Okay, how about Kyle Rayner's (the Green Lantern replacement after Hal Jordan was possessed by the Parallax entity) girlfriend, killed by Major Force and stuffed in a fridge? Or Kyle's mom, killed by one of the Sinestro Corps?
How about the incidents which started the Identity Crisis in DC? Those would be the (revealed as a past event) rape of the Elongated Man's wife, Sue Dibny, and then later her murder? Oh, and the ultimate culprit of it was Jean Loring, the ex-wife of the Atom.
Superman dies during the attack by Doomsday, but he ends up coming back. Hippolyta (Wonder Woman's mother) dies during the fight with Imperiex and stays dead. Batman gets his back broken by Bane in the Knightfall arc but ends up getting better. Barbara Gordon is partially paralyzed by the Joker in Batman: The Killing Joke and never regains the use of her legs (well, okay, for like two issues in Birds of Prey she does).
Too many Congress-critters are, for all intents and purposes, owned by the lobbying organizations that benefit from prolonged copyright limits. The entertainment industries would shit a collective brick, and you'd never see big Pharma get behind this either, as they would consider five years far too little time to make back the costs of R&D (or supposed costs, really, as a number of drugs are minor variations of previous drugs anyway.)
I mean, it would be nice, but let's wish for something that actually stands a chance of happening.
Cool. Let me know when all you PETA morons line up to be in those "we didn't use any animals at all so we have no way of knowing what this drug will really do to you" clinical trials.
What's that? No, you can't back out. Think of the animals!
Wait, missed it on the first read-through. If it's for a job or for an employment search, the sex offender can still use the Internet. Otherwise, they can't.
1) Sex offender applies for job which requires internet access/use. 2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender) 3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.
And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?
Yeah, pretty sure there's reasonable force laws here too. But here's the thing, as I've already said.
I would rather be alive and in one piece to face charges and defend myself in court then be dead or seriously injured because I was worried about whether I was curb-stomping the poor misunderstood criminal.
Actually, to pick nits, I wasn't the same poster that you are referring to.
And I'd rather be alive and face charges that I can defend myself in a court of law rather then be dead or severely injured because I didn't defend myself because I was afraid of being charged.
You know, if someone jumps me, I'm not about to let them do "enough damage" to me so I don't get charged with a crime. If I get jumped by some thug who wants my wallet or whatever, I'm going to attempt to take him down in the quickest and most efficient way possible.
That would, I think, require even more stupidity then normal, considering the number of ways one could achieve a similar level of publicity without the risk of going to jail for a great many years.
Now, how long before someone hacks a billboard to show the President's face... that should be the question asked.
Even if such a claim could be supported, I doubt that they would take that route. They seem to be very serious over creationism, and I can't see them claiming that they were only poking fun at evolution.
I don't know that they claimed it as their own (did they include their own copyright on their modified version?), but yes, I believe it is standard to attribute any sources.
The Discovery Institute is almost certainly going to claim Fair Use or something similiar, but I don't see how they can justify that when they stripped out the credits and copyright notice. Not to mention the narration.
Actually, I think it's the new narration that's going to get it disqualified under Fair Use. By taking the "opposite" tack of evolution (i.e. design), they're in effect, diluting the value of the original work.
The thing is, we only hear about tasers when they kill someone or it's one of those YouTube videos where some college kid is getting hauled away by 4+ campus security guys. Hell, I don't even think the local crime report columns list taserings, but you damn well do hear about it when there's a shooting.
It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.
Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"
Slashdot Mirror
Superman ended up coming back to life.
So did Robin (Jason Todd). Robin (Stephanie Brown) is still dead. Maybe.
Okay, how about Kyle Rayner's (the Green Lantern replacement after Hal Jordan was possessed by the Parallax entity) girlfriend, killed by Major Force and stuffed in a fridge? Or Kyle's mom, killed by one of the Sinestro Corps?
How about the incidents which started the Identity Crisis in DC? Those would be the (revealed as a past event) rape of the Elongated Man's wife, Sue Dibny, and then later her murder? Oh, and the ultimate culprit of it was Jean Loring, the ex-wife of the Atom.
Superman dies during the attack by Doomsday, but he ends up coming back. Hippolyta (Wonder Woman's mother) dies during the fight with Imperiex and stays dead. Batman gets his back broken by Bane in the Knightfall arc but ends up getting better. Barbara Gordon is partially paralyzed by the Joker in Batman: The Killing Joke and never regains the use of her legs (well, okay, for like two issues in Birds of Prey she does).
Do you need more examples?
But you're never going to see it happen.
Too many Congress-critters are, for all intents and purposes, owned by the lobbying organizations that benefit from prolonged copyright limits. The entertainment industries would shit a collective brick, and you'd never see big Pharma get behind this either, as they would consider five years far too little time to make back the costs of R&D (or supposed costs, really, as a number of drugs are minor variations of previous drugs anyway.)
I mean, it would be nice, but let's wish for something that actually stands a chance of happening.
Like a season of Lost making sense.
Only if you explain why it's utterly impossible that Brent Spiner could have sold the visor to someone who he knows still has it.
I think they mean something like this, not the plastic/metal doohickey that Levar Burton wore as a prop.
Cool. Let me know when all you PETA morons line up to be in those "we didn't use any animals at all so we have no way of knowing what this drug will really do to you" clinical trials.
What's that? No, you can't back out. Think of the animals!
Wait, missed it on the first read-through. If it's for a job or for an employment search, the sex offender can still use the Internet. Otherwise, they can't.
I still don't think it's really enforceable.
1) Sex offender applies for job which requires internet access/use.
2) Sex offender doesn't get job because of this law. (and also possibly because they're a sex offender)
3) Sex offender sues NJ for silly-ass law.
And what about those sex offenders in NJ who already have jobs that require Internet access/use?
Yeah, pretty sure there's reasonable force laws here too. But here's the thing, as I've already said.
I would rather be alive and in one piece to face charges and defend myself in court then be dead or seriously injured because I was worried about whether I was curb-stomping the poor misunderstood criminal.
Actually, to pick nits, I wasn't the same poster that you are referring to.
And I'd rather be alive and face charges that I can defend myself in a court of law rather then be dead or severely injured because I didn't defend myself because I was afraid of being charged.
You know, if someone jumps me, I'm not about to let them do "enough damage" to me so I don't get charged with a crime. If I get jumped by some thug who wants my wallet or whatever, I'm going to attempt to take him down in the quickest and most efficient way possible.
That would, I think, require even more stupidity then normal, considering the number of ways one could achieve a similar level of publicity without the risk of going to jail for a great many years.
Now, how long before someone hacks a billboard to show the President's face... that should be the question asked.
higher tolerance != complete tolerance
What? Apple more evil then Microsoft?
Am I on bizarro-Slashdot or something?
Even if such a claim could be supported, I doubt that they would take that route. They seem to be very serious over creationism, and I can't see them claiming that they were only poking fun at evolution.
Excellent point.
The Discovery Institute could (and should) lose a copyright infringement lawsuit based on that alone.
I don't know that they claimed it as their own (did they include their own copyright on their modified version?), but yes, I believe it is standard to attribute any sources.
Well, that only makes sense. I mean, it takes three years to get through law school.
It was intended to be sarcastic, if that helps.
The Discovery Institute is almost certainly going to claim Fair Use or something similiar, but I don't see how they can justify that when they stripped out the credits and copyright notice. Not to mention the narration.
Actually, I think it's the new narration that's going to get it disqualified under Fair Use. By taking the "opposite" tack of evolution (i.e. design), they're in effect, diluting the value of the original work.
I thought it was supposed to be 4004 BC.....
The thing is, we only hear about tasers when they kill someone or it's one of those YouTube videos where some college kid is getting hauled away by 4+ campus security guys. Hell, I don't even think the local crime report columns list taserings, but you damn well do hear about it when there's a shooting.
It's a good thing they're a lawyer mill. Because Harvard's going to sue the shit out of them.
Now, I'm not going to say all Creationists are dumb. I've met a few who aren't. But what in the hell were these guys thinking? "Oooo... let's use their video. They'll never catch on, and even if they do, what are they going to do about it?"
Dumbasses.
And even that's not true. I have a couple iTunes files that I play on WinAMP.
But that's not news to anyone.
Well, legally, it would actually be worse if the had made the modifications, tried to cover it up, and then still gotten caught later.