAL territory, but I think that such things are properly covered under copyright.
And as for "It works out quite well," that's pretty subjective. Certainly it works out well for Disney.
It's not really the actions of one man. You can't have a unitary presidency without the permission of the other two branches. Bush's actions during the war were allowed by a series of statutes passed by Congress. Mostly Republican Congress. The Military Commissions Act, the thing that tried to suspend habeas corpus, was voted for by 53 Republicans in the Senate. That's all of them. Only 12 Democrats voted for it.
A Republican-controlled Congress was handing out their powers like cookies to Bush, to the point that the Supreme Court warned them to stop in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the 4 Republican judges actually wanted to say you could suspend habeas corpus for US citizens being held on US soil.
So, basically, I'll be voting Democrat, because they don't want to give the president a blank check in the name of fear. Sure, they haven't done all they can to stop it, but on the whole they haven't been exacerbating it like the Republicans have. I mean, it is vitally important that we don't get a president who will appoint more judges that are cool with suspending habeas corpus on US soil. One man cannot do that on his own.
Yes, it's perfectly possible to abstract rape and paying taxes enough that they, on paper, look like the same thing.
I'm sorry you feel that violated every day of your life. I think if you got raped, you'd reach new, different levels of feeling violated, but it's clear that we won't agree on this.
I am not arguing about taxes, I am saying your metaphor is wildy inappropriate and superficial, especially your comment that unlike tax payers, at least rape victims can heal.
Here is an abridged version of Alice Sebold's rape as put forth in "Lucky":
"He grabbed my breasts. He twisted the nipples with his fingers, lapped at them with his tongue.
Tears came out of the corners of my eyes and rolled down either cheek...Things weren't going the way he planned. I was taking too long. He ordered me to stand up...I thought it over. I was trembling but I thought he'd had enough. Blood was everywhere and so I thought he'd done what he'd come for.
"Give me a blow job," he said. He was standing now. I was on the ground, trying to search among the filth for my clothes.
He kicked me and I curled into a ball...
As he worked against me, trying for more and more friction, I told him he was strong, that he was powerful, that he was a good man. He got hard enough and plunged himself inside me. He ordered me to and I wrapped my legs around his back and he drove me into the ground. I was locked on. All that remained unpossessed was my brain. It looked and watched and catalogued the details of it all. His face, his purpose, how best I could help him.
I heard more party-goers on the path, but I was far away now. He made noises and rammed it in. Rammed it and rammed it and those on the path, those so far away, living in the world where I had lived, could be not be reached by me now."
That is the experience of someone being raped. It's not like having to pay taxes. Rape is the pain, the dehumanization, the fear. Having to tell the man raping you that he's good, having to convince yourself of that in the moment so you can convince him. Later on, it's the fear that it's her fault, that she should've done something differently, that's she now somehow bad and dirty. It's not at all like being unable to have all the drugs and guns you want. If you cannot see the difference then I am a little scared of you, and I pity you.
Ha ha ha! Because there is no such thing as degree! Consider the following: I say "Hey, let's get lunch. Do you want Chinese or Italian?" and you don't say anything so I take us to a Chinese place. We get there and you yell at me for taking you there because you hate Chinese food. I then say "You should have said something when I asked you what you wanted. We're here now. Deal." It would not be reasonable for you to say "Oh my god. That is exactly like telling a rape victim that she should've consented when she had the chance if the didn't want to get raped," would it? Playing a verbal games to equate two remarkably different things doesn't make those things actually equivalent. Science is still working on that one.
Also, if you ever become a rape counselor, please don't tell them you know exactly how they feel because you have to pay incomes taxes. I'm guessing it won't go over well.
Slashdot Mirror
And then I guess Wine will have to choke Transmeta? Let's not get too far into recursive choking schemes.
It should be protected, but under trademark? Or under copyright law, which is meant to deal with creative material?
Especially since, in this case, trademark essentially prevents anything from ever coming into public domain, as long as its characters are trademarked by a corporation or the trademarks pass into corporate hands.
There's not really solid proof that sexual selection is the cause of the size difference. Additionally, it's been shown that the size gap closes over time in societies where women get equivalent nutrition to males, which argues for non-sexual causation.
I'm not sure that images that aren't corporate logos are covered by trademark. We're deep into IANAL territory, but I think that such things are properly covered under copyright.
And as for "It works out quite well," that's pretty subjective. Certainly it works out well for Disney.
It's not really the actions of one man. You can't have a unitary presidency without the permission of the other two branches. Bush's actions during the war were allowed by a series of statutes passed by Congress. Mostly Republican Congress. The Military Commissions Act, the thing that tried to suspend habeas corpus, was voted for by 53 Republicans in the Senate. That's all of them. Only 12 Democrats voted for it.
A Republican-controlled Congress was handing out their powers like cookies to Bush, to the point that the Supreme Court warned them to stop in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the 4 Republican judges actually wanted to say you could suspend habeas corpus for US citizens being held on US soil.
So, basically, I'll be voting Democrat, because they don't want to give the president a blank check in the name of fear. Sure, they haven't done all they can to stop it, but on the whole they haven't been exacerbating it like the Republicans have. I mean, it is vitally important that we don't get a president who will appoint more judges that are cool with suspending habeas corpus on US soil. One man cannot do that on his own.
Yes, it's perfectly possible to abstract rape and paying taxes enough that they, on paper, look like the same thing. I'm sorry you feel that violated every day of your life. I think if you got raped, you'd reach new, different levels of feeling violated, but it's clear that we won't agree on this.
I am not arguing about taxes, I am saying your metaphor is wildy inappropriate and superficial, especially your comment that unlike tax payers, at least rape victims can heal.
Here is an abridged version of Alice Sebold's rape as put forth in "Lucky":
That is the experience of someone being raped. It's not like having to pay taxes. Rape is the pain, the dehumanization, the fear. Having to tell the man raping you that he's good, having to convince yourself of that in the moment so you can convince him. Later on, it's the fear that it's her fault, that she should've done something differently, that's she now somehow bad and dirty. It's not at all like being unable to have all the drugs and guns you want. If you cannot see the difference then I am a little scared of you, and I pity you.
Ha ha ha! Because there is no such thing as degree! Consider the following: I say "Hey, let's get lunch. Do you want Chinese or Italian?" and you don't say anything so I take us to a Chinese place. We get there and you yell at me for taking you there because you hate Chinese food. I then say "You should have said something when I asked you what you wanted. We're here now. Deal." It would not be reasonable for you to say "Oh my god. That is exactly like telling a rape victim that she should've consented when she had the chance if the didn't want to get raped," would it? Playing a verbal games to equate two remarkably different things doesn't make those things actually equivalent. Science is still working on that one.
Also, if you ever become a rape counselor, please don't tell them you know exactly how they feel because you have to pay incomes taxes. I'm guessing it won't go over well.