Growing up, I was greatly helped by the teachers in my public school. My third grade teacher for noticing how I aced the reading test and decided to give me the advanced reading test. I aced that one also. I credit her for putting me on a track where I enjoyed learning instead of being frustrated in school. It is quite possible that all of my success in life could be traced back to her in some form.
Since public school helped me, I guess your "never helped anybody" claim is false.
I agree with your "people are free to mess up their lives so long as they don't mess up mine" philosophy. Going along with that, even if drugs were legalized, usage of drugs during certain situations would still be outlawed. For example, driving a car. You can legally drink alcohol until you pass out. If, however, you have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel of a car, you rightly risk being pulled over for DWI. In a similar manner, you'd be able to get high off your stash of weed, but once you got behind the wheel, you'd be liable for DUI.
This should be easy to catch. Just search the database for users making a few thousand $1 bids per day. Normal users probably won't be doing that level of bidding, especially all at the same price. Of course, then the script writers could make the bids random values between $1 and $2 (eating the extra $1 would be nothing if your prize is really worth a few hundred or thousand dollars). Still, looking for users making a large number of low cost bids should be a warning flag.
People who don't listen to music and people who can't. Should a deaf student pay a music tax allowing him to download all the music that he wants if he can't hear it at all?
And why must this be limited to a music tax? Why not a video game tax? A software tax? A movie/TV show tax? A book tax? Hell, let's throw a blog tax in there so I can get some money in the rare event that someone infringes the copyright on my blog posting. Add up all of the taxes and you'd better hope you can download the content for free, because you're going to be bankrupt. Those middle managers in the RIAA/MPAA/etc. will be rolling in dough, though. Oh and they'll give some to the artists too. After removing some "administrative fees" and such from the pot. Yup, looks like there's enough for the artist to buy himself a cup of coffee!
In addition, you can still be "guilty in the eyes of the public" long before you've even had a trial and even long after your innocence has been proven in a court of law. Suppose a teacher was arrested for possession of child pornography and had a high-profile trial. Even if the teacher was cleared of all charges, the public would still see the teacher as a threat to their children and would force the school to fire him/her. The public wouldn't care that all of the evidence proved that he/she was innocent, they would only care that the nightly news told them that a scary child pornographer was in their childrens' classroom.
Can you store the movies on the old XBox? I have a computer upstairs that could act as the file server, but the the XBox would need to connect via a wireless network. My wife refuses to let me run cables and considering how old the house is/the problems we've had with it/how much of a novice I am running cables, it's probably a good call.
I'm not a big "gun nut", but even I can see the fallacy in that statement. If I was being mugged and was confronted with one man with a gun, there's not much I could do in self defense were I unarmed. Give me a gun (and the proper training to use it) and we're on even ground.
Or, suppose you are a small woman (like another poster said his wife is) and you're confronted with two big men with knives who want to rape and kill you. Chances are, without a gun, you're dead meat.
Sure, you might be trained in martial arts, but saying "I have a black belt" isn't much of a detterrent. Whipping out a gun could scare those guys off all by itself without a single shot fired.
I'll agree that, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have any need for guns. We'd be able to toss them all in the fire and sing "Kumbaya" together. But we don't live in an ideal world. Guns should have a legal place in society. Of course, any gun owner should be required to take courses in gun use and safety and should pass a background check.
I'd want to expand on this one: "university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use"
Make it: "Allow home users to rip DVDs for personal use"
So if you rip the video off of the DVD to put it on your home media server, you're fine. If you rip a bunch of children's DVDs to compile a single DVD with your kid's favorite episodes, you're ok. Basically anything you do where the video doesn't leave your "personal zone" would be allowed. Things like sharing clips, classroom use, or YouTube mashups would be a separate exemption.
Then, perhaps, we could get set top boxes that would take DVDs in, rip them to an internal hard drive, and allow home users to choose from hundreds or thousands of movies without handling any discs. As any parent with little kids will tell you, you want to keep the discs away from kids' hands, but keep them in reach enough that you can access them quickly and easily. A set top box like this would be ideal.
I experienced this growing up. I had a dream that my grandparents were over for a visit. Only, I thought I was awake. Now, when they came over, they would take my room and my sister and I would share a room. So, according to the dream logic, I was in my sister's room. My the layout of our rooms was such that our closet and door locations were basically switched.
Now I had to go to the bathroom (this was real and part of the dream at the same time) so I got out of bed and headed for the door. I was surprised to find clothes, but figured that my mother had done laundry and hung clothes on the door. So I pushed past them only to find a wall. I tried reaching around the wall to find the doorknob, but I couldn't. I was trapped in the room and had to go. I called for my mother. When she turned on the light, I instantly awoke and found myself in my closet. I also instantly realized that the whole "grandparents visiting/I'm in my sister's room" was just a dream.
While I was in that state, I was able to walk, think, and react consciously while simultaneously dreaming. It was quite an interesting experience. I've had similar ones since then (where I'm half asleep and part-dreaming/part-awake), but none that lasted that long.
I would think that a terrorist would be pretty calm while headed to his plane. He's probably been through repeated training as to what to do/say during the airport security phase. He's also convinced that the actions he's about to undertake will get him into heaven and surround him with 72 virgins. If you were going to undertake something that was "guaranteed" to give you 72 virgins to do with as you please, you'd be pretty calm and happy about it too.
I recently went on a trip and went through airport security twice. I was nervous not so much about security, but about flying in general. (Takeoffs and landings don't make me too calm.) Everything went smoothly, but if they were "brain scanning" for "emotional strain", I'd have been pegged for closer scrutiny while Joe Terrorist would likely sail on through.
That said, a read through of the article hints that the main point of the new security features will be their unobtrusiveness. People would be "tested" in ways so subtle that they might not even know they were tested. If they could pull this off, it might help eliminate the one glaring weakness of the current security setup: Moving the suicide bomber target from the airplane to the security line.
You're thinking too small. People could talk outside of the home or in other places the telescreens couldn't see. Obviously, we need mandatory implantation of tiny microphones into everyone's mouths. The microphones would pick up what people are saying and transmit it to the Department of Homeland Security which would only use terrorist related information. (We promise! Cross our hearts! No, the hand behind our back doesn't have crossed fingers.) Now that I think of it, you also have the problem of sign language. So we can install sensors in a person's fingers and shoulders to provide real-time tracking of that movement.
If you aren't in favor of this then you're obviously a terrorist supporter!
I remember when there was always a big push to get the latest and greatest hardware that came out. You *NEEDED* upgrade your processor because Intel pushed the Mhz up a tad. You *NEEDED* that bigger hard drive that just came out. You *NEEDED* to add more RAM because that's what everyone was doing. After awhile, I started telling people that it was the dirty little secret of the hardware industry that you didn't really need the latest and greatest. For 90% of users (basically, non-gamers and a few other folks), the middle of the line PCs would do nicely. Now that secret has been busted wide open. Cheap PCs are everywhere. They might not have all of the hardware needed to play the latest graphics-intensive game, but they'll run Office, browser the web, and play music just fine. In other words, they'll do what 90% of PC users want them to do.
The same thing is starting to happen for software. If you run Office 2000, what's your incentive to upgrading to the latest version? There isn't much to entice 90% of the users. They're realizing that they can stick to that version and not upgrade. (Free alternatives like OpenOffice.org might even get a boost due to the poor economy, but most people will likely just stick with what they have.) The same goes for Windows XP. Other than buying a new PC, people just aren't buying Vista by itself. Businesses are steering clear for the most part and home users are even requesting to downgrade. It would have been inconceivable to have Dell offering users to downgrade Windows XP to Windows 98 years back. Microsoft is going to be in trouble if people decide not to upgrade. They're competing with their biggest competitor: Their past self.
That's a lot of domains to buy. And if we miss one, the spammers could use it to instruct their bots to use a different algorithm. Best case scenario: We get them all and the bots aren't capable of updating their algorithm. Then the spammers just release BotTrojan 2.0 which not only uses a different algorithm, but which can be remotely updated to alter the algorithm used. At best, we've slowed the spammers down and bought ourselves a little time.
"So we get smart, rugged people who tend to keep to themselves."
So they're what happens if you cross jocks and geeks! A geek's brain and social tendencies and a jock's physique. Excellent. Much better than my previous crossing attempts which resulted in a jock's brain and a geek's physique.
Was I the only one who thought that it was actually kind of fun playing the "Gruesome Cooking Mama" games on PETA's site? Completely not their purpose, I know. We're supposed to be so grossed out by the preparation that we skip turkey on Thanksgiving. Instead, I found plucking the feathers, cutting the neck up, etc rather enjoyable (for a short Flash game designed by a group that often goes completely off the deep end).
Perhaps, but he climbed into a fridge which got blown high into the sky by a nuclear blast and landed far away (far enough to be outside of town). He then climbed out of the fridge with no visible radiation burns and no broken bones. He didn't even have any apparent bruising at all from the waist up (as evidenced by the next scene in the "radiation wash down room"). The whole thing just seemed a little extreme, even for Indiana Jones.
My wife and I saw the new Indiana Jones movie on DVD this past weekend. We both rolled our eyes at that part (as well as other parts). You kind of expect fantastic feats with Indiana Jones, but that stretches the boundaries even for the series.
Is it wrong that part of me saw that scene and thought "The Mythbusters should do a Movie Myths episode featuring surviving a nuclear blast in a lead lined refrigerator." (Searching the Discovery.com forums and seeing the countless other posts on the subject.... I guess not.)
So they now owe Novell $3.5 million or so. A look at their June '08 financials ( http://finance.google.com/finance?hl=en&fkt=917&fsdt=2133&q=SCOX&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we ) makes it look like SCO is currently worth $8.96 million. Of course, then they have $5.85 million in current liabilities. Add in this $3.5 million and SCO's wallet runs dry (and then some). Of course, this doesn't take into account liabilities that they don't need to pay back immediately. Things like that will come up in any bankruptcy hearing.
The end result is that the amount of the award is basically meaningless. Novell may not see that entire figure (if anything) due to SCO going bankrupt. It's the ruling itself that is important. All of SCO's claims were knocked down. Novell's claims were either upheld, made moot by further developments, or voluntarily dismissed. SCO got beat down hard and I don't think they'll be getting back up anytime soon.
What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and possibly illegal, but I get the feeling that she's being charged with the wrong crime. "Accessing MySpace illegally?" Now, I don't have a MySpace page, but it was my understanding that anyone could open a MySpace page and use it to contact other people. You don't even have to give your real name when you do so. I'd rather see some harassment charges or even something along the lines of manslaughter. What she did was psychologically manipulate that girl until she killed herself. That was the crime. MySpace was just the method.
I sometimes wonder if I have a form of prosopagnosia. I can't remember, based on face alone, who someone is unless I worked with that person closely for some time. There are people I've known at work for years (but haven't seen on a regular basis) and if I see them, I can't remember their name based on their face. When I met my wife online, we went through a long distance relationship phase. I was deathly afraid that she would arrive at the airport and I wouldn't recognize her face. Even my own cousins (whom I see only once a year) don't trigger any facial recognition.
How did you get diagnosed with prosopagnosia? Is it all faces that you have trouble with? Or do some faces register while most do not?
When dealing with religious issues, it's important to remember that what people actually believe can be quite different from what their scripture says, especially in periods of high illiteracy.
Not only that, but mistranslations can lead to beliefs and practices which don't correspond to the original text. Give those beliefs and practices enough time and they'll become so entrenched that the followers won't care that they are basing their ideas on a mistake.
I had posted that story to a photography forum I'm a member of and someone took the initiative to contact Toyota's legal department. They're backpedaling now on their original claim:
Response (XXXX) 11/18/2008 04:34 PM Thank you for contacting Toyota with your comments and concerns regarding the use of vehicle images. The letter asking the DesktopNexus site to remove all images featuring a Toyota, Scion or Lexus vehicle was the result of mis-communication at Toyota, which we regret.
Copyright law protects the creative work product of artists, photographers, and other creators. Toyota respects these rights, including those of photographers who work with Toyota. Toyota purchases the rights to the images it posts on its sites, and welcomes public use of those images where we have the rights to give. However, this permission is limited to editorial or personal use, not commercial use, such as advertising any products or services. That's because the photographers - not Toyota - retain the rights to any commercial use, and we cannot give permission to use those images for that purpose. In response the concerns raised by DesktopNexus, Toyota is working with photographers to determine what images may be used for non-commercial purposes, and what we can do to provide broader access.
We hope you will understand and appreciate the legal constraints we face.
Toyota also welcomes interested members of the public to use their own images or photography of Toyota's vehicles, and we confirm that we have no objection to this use.
We appreciate your interest in our products.
Toyota Customer Experience
Translation: We found a couple of legitimately infringing photos on your site but rather than give you specifics we decided to be lazy and just order them all down. We figured you'd just roll over and take it, but then you had to spread the word. Now we're facing a ton of bad PR so we're going to limit our claims to just those originally infringing photos.
Slashdot Mirror
Growing up, I was greatly helped by the teachers in my public school. My third grade teacher for noticing how I aced the reading test and decided to give me the advanced reading test. I aced that one also. I credit her for putting me on a track where I enjoyed learning instead of being frustrated in school. It is quite possible that all of my success in life could be traced back to her in some form.
Since public school helped me, I guess your "never helped anybody" claim is false.
I agree with your "people are free to mess up their lives so long as they don't mess up mine" philosophy. Going along with that, even if drugs were legalized, usage of drugs during certain situations would still be outlawed. For example, driving a car. You can legally drink alcohol until you pass out. If, however, you have a couple of beers and get behind the wheel of a car, you rightly risk being pulled over for DWI. In a similar manner, you'd be able to get high off your stash of weed, but once you got behind the wheel, you'd be liable for DUI.
This should be easy to catch. Just search the database for users making a few thousand $1 bids per day. Normal users probably won't be doing that level of bidding, especially all at the same price. Of course, then the script writers could make the bids random values between $1 and $2 (eating the extra $1 would be nothing if your prize is really worth a few hundred or thousand dollars). Still, looking for users making a large number of low cost bids should be a warning flag.
People who don't listen to music and people who can't. Should a deaf student pay a music tax allowing him to download all the music that he wants if he can't hear it at all?
And why must this be limited to a music tax? Why not a video game tax? A software tax? A movie/TV show tax? A book tax? Hell, let's throw a blog tax in there so I can get some money in the rare event that someone infringes the copyright on my blog posting. Add up all of the taxes and you'd better hope you can download the content for free, because you're going to be bankrupt. Those middle managers in the RIAA/MPAA/etc. will be rolling in dough, though. Oh and they'll give some to the artists too. After removing some "administrative fees" and such from the pot. Yup, looks like there's enough for the artist to buy himself a cup of coffee!
In addition, you can still be "guilty in the eyes of the public" long before you've even had a trial and even long after your innocence has been proven in a court of law. Suppose a teacher was arrested for possession of child pornography and had a high-profile trial. Even if the teacher was cleared of all charges, the public would still see the teacher as a threat to their children and would force the school to fire him/her. The public wouldn't care that all of the evidence proved that he/she was innocent, they would only care that the nightly news told them that a scary child pornographer was in their childrens' classroom.
Can you store the movies on the old XBox? I have a computer upstairs that could act as the file server, but the the XBox would need to connect via a wireless network. My wife refuses to let me run cables and considering how old the house is/the problems we've had with it/how much of a novice I am running cables, it's probably a good call.
I'm not a big "gun nut", but even I can see the fallacy in that statement. If I was being mugged and was confronted with one man with a gun, there's not much I could do in self defense were I unarmed. Give me a gun (and the proper training to use it) and we're on even ground.
Or, suppose you are a small woman (like another poster said his wife is) and you're confronted with two big men with knives who want to rape and kill you. Chances are, without a gun, you're dead meat.
Sure, you might be trained in martial arts, but saying "I have a black belt" isn't much of a detterrent. Whipping out a gun could scare those guys off all by itself without a single shot fired.
I'll agree that, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have any need for guns. We'd be able to toss them all in the fire and sing "Kumbaya" together. But we don't live in an ideal world. Guns should have a legal place in society. Of course, any gun owner should be required to take courses in gun use and safety and should pass a background check.
I wonder if it'd work for other vibrations like those incurred while pushing keys to text. "Must Twitter faster... phone's dying!"
I'd want to expand on this one: "university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use"
Make it: "Allow home users to rip DVDs for personal use"
So if you rip the video off of the DVD to put it on your home media server, you're fine. If you rip a bunch of children's DVDs to compile a single DVD with your kid's favorite episodes, you're ok. Basically anything you do where the video doesn't leave your "personal zone" would be allowed. Things like sharing clips, classroom use, or YouTube mashups would be a separate exemption.
Then, perhaps, we could get set top boxes that would take DVDs in, rip them to an internal hard drive, and allow home users to choose from hundreds or thousands of movies without handling any discs. As any parent with little kids will tell you, you want to keep the discs away from kids' hands, but keep them in reach enough that you can access them quickly and easily. A set top box like this would be ideal.
I experienced this growing up. I had a dream that my grandparents were over for a visit. Only, I thought I was awake. Now, when they came over, they would take my room and my sister and I would share a room. So, according to the dream logic, I was in my sister's room. My the layout of our rooms was such that our closet and door locations were basically switched.
Now I had to go to the bathroom (this was real and part of the dream at the same time) so I got out of bed and headed for the door. I was surprised to find clothes, but figured that my mother had done laundry and hung clothes on the door. So I pushed past them only to find a wall. I tried reaching around the wall to find the doorknob, but I couldn't. I was trapped in the room and had to go. I called for my mother. When she turned on the light, I instantly awoke and found myself in my closet. I also instantly realized that the whole "grandparents visiting/I'm in my sister's room" was just a dream.
While I was in that state, I was able to walk, think, and react consciously while simultaneously dreaming. It was quite an interesting experience. I've had similar ones since then (where I'm half asleep and part-dreaming/part-awake), but none that lasted that long.
I would think that a terrorist would be pretty calm while headed to his plane. He's probably been through repeated training as to what to do/say during the airport security phase. He's also convinced that the actions he's about to undertake will get him into heaven and surround him with 72 virgins. If you were going to undertake something that was "guaranteed" to give you 72 virgins to do with as you please, you'd be pretty calm and happy about it too.
I recently went on a trip and went through airport security twice. I was nervous not so much about security, but about flying in general. (Takeoffs and landings don't make me too calm.) Everything went smoothly, but if they were "brain scanning" for "emotional strain", I'd have been pegged for closer scrutiny while Joe Terrorist would likely sail on through.
That said, a read through of the article hints that the main point of the new security features will be their unobtrusiveness. People would be "tested" in ways so subtle that they might not even know they were tested. If they could pull this off, it might help eliminate the one glaring weakness of the current security setup: Moving the suicide bomber target from the airplane to the security line.
You're thinking too small. People could talk outside of the home or in other places the telescreens couldn't see. Obviously, we need mandatory implantation of tiny microphones into everyone's mouths. The microphones would pick up what people are saying and transmit it to the Department of Homeland Security which would only use terrorist related information. (We promise! Cross our hearts! No, the hand behind our back doesn't have crossed fingers.) Now that I think of it, you also have the problem of sign language. So we can install sensors in a person's fingers and shoulders to provide real-time tracking of that movement.
If you aren't in favor of this then you're obviously a terrorist supporter!
I remember when there was always a big push to get the latest and greatest hardware that came out. You *NEEDED* upgrade your processor because Intel pushed the Mhz up a tad. You *NEEDED* that bigger hard drive that just came out. You *NEEDED* to add more RAM because that's what everyone was doing. After awhile, I started telling people that it was the dirty little secret of the hardware industry that you didn't really need the latest and greatest. For 90% of users (basically, non-gamers and a few other folks), the middle of the line PCs would do nicely. Now that secret has been busted wide open. Cheap PCs are everywhere. They might not have all of the hardware needed to play the latest graphics-intensive game, but they'll run Office, browser the web, and play music just fine. In other words, they'll do what 90% of PC users want them to do.
The same thing is starting to happen for software. If you run Office 2000, what's your incentive to upgrading to the latest version? There isn't much to entice 90% of the users. They're realizing that they can stick to that version and not upgrade. (Free alternatives like OpenOffice.org might even get a boost due to the poor economy, but most people will likely just stick with what they have.) The same goes for Windows XP. Other than buying a new PC, people just aren't buying Vista by itself. Businesses are steering clear for the most part and home users are even requesting to downgrade. It would have been inconceivable to have Dell offering users to downgrade Windows XP to Windows 98 years back. Microsoft is going to be in trouble if people decide not to upgrade. They're competing with their biggest competitor: Their past self.
That's a lot of domains to buy. And if we miss one, the spammers could use it to instruct their bots to use a different algorithm. Best case scenario: We get them all and the bots aren't capable of updating their algorithm. Then the spammers just release BotTrojan 2.0 which not only uses a different algorithm, but which can be remotely updated to alter the algorithm used. At best, we've slowed the spammers down and bought ourselves a little time.
"So we get smart, rugged people who tend to keep to themselves."
So they're what happens if you cross jocks and geeks! A geek's brain and social tendencies and a jock's physique. Excellent. Much better than my previous crossing attempts which resulted in a jock's brain and a geek's physique.
Was I the only one who thought that it was actually kind of fun playing the "Gruesome Cooking Mama" games on PETA's site? Completely not their purpose, I know. We're supposed to be so grossed out by the preparation that we skip turkey on Thanksgiving. Instead, I found plucking the feathers, cutting the neck up, etc rather enjoyable (for a short Flash game designed by a group that often goes completely off the deep end).
Perhaps, but he climbed into a fridge which got blown high into the sky by a nuclear blast and landed far away (far enough to be outside of town). He then climbed out of the fridge with no visible radiation burns and no broken bones. He didn't even have any apparent bruising at all from the waist up (as evidenced by the next scene in the "radiation wash down room"). The whole thing just seemed a little extreme, even for Indiana Jones.
My wife and I saw the new Indiana Jones movie on DVD this past weekend. We both rolled our eyes at that part (as well as other parts). You kind of expect fantastic feats with Indiana Jones, but that stretches the boundaries even for the series.
Is it wrong that part of me saw that scene and thought "The Mythbusters should do a Movie Myths episode featuring surviving a nuclear blast in a lead lined refrigerator." (Searching the Discovery.com forums and seeing the countless other posts on the subject.... I guess not.)
What? Your closets aren't built to withstand the force of an exploding sun? Sheesh. Such shoddy construction work on houses these days.
So they now owe Novell $3.5 million or so. A look at their June '08 financials ( http://finance.google.com/finance?hl=en&fkt=917&fsdt=2133&q=SCOX&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=we ) makes it look like SCO is currently worth $8.96 million. Of course, then they have $5.85 million in current liabilities. Add in this $3.5 million and SCO's wallet runs dry (and then some). Of course, this doesn't take into account liabilities that they don't need to pay back immediately. Things like that will come up in any bankruptcy hearing.
The end result is that the amount of the award is basically meaningless. Novell may not see that entire figure (if anything) due to SCO going bankrupt. It's the ruling itself that is important. All of SCO's claims were knocked down. Novell's claims were either upheld, made moot by further developments, or voluntarily dismissed. SCO got beat down hard and I don't think they'll be getting back up anytime soon.
If a flying car is so unsafe that you are required to know how to skydive, I don't think I want to drive one!
What Lori Drew did was reprehensible and possibly illegal, but I get the feeling that she's being charged with the wrong crime. "Accessing MySpace illegally?" Now, I don't have a MySpace page, but it was my understanding that anyone could open a MySpace page and use it to contact other people. You don't even have to give your real name when you do so. I'd rather see some harassment charges or even something along the lines of manslaughter. What she did was psychologically manipulate that girl until she killed herself. That was the crime. MySpace was just the method.
I sometimes wonder if I have a form of prosopagnosia. I can't remember, based on face alone, who someone is unless I worked with that person closely for some time. There are people I've known at work for years (but haven't seen on a regular basis) and if I see them, I can't remember their name based on their face. When I met my wife online, we went through a long distance relationship phase. I was deathly afraid that she would arrive at the airport and I wouldn't recognize her face. Even my own cousins (whom I see only once a year) don't trigger any facial recognition.
How did you get diagnosed with prosopagnosia? Is it all faces that you have trouble with? Or do some faces register while most do not?
Not only that, but mistranslations can lead to beliefs and practices which don't correspond to the original text. Give those beliefs and practices enough time and they'll become so entrenched that the followers won't care that they are basing their ideas on a mistake.
I had posted that story to a photography forum I'm a member of and someone took the initiative to contact Toyota's legal department. They're backpedaling now on their original claim:
Translation: We found a couple of legitimately infringing photos on your site but rather than give you specifics we decided to be lazy and just order them all down. We figured you'd just roll over and take it, but then you had to spread the word. Now we're facing a ton of bad PR so we're going to limit our claims to just those originally infringing photos.