Kerry has used his power and influence as a sitting Senator and a Presidential candidate to attempt to effect a ban on two books within the last few months. The swift boat book, and Kerry's own "The New Soldier" book. He fortunately failed on both accounts.
So you're offended that he would try to stop the publication of a book that slanders him and one that he is the author of? Sounds like he was within his moral rights.
The Democrats want to outlaw any speech which is unfavorable to them or their constitutes. The Republicans want to outlaw speech they consider immoral.
George W. Bush said: "They ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.... There have been millions of dollars spent.... I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those (groups)."
Gee, sounds like Bush is the one trying to outlaw speech unfavorable to him. In fact, he sued the FEC in an effort to stop groups like MoveOn.org from getting their message out.
Magnusson-Moss makes it illegal to tie the use of manfacturer-provided parts and dealer service around scheduled maintennance to warranty coverage.
Incorrect. It has nothing to do with "scheduled" maintenance. It can be consumables like brake pads, windshield wipers, or vacuum cleaner bags. It can be repair parts. Suppose I break the antenna on my car. If I go to Walmart and buy an aftermarket antenna, my car dealer cannot legally refuse me warranty service for the engine siezing, the transmission ceasing to shift, or the air conditioning failing. The only thing that he could refuse to fix under warranty would be something broken by the antenna (e.g., poor radio reception) or by my installation of same (e.g., stripped threads where the antenna screws on).
Now, if Apple offers free CD-R blanks and you use Sony brand CD-R blanks, then Apple can refuse you warranty service -- because they offered the item for no charge.
It tends to get projected onto other things frequently, where it really isn't applicable. (Aftermarket car parts is a prime example, where it in fact doesn't protect warranty rights in the slightest).
From the Specialty Equipment Manufacturer's Association (SEMA) web site:
The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act may also be helpful. Under this federal law, you can sue on breach of express and implied warranties. The main point of interest here is that the Act says warranty coverage may not be conditioned upon the use of only the vehicle manufacturer's parts unless the parts are provided free of charge. In other words, use of a non-carmaker product should not void your warranty unless it caused the problem.
I can, of course, pull plenty of additional references to prove my point, but I think that you know how Google works, too.
In this case, Apple would, in fact, be perfectly within their rights to void the warranty, even if in your experience they wouldn't.
You are completely wrong about this. The only way that they could legally refuse you warranty service is if you damaged your system through the act of disassembling/reassembling it.
The purpose of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is to protect consumers. It prevents dealers and manufacturers from getting a monopoly on parts and service, since that would lead to much higher prices for the purchasers. It keeps a viable aftermarket of service and parts available. It keeps Hoover from charging you $10 per vacuum cleaner bag (since you can get an aftermarket bag for $1.50). It keeps your dealer from making you pay $140 per tire because Walmart will sell you suitable tires for $59. It keeps your dealer from charging $200 for an oil change because you can get one for under $30 elsewhere.
That's why Apple can't refuse you warranty service when you elected to service your own system earlier (perhaps to add RAM, figure out what kinds of upgrades might work, etc.)
Democrats are also notoriously pro-censorship (its for the children).
Wait a minute! It's under Bush adminstration that the FCC just levied record fines for Janet Jackson flashing a nipple on the television. It's been the Bush administration's FCC that has gone after Howard Stern for the sake of "the children." It was the Reagan Administration's Meese Commission that pressured 7/11 convenience stores to stop carrying adult magazines. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which required filtering software in public libraries was introduced by Rep. Bob Franks, a Republican from New Jersey.
Democrats are much less likely to promote censorship than Republicans are.
But with a solid tire, would you actually see any benefit from adding air to compensate for loads, or for weight of different vehicles?
If the tire was "solid," there would be no way to add air. The purpose in having different recommended pressures is to balance ride, handling, and load capacity. Too soft and it overheats, slows steering response, and makes the vehicle more likely to roll over. Too hard, and the contact patch is too small for safe cornering and braking. Thus, if you were making an airless tire for a lightweight car, you would make it softer than you would if you were making it for a heavier car.
Here's the problem: Mom and one kid ride around in the minivan most of the time so the vehicle tire pressures should be at what is recommended for a light load. If you load three kids, mom, dad, and all of the luggage, then the family should stop at the first gas station and air the tires up to the fully loaded recommended pressure. That's why almost all vehicles have more than one recommended pressure based on load: One size doesn't fit all when it comes to tire pressure.
No, because if your engine dies, no one else is at risk. If your car crashes, others are. Tire pressure recommendations are not just for comfort, they are for safety. For example, a car with underinflated tires is less able to quickly change lanes in an emergency. One with over-inflated tires has a reduced contact patch and its handling, too, is compromised. One must adjust tire pressure for load.
I've got a VW Golf, a Jeep Wrangler, a Dodge Ram pickup truck, a Suzuki Bandit 1200 motorcycle, a Honda Aero 125 scooter, and a Honda CR-500 dirt bike. I drive on and off the road in all conditions. I know what I'm talking about.
'm lead to the conclusion that this in an un-necessary step much like defragging a hard drive.
The parent post is not "informative." It is simply wrong. I can't take a picture of a random person on the street and publically post it as part of a fictitious story without their permission.
From Dan Heller's book Profitable Photography in the Digital Age:
individuals have a "right" to choose certain conditions under which someone may use a photo of them, and if those rights are violated, that person could bring a "civil" lawsuit against the photographer and/or others that may be culpable.... The primary error people make in determining whether they need a release or not is by looking at specific facts. I.e., whether a person is clearly identifiable, if the photo is used in a magazine ad, or if it's editorial or news-related. Avoid this mistake by remembering this rule:
"No one single fact automatically triggers or relieves the need for a model release."
The people pictured did not give the blogger permission to post their images as part of a fictional story on the web. Nor did they approve the captions that appear under their photos. Without a model release, the blogger risks lawsuits that he is likely to lose.
and as for "heavier loads" I guess that means 4 people in the car instead of just me.
Or a vacation where the car has luggage in it. Or where you are carring a heavy item in the trunk.
I inflate my tires to the recommended pressure for my car and everything seems fine.
Most cars have two different recommended sets of pressures based on the load in the car. If you're taking the family to the beach in a fully loaded minivan, the proper, and safe, tire pressure is not the same as if mom and one kid are riding around town.
As for compensating for different vehicle weights, That could be solved by adjusting the solid tire for weight.
So now you have a 185/70R15 in six different vehicle weight classes, and each person has no way to adjust the pressure when he should.
How many people want to trade tires between vehicles (or even have two vehicles with the same tire size)?
That wasn't the point. The point was that you and I could each have vehicles that required 205/70R14 tires and your vehicle may weigh substantially more or less than mine. we could both buy the same tires and adjust tire pressure accordingly.
I've never done this, though I live in a climate where snow is common in the winter. I've never heard anyone even recommend doing this, so I don't think it's very commonplace.
See this link for information on it. It is very worthwhile in soft snow, sand, or mud. When I volunteer to drive for the hospital in snow emergencies, I always drop the tire pressure on my Jeep down to about 10-15psi. It's why Humvees have a CTIS, or Central Tire Inflation System. That way, they can adjust pressure for the terrain, lowering it for snow, mud, sand, etc.
The points you bring up are for the car enthusiast. The vast majority of people aren't car enthusiasts and want nothing to do with adjusting tire pressure for different conditions.
No, they are points for everyone. The vast majority of people aren't computer enthusiasts and want nothing to do with performing security updates or installing anti-virus software. Being in the majority doesn't mean that someone is right.
Given that the average city driver never does any of these things, yes, you're absolutely right.
That an average city drive does not properly adjust his/her tire pressure for load, vehicle weight, weather conditions, etc., is a good argument in favor of mass transportation. But I don't believe that the answer is dumbing down something as simple as a tire. Take their licenses away, instead.
The copyright of the picture belongs only to the person that took it, not to the people that are posing in the picture.
You are confusing two legal concepts. Copyright has nothing to do with model releases. If you take a photo of me, I have no grounds to claim copyright ownership, regardless of whether I signed a model release.
People have the right to choose the conditions under which photos of them are used -- regardless of who owns copyright to the photo. If you violate those rights, the person could bring a civil lawsuit against you. If you publically post pictures of a random person without their permission as part of a fictional work, then they can sue you with almost a certainty of winning. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
Model releases stipulate the terms under which the images can be used. A model release may give unlimited permission, may limit the use to not-for-profit use, or may preclude use of the image for promotional purposes, to name just a few possible terms.
Just send it to us with a Form VA application and the $30 filing fee.
Stop with the "us" stuff. It's obvious that you don't work with the Copyright Office given your ignorance of copyright law. Since 1978, no publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office has been required to secure copyright. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created.
I am very interested and look forward to the day when I don't have to check tire air pressure. It is the 21st century after all.
God knows that people in the 21st century wouldn't want to add air to compensate for heavier loads or towing. People in the 21st century wouldn't want to adjust tire pressure to acount for differences in weight between two vehicles that use the same size tires. Modern people in the 21st century won't want to reduce air pressure for traction in the snow. Oh, and we'll all have personal helicopters. I saw it in Popular Science.
These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC.
How is it a "clearly coordinated attack"? Just because they all said negative things about Bush at the same time? Of course the DNC is attacking Bush! It's a Presidential election year!
The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes.
CBS did their due diligence in seeking multiple exper opinions once the authenticity was challenged and Dan Rather personally apologized for the error. I think that's plenty adequate.
What I found telling was that the Whitehouse didn't deny the accuracy of what the documents said. They just claimed that the documents were forged. That's sort of like Michael Jackson saying that there couldn't be any videotapes of him molesting children because he keeps the lights off.
I'll tell you right now that if you and I are in a pblic place I can take and PBLISH photos of you legally UNTIL you tell me not to.
You're restraining orders notwithstanding, I think that you should read what a professional photographer has to say about that. Are you telling me that I have a legal right to take a picture of you in public and then post it on the web in a fictional story in which your photo is described as "the mortician's son who's into necrophilia"?
This may be true for those pictures inside private residences, but most of them I've seen are in parking lots, stadiums, bars, etc. ie, PUBLIC PLACES. When anyone is in a public place, they can be photographed without the need for releases.
Untrue. If I take a photograph of you in front of the Washington Monument, I cannot publish it in any manner that I want, including creating a fictional story around it on the web. I can't put it on the web with the caption "This was cousin John's last vacation before being arrested for pedophilia. Such a shame..." While you can usually safely publish photos and video of people in public places as part of a news story, you can't use their images for fiction, promotional purposes, etc. without their permission (model release). Even for news stories, look at how often you see stories about obesity and never see a face on any of the 'fat person on the street' video footage.
Jesus christ, model releases are for when you use images in the PROMOTION of a commercial product/service, etc. Please know of what you speak.
You don't know jack shit about photography and model releases. From Dan Heller's book Profitable Photography in the Digital Age:
individuals have a "right" to choose certain conditions under which someone may use a photo of them, and if those rights are violated, that person could bring a "civil" lawsuit against the photographer and/or others that may be culpable. ... The primary error people make in determining whether they need a release or not is by looking at specific facts. I.e., whether a person is clearly identifiable, if the photo is used in a magazine ad, or if it's editorial or news-related. Avoid this mistake by remembering this rule:
"No one single fact automatically triggers or relieves the need for a model release. "
The people pictured did not give the blogger permission to post their images as part of a fictional story on the web. Nor did they approve the captions that appear under their photos. Without a model release, the blogger risks lawsuits that he is likely to lose.
It is no longer there pictures. the pictures now belong to the person who found them.
Do I find it decent? no. It certianly is not criminal either.
Yes, they pictures are still the property of the person who took them. He has copyright on those photos. Posting them is a violation of copyright law. It also puts the person posting them at risk of being sued by any person in those pictures since he has no model releases from any of them.
hey, i wasn't saying anything about your post. i was poking fun at the person who responded to your post mentioning that you might get a rebate coupon.
Sorry. My bad. Sometimes who is replying to who is less than clear as one scrolls through a long thread.
i'm right there with you -- i have no desire to buy another product from them. rebate or no.
Call Kryptonite on their toll free line and give them hell. If that nets you no satisfaction, call their parent company. Kryptonite knows that the have a lot of legal exposure as well as a PR nightmare on their hands. An article written 12 years ago in an industry publication that they should have been aware of exposed this flaw. Selling the same basic design of lock for 12 years after that while advertising it as 'secure' smacks of fraud. It's certainly false and deceptive advertising to call the product as secure and "pick-resistant." I'm sure that there are plenty of private attorneys who would welcome the opportunity to launch a class-action suit and there are probably no small number of state Attorneys General who would love to take this on. The FTC might be very interested in this case, too. I'll be mentioning all of that to them.
What the fuck do you care? You didn't even take two of the locks from their goddamn packages.
If you had the reading comprehension of the average six year-old, you would have known that there was only one lock that I did not take from its package. I got a good price on it and bought it knowing that a spare was a good idea given the value of what I was locking up. It's not my fault that you are too poor to afford spare locks or anything worth locking up, so don't vent your anger at me.
They're obviously not a crucial part of your life.
I used the disk lock on my motorcycle when I was on the road. When it was at home, I used a Kryptonite ATB U-lock attached to a chain to lock up the motorcycle. The cable lock was attached to my 5000W generator. The Kryptonite Flex Security U-lock was attached to a Honda Scooter. Four out of five in use, locking up investments that exceeded $8,000, and that's not "crucial"?
Sounds to me like this is YOUR mistake for not choosing your purchases more wisely.
You're an idiot. I made the purchases based on the same information that millions of other people used in selecting Kryptonite. The information about the locks' vulnerability was not widely publicized. I'd love to see you get your ass kicked by a bunch of Kryptonite customers for that remark. How about going down to any bicycle messenger office and telling them that it's their own fault for not "choosing [their] purchases more wisely"? No, I didn't think so. You're not a real man. You just play one on the Internet.
So I'm supposed to take the word of an anonymous poster on Slashdot about that? Ignore the statisticians and psychologists that are involved in modern polling?
Have you ever talked to people who are voting for Nader? They're not voting for him for no reason. They're voting for him for a stupid reason, which to them is very important. As many current democrats are voting against Bush, many of these people are voting against Kerry.
Since you asked, I have talked to people who voted for Nader last time and one who said that he was considering it this time. In every case, they said that Nader best represented their views. When asked who they would vote for were he not on the ticket, every one of them said Gore (in 2000) or Kerry (this election). But that's meaningless. That's me talking a a few friends/colleagues. It's not a valid poll because it was not controlled (e.g. same exact questions phrased the same way every time) nor is it statistically significant sample set. Nor are the participants in any way randomized for age, income, geographic area, etc.
Want a poll without a selection bias? Don't ask people a curiously worded question. Build out mobile voting stations of whatever quality your budget allows, put up a big Gallup or Pew banner in mall parking lots, busy intersections (their well honed normalization skills can likely fill out the target list).
It's obvious that you've never been involved with polling. You don't let your sample self-select. You don't give precedence to those who want to play with some gadget that you erect. You don't let political groups organize to vote many times in your poll in order to skew the poll.
I incorrectly attributed the 1992 article to "Bicycle Business" magazine. The article actually appeared in "New Cyclist" and was written by John Stuart Clark, who now works for "Bicycle Business" magazine. Sorry for the error.
It's not an issue of "reading comprehension." It's a matter of whether I trust everything that I read online and whether I trust a company's word when they've been knowingly selling defective locks for over a decade. They told me that the lock was pick-resistant and that the tubular lock mechanism provided "more protection," so why should I trust them when they say that they will offer me a rebate?
Only one slight flaw in your post. Bicycle Business magazine hasn't been going 12 years.
You are correct. It appeared in "New Cyclist" magazine and was written by someone who now works for "Bicycle Business" magazine. I didn't read carefully enough. Here's an interesting Usenet discussion from way back in 1992 discussing the article in "New Cyclist" magazine which revealed the Bic pen method of opening a Kryptonite lock.
Kudos to Kryptonite for fessing up and supplying fixes
Whoa! The problem has been known about in the industry for 12 years and Kryptonite is only supplying fixes for people who bought within the last two. There is a decade's worth of purchasers who are being told "tough luck." I'll give them Kudos when they fix or replace all of the defective locks.
Kryptonite today announced it will provide free product upgrades for certain locks purchased since September 2002
What they don't mention is that the flaw was first documented in the trade publication "Bicycle Business" magazine in 1992. So they've been knowingly selling defective locks for 12 years since then hoping that this day would never come.
I've got five Krytonite locks:
Two KryptoLok ATB U-Locks, one of which was never taken out of the package. One KryptoDisco-C motorcycle disc brake lock. One 6' x 5/8" Kryptonite Flex Security cable lock. One Kryptonie Flex Security U-Lock.
All of the locks are in very good to new condition and all of them are older than two years old. That means I get no replacement locks from Kryptonite nor do I get any upgrades. I hear tell that I might get coupons for rebates on new Kryptonite locks. But it will be a cold day in hell before I ever buy another Kryptonite product if they don't fix or replace the locks I have at no charge to me.
I am not being unreasonable. A lock, if well-cared for, is a lifetime investment. A well cared for lock that's five years old is no less useful than one which is 1 year old. Why should Kryptonite customers suffer because Kryptonite chose to knowinging, and deceptively, sell a defective product for over a decade? Anyone who bought a Krytonite lock with this flaw since the original article was published in 1992 should get a free upgrade/replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
Kerry has used his power and influence as a sitting Senator and a Presidential candidate to attempt to effect a ban on two books within the last few months. The swift boat book, and Kerry's own "The New Soldier" book. He fortunately failed on both accounts.
... There have been millions of dollars spent. ... I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those (groups)."
So you're offended that he would try to stop the publication of a book that slanders him and one that he is the author of? Sounds like he was within his moral rights.
The Democrats want to outlaw any speech which is unfavorable to them or their constitutes. The Republicans want to outlaw speech they consider immoral.
George W. Bush said: "They ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves.
Gee, sounds like Bush is the one trying to outlaw speech unfavorable to him. In fact, he sued the FEC in an effort to stop groups like MoveOn.org from getting their message out.
Incorrect. It has nothing to do with "scheduled" maintenance. It can be consumables like brake pads, windshield wipers, or vacuum cleaner bags. It can be repair parts. Suppose I break the antenna on my car. If I go to Walmart and buy an aftermarket antenna, my car dealer cannot legally refuse me warranty service for the engine siezing, the transmission ceasing to shift, or the air conditioning failing. The only thing that he could refuse to fix under warranty would be something broken by the antenna (e.g., poor radio reception) or by my installation of same (e.g., stripped threads where the antenna screws on).
Now, if Apple offers free CD-R blanks and you use Sony brand CD-R blanks, then Apple can refuse you warranty service -- because they offered the item for no charge.
It tends to get projected onto other things frequently, where it really isn't applicable. (Aftermarket car parts is a prime example, where it in fact doesn't protect warranty rights in the slightest).
From the Specialty Equipment Manufacturer's Association (SEMA) web site:I can, of course, pull plenty of additional references to prove my point, but I think that you know how Google works, too.
In this case, Apple would, in fact, be perfectly within their rights to void the warranty, even if in your experience they wouldn't.
You are completely wrong about this. The only way that they could legally refuse you warranty service is if you damaged your system through the act of disassembling/reassembling it.
The purpose of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act is to protect consumers. It prevents dealers and manufacturers from getting a monopoly on parts and service, since that would lead to much higher prices for the purchasers. It keeps a viable aftermarket of service and parts available. It keeps Hoover from charging you $10 per vacuum cleaner bag (since you can get an aftermarket bag for $1.50). It keeps your dealer from making you pay $140 per tire because Walmart will sell you suitable tires for $59. It keeps your dealer from charging $200 for an oil change because you can get one for under $30 elsewhere.
That's why Apple can't refuse you warranty service when you elected to service your own system earlier (perhaps to add RAM, figure out what kinds of upgrades might work, etc.)
Democrats are also notoriously pro-censorship (its for the children).
Wait a minute! It's under Bush adminstration that the FCC just levied record fines for Janet Jackson flashing a nipple on the television. It's been the Bush administration's FCC that has gone after Howard Stern for the sake of "the children." It was the Reagan Administration's Meese Commission that pressured 7/11 convenience stores to stop carrying adult magazines. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), which required filtering software in public libraries was introduced by Rep. Bob Franks, a Republican from New Jersey.
Democrats are much less likely to promote censorship than Republicans are.
But with a solid tire, would you actually see any benefit from adding air to compensate for loads, or for weight of different vehicles?
If the tire was "solid," there would be no way to add air. The purpose in having different recommended pressures is to balance ride, handling, and load capacity. Too soft and it overheats, slows steering response, and makes the vehicle more likely to roll over. Too hard, and the contact patch is too small for safe cornering and braking. Thus, if you were making an airless tire for a lightweight car, you would make it softer than you would if you were making it for a heavier car.
Here's the problem: Mom and one kid ride around in the minivan most of the time so the vehicle tire pressures should be at what is recommended for a light load. If you load three kids, mom, dad, and all of the luggage, then the family should stop at the first gas station and air the tires up to the fully loaded recommended pressure. That's why almost all vehicles have more than one recommended pressure based on load: One size doesn't fit all when it comes to tire pressure.
I still stand by my conclusion that the vast majority of people have no need to change tire inflation.
I'm sorry to hear that you are unconvinced and hope that nothing bad comes of it.
Unless you're towing a trailer, or carrying around 500 pounds of lead in your trunk the load on your car doesn't change much.
One person driving to work. Four people driving to the beach with luggage. That sounds like a large load change to me.
Those are more analogous to changing oil.
No, because if your engine dies, no one else is at risk. If your car crashes, others are. Tire pressure recommendations are not just for comfort, they are for safety. For example, a car with underinflated tires is less able to quickly change lanes in an emergency. One with over-inflated tires has a reduced contact patch and its handling, too, is compromised. One must adjust tire pressure for load.
I've got a VW Golf, a Jeep Wrangler, a Dodge Ram pickup truck, a Suzuki Bandit 1200 motorcycle, a Honda Aero 125 scooter, and a Honda CR-500 dirt bike. I drive on and off the road in all conditions. I know what I'm talking about.
'm lead to the conclusion that this in an un-necessary step much like defragging a hard drive.
You've reached the wrong conclusion.
From Dan Heller's book Profitable Photography in the Digital Age:The people pictured did not give the blogger permission to post their images as part of a fictional story on the web. Nor did they approve the captions that appear under their photos. Without a model release, the blogger risks lawsuits that he is likely to lose.
Huh? I've never towed anything with my car
;-)
Wuss.
and as for "heavier loads" I guess that means 4 people in the car instead of just me.
Or a vacation where the car has luggage in it. Or where you are carring a heavy item in the trunk.
I inflate my tires to the recommended pressure for my car and everything seems fine.
Most cars have two different recommended sets of pressures based on the load in the car. If you're taking the family to the beach in a fully loaded minivan, the proper, and safe, tire pressure is not the same as if mom and one kid are riding around town.
As for compensating for different vehicle weights, That could be solved by adjusting the solid tire for weight.
So now you have a 185/70R15 in six different vehicle weight classes, and each person has no way to adjust the pressure when he should.
How many people want to trade tires between vehicles (or even have two vehicles with the same tire size)?
That wasn't the point. The point was that you and I could each have vehicles that required 205/70R14 tires and your vehicle may weigh substantially more or less than mine. we could both buy the same tires and adjust tire pressure accordingly.
I've never done this, though I live in a climate where snow is common in the winter. I've never heard anyone even recommend doing this, so I don't think it's very commonplace.
See this link for information on it. It is very worthwhile in soft snow, sand, or mud. When I volunteer to drive for the hospital in snow emergencies, I always drop the tire pressure on my Jeep down to about 10-15psi. It's why Humvees have a CTIS, or Central Tire Inflation System. That way, they can adjust pressure for the terrain, lowering it for snow, mud, sand, etc.
The points you bring up are for the car enthusiast. The vast majority of people aren't car enthusiasts and want nothing to do with adjusting tire pressure for different conditions.
No, they are points for everyone. The vast majority of people aren't computer enthusiasts and want nothing to do with performing security updates or installing anti-virus software. Being in the majority doesn't mean that someone is right.
Given that the average city driver never does any of these things, yes, you're absolutely right.
That an average city drive does not properly adjust his/her tire pressure for load, vehicle weight, weather conditions, etc., is a good argument in favor of mass transportation. But I don't believe that the answer is dumbing down something as simple as a tire. Take their licenses away, instead.
The copyright of the picture belongs only to the person that took it, not to the people that are posing in the picture.
You are confusing two legal concepts. Copyright has nothing to do with model releases. If you take a photo of me, I have no grounds to claim copyright ownership, regardless of whether I signed a model release.
People have the right to choose the conditions under which photos of them are used -- regardless of who owns copyright to the photo. If you violate those rights, the person could bring a civil lawsuit against you. If you publically post pictures of a random person without their permission as part of a fictional work, then they can sue you with almost a certainty of winning. It has nothing to do with copyright law.
Model releases stipulate the terms under which the images can be used. A model release may give unlimited permission, may limit the use to not-for-profit use, or may preclude use of the image for promotional purposes, to name just a few possible terms.
Just send it to us with a Form VA application and the $30 filing fee.
Stop with the "us" stuff. It's obvious that you don't work with the Copyright Office given your ignorance of copyright law. Since 1978, no publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office has been required to secure copyright. Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created.
I am very interested and look forward to the day when I don't have to check tire air pressure. It is the 21st century after all.
God knows that people in the 21st century wouldn't want to add air to compensate for heavier loads or towing. People in the 21st century wouldn't want to adjust tire pressure to acount for differences in weight between two vehicles that use the same size tires. Modern people in the 21st century won't want to reduce air pressure for traction in the snow. Oh, and we'll all have personal helicopters. I saw it in Popular Science.
These documents didn't appear in a vacuum. They came out in what was clearly a coordinated attack on Bush by CBS, the Boston Globe (who, with their NYT owners are getting off the hook way too easily on this) and the DNC.
How is it a "clearly coordinated attack"? Just because they all said negative things about Bush at the same time? Of course the DNC is attacking Bush! It's a Presidential election year!
The CBS "apology" might have been adequate a week and a half ago. But at this point, CBS has been stonewalling and hiding behind a constantly changing cast of "experts" way, way past the point where it was obvious that the documents were egregious fakes.
CBS did their due diligence in seeking multiple exper opinions once the authenticity was challenged and Dan Rather personally apologized for the error. I think that's plenty adequate.
What I found telling was that the Whitehouse didn't deny the accuracy of what the documents said. They just claimed that the documents were forged. That's sort of like Michael Jackson saying that there couldn't be any videotapes of him molesting children because he keeps the lights off.
That should have been "Your restraining orders..." I changed the sentence from "You're telling me" and missed that edit until after I hit "submit."
I'll tell you right now that if you and I are in a pblic place I can take and PBLISH photos of you legally UNTIL you tell me not to.
You're restraining orders notwithstanding, I think that you should read what a professional photographer has to say about that. Are you telling me that I have a legal right to take a picture of you in public and then post it on the web in a fictional story in which your photo is described as "the mortician's son who's into necrophilia"?
This may be true for those pictures inside private residences, but most of them I've seen are in parking lots, stadiums, bars, etc. ie, PUBLIC PLACES. When anyone is in a public place, they can be photographed without the need for releases.
Untrue. If I take a photograph of you in front of the Washington Monument, I cannot publish it in any manner that I want, including creating a fictional story around it on the web. I can't put it on the web with the caption "This was cousin John's last vacation before being arrested for pedophilia. Such a shame..." While you can usually safely publish photos and video of people in public places as part of a news story, you can't use their images for fiction, promotional purposes, etc. without their permission (model release). Even for news stories, look at how often you see stories about obesity and never see a face on any of the 'fat person on the street' video footage.
You don't know jack shit about photography and model releases. From Dan Heller's book Profitable Photography in the Digital Age: The people pictured did not give the blogger permission to post their images as part of a fictional story on the web. Nor did they approve the captions that appear under their photos. Without a model release, the blogger risks lawsuits that he is likely to lose.
Still feeling frisky?
It is no longer there pictures. the pictures now belong to the person who found them.
Do I find it decent? no. It certianly is not criminal either.
Yes, they pictures are still the property of the person who took them. He has copyright on those photos. Posting them is a violation of copyright law. It also puts the person posting them at risk of being sued by any person in those pictures since he has no model releases from any of them.
It's also a bad idea because he has no model releases from anyone in the photos. Any one of them could bring a lawsuit against him.
hey, i wasn't saying anything about your post. i was poking fun at the person who responded to your post mentioning that you might get a rebate coupon.
Sorry. My bad. Sometimes who is replying to who is less than clear as one scrolls through a long thread.
i'm right there with you -- i have no desire to buy another product from them. rebate or no.
Call Kryptonite on their toll free line and give them hell. If that nets you no satisfaction, call their parent company. Kryptonite knows that the have a lot of legal exposure as well as a PR nightmare on their hands. An article written 12 years ago in an industry publication that they should have been aware of exposed this flaw. Selling the same basic design of lock for 12 years after that while advertising it as 'secure' smacks of fraud. It's certainly false and deceptive advertising to call the product as secure and "pick-resistant." I'm sure that there are plenty of private attorneys who would welcome the opportunity to launch a class-action suit and there are probably no small number of state Attorneys General who would love to take this on. The FTC might be very interested in this case, too. I'll be mentioning all of that to them.
What the fuck do you care? You didn't even take two of the locks from their goddamn packages.
If you had the reading comprehension of the average six year-old, you would have known that there was only one lock that I did not take from its package. I got a good price on it and bought it knowing that a spare was a good idea given the value of what I was locking up. It's not my fault that you are too poor to afford spare locks or anything worth locking up, so don't vent your anger at me.
They're obviously not a crucial part of your life.
I used the disk lock on my motorcycle when I was on the road. When it was at home, I used a Kryptonite ATB U-lock attached to a chain to lock up the motorcycle. The cable lock was attached to my 5000W generator. The Kryptonite Flex Security U-lock was attached to a Honda Scooter. Four out of five in use, locking up investments that exceeded $8,000, and that's not "crucial"?
Sounds to me like this is YOUR mistake for not choosing your purchases more wisely.
You're an idiot. I made the purchases based on the same information that millions of other people used in selecting Kryptonite. The information about the locks' vulnerability was not widely publicized. I'd love to see you get your ass kicked by a bunch of Kryptonite customers for that remark. How about going down to any bicycle messenger office and telling them that it's their own fault for not "choosing [their] purchases more wisely"? No, I didn't think so. You're not a real man. You just play one on the Internet.
Right, and they're all idiots.
So I'm supposed to take the word of an anonymous poster on Slashdot about that? Ignore the statisticians and psychologists that are involved in modern polling?
Have you ever talked to people who are voting for Nader? They're not voting for him for no reason. They're voting for him for a stupid reason, which to them is very important. As many current democrats are voting against Bush, many of these people are voting against Kerry.
Since you asked, I have talked to people who voted for Nader last time and one who said that he was considering it this time. In every case, they said that Nader best represented their views. When asked who they would vote for were he not on the ticket, every one of them said Gore (in 2000) or Kerry (this election). But that's meaningless. That's me talking a a few friends/colleagues. It's not a valid poll because it was not controlled (e.g. same exact questions phrased the same way every time) nor is it statistically significant sample set. Nor are the participants in any way randomized for age, income, geographic area, etc.
Want a poll without a selection bias? Don't ask people a curiously worded question. Build out mobile voting stations of whatever quality your budget allows, put up a big Gallup or Pew banner in mall parking lots, busy intersections (their well honed normalization skills can likely fill out the target list).
It's obvious that you've never been involved with polling. You don't let your sample self-select. You don't give precedence to those who want to play with some gadget that you erect. You don't let political groups organize to vote many times in your poll in order to skew the poll.
I incorrectly attributed the 1992 article to "Bicycle Business" magazine. The article actually appeared in "New Cyclist" and was written by John Stuart Clark, who now works for "Bicycle Business" magazine. Sorry for the error.
Remember kids, reading comprehension can be fun!
It's not an issue of "reading comprehension." It's a matter of whether I trust everything that I read online and whether I trust a company's word when they've been knowingly selling defective locks for over a decade. They told me that the lock was pick-resistant and that the tubular lock mechanism provided "more protection," so why should I trust them when they say that they will offer me a rebate?
Only one slight flaw in your post. Bicycle Business magazine hasn't been going 12 years.
You are correct. It appeared in "New Cyclist" magazine and was written by someone who now works for "Bicycle Business" magazine. I didn't read carefully enough. Here's an interesting Usenet discussion from way back in 1992 discussing the article in "New Cyclist" magazine which revealed the Bic pen method of opening a Kryptonite lock.
Kudos to Kryptonite for fessing up and supplying fixes
Whoa! The problem has been known about in the industry for 12 years and Kryptonite is only supplying fixes for people who bought within the last two. There is a decade's worth of purchasers who are being told "tough luck." I'll give them Kudos when they fix or replace all of the defective locks.
Kryptonite today announced it will provide free product upgrades for certain locks purchased since September 2002
What they don't mention is that the flaw was first documented in the trade publication "Bicycle Business" magazine in 1992. So they've been knowingly selling defective locks for 12 years since then hoping that this day would never come.
I've got five Krytonite locks:
Two KryptoLok ATB U-Locks, one of which was never taken out of the package.
One KryptoDisco-C motorcycle disc brake lock.
One 6' x 5/8" Kryptonite Flex Security cable lock.
One Kryptonie Flex Security U-Lock.
All of the locks are in very good to new condition and all of them are older than two years old. That means I get no replacement locks from Kryptonite nor do I get any upgrades. I hear tell that I might get coupons for rebates on new Kryptonite locks. But it will be a cold day in hell before I ever buy another Kryptonite product if they don't fix or replace the locks I have at no charge to me.
I am not being unreasonable. A lock, if well-cared for, is a lifetime investment. A well cared for lock that's five years old is no less useful than one which is 1 year old. Why should Kryptonite customers suffer because Kryptonite chose to knowinging, and deceptively, sell a defective product for over a decade? Anyone who bought a Krytonite lock with this flaw since the original article was published in 1992 should get a free upgrade/replacement.