You replied - that's worth at least 1.5 fucks. And I didn't say I won, I said you missed, because you spammed links and the first three I tried were trash.
Exactly. Just like people who create businesses. They're entitled to reasonable hourly pay, but once the company exists, if they're not still working, they shouldn't get anything more. The business would belong to... well, everyone, I guess, just as you believe songs and other creative content should be ownerless once created.
Even in TFS, this device doesn't target cars specifically, it zapped all of the electronics *in* the car, too.
I think this would merely disrupt. I believe a full on EMP would actually destroy the electronics.
So, in theory at least, you don't wreck every bit of electronics you aim this thing at. Because if police start damaging people's cars for no good reason, there will be hell to pay as people get pissed off at ending up with a huge repair bill -- especially if the officer is mistaken or you're just collateral damage.
I looked at a few of those, and none of them applied to a businesses liability for releasing security footage shot by its cameras. They were either about people suing private individuals who took video and posted it in YouTube, or people who took footage from a company's security monitors without permission, and the company sued those people, etc.
I'm not going to click through all of them to find out whether you posted *anything* that applies to the situation, so how about responding with a single link that does? A company, liable to other parties, for the release of its security footage. Not third parties taking footage without permission, not celebrities suing individuals who are not connected with the company who own the venue.
Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them...
Really? Care to name any, and any objective proof whatsoever that they have this "source of truth"? If not, you're just hand waving as much as the pope.
If you don't want to participate in this society, don't. Sure, none of the civilized countries in Europe will take you, but maybe you can get into Rwanda. Then you can see firsthand what actual slavery looks like.
I'm mostly on the "people stop being people and start being corpses when they die" bandwagon. And corpses have no right but the right to decompose in peace.
Got it. So you believe wills should be null and void; the people who get the deceased's estate should be, as we've seen in this example, the asshole who gets there first. Now, there's a philosophy that will improve society.
You and normalvisual, below, are both wrong. I do believe that we should stick to copyright as defined in the constitution, not as amended by Disney, Inc. My point was that Salinger had an agreement the works would not be *published* until mid-century, and some random asshole decided otherwise.
Your examples make no sense at all. Ideas are different from the rights deriving from physical objects. The founding fathers thought so, anyway. It's not about his estate, it's about the agreement he had that these stories would not be release til mid-century. But you clearly seem to be on the "fuck that guy" bandwagon.
we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired
What makes you think his wishes aren't being respected? Dead guy makes a lot of crazy rules just to read a few writings? Maybe he wanted us to break those rules.
That's an awesome rationalization! You can apply that, "hey, maybe it's a trick, and he wanted us to do the exact opposite!" to EVERYTHING.
...we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired. He put words on paper, so fuck him. They stopped belonging to him when they saw the light of day.
I love this socialist half-paradise, where Wall Street profits are privatized, gigantic losses from gambling with people's deposits are publicly insured, and intellectual works are treated like a turkey thrown into a pit filled with hyenas.
I do still buy some physical books, such as art books. And the illustrated version of "The Story of Salt" isn't much good on an ebook. But for text-only, I much prefer ebooks. I'm not saying anyone else needs to, should, are foolish not to, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You replied - that's worth at least 1.5 fucks. And I didn't say I won, I said you missed, because you spammed links and the first three I tried were trash.
Better luck next time.
Not worth digging through your spam list again. I'll have to score this for you as a miss.
Have a nice life.
Exactly. Just like people who create businesses. They're entitled to reasonable hourly pay, but once the company exists, if they're not still working, they shouldn't get anything more. The business would belong to... well, everyone, I guess, just as you believe songs and other creative content should be ownerless once created.
Right? Ownership is theft!
You're comparing a webview of a frivolous news story or blog post to a recorded song as if they were of equivalent value.
Seriously?
I think this would merely disrupt. I believe a full on EMP would actually destroy the electronics.
So, in theory at least, you don't wreck every bit of electronics you aim this thing at. Because if police start damaging people's cars for no good reason, there will be hell to pay as people get pissed off at ending up with a huge repair bill -- especially if the officer is mistaken or you're just collateral damage.
The police have little to fear from the people whose property they damage. Hell, New York is refusing to accept liability for the innocent bystanders that their cops shoot! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/nyregion/bystanders-shot-by-police-face-uphill-fight-to-win-lawsuits.html?pagewanted=all
...and made a documentary about it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080360/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_85
More hyperbole. Well, you convinced me. Let's stop treating the U.S. as if it were the United States of America.
I looked at a few of those, and none of them applied to a businesses liability for releasing security footage shot by its cameras. They were either about people suing private individuals who took video and posted it in YouTube, or people who took footage from a company's security monitors without permission, and the company sued those people, etc.
I'm not going to click through all of them to find out whether you posted *anything* that applies to the situation, so how about responding with a single link that does? A company, liable to other parties, for the release of its security footage. Not third parties taking footage without permission, not celebrities suing individuals who are not connected with the company who own the venue.
Thanks.
Now many bible stories probably have a source of truth to them...
Really? Care to name any, and any objective proof whatsoever that they have this "source of truth"? If not, you're just hand waving as much as the pope.
I'm sure you're the expert.
Potty mouth.
Slavery. Good one.
If you don't want to participate in this society, don't. Sure, none of the civilized countries in Europe will take you, but maybe you can get into Rwanda. Then you can see firsthand what actual slavery looks like.
Ah, it's the hostility toward the guy with the Google Glass that's driving it. Thought so. Spying is spying.
Security cameras as used for security purposes. They can have a civil liability if they release security footage.
Sorry, I think you pulled that out of your ass. Citation, please. One in the U.S. will do, since that's where the story occurred.
Did the owner apologize to all the guests for the security cameras that record everyone, and turn them off too?
Not for *any* reason - if they went full Denny's and discriminated against people based on race, that would be crazy fun to watch.
You are a loon.
I'm mostly on the "people stop being people and start being corpses when they die" bandwagon. And corpses have no right but the right to decompose in peace.
Got it. So you believe wills should be null and void; the people who get the deceased's estate should be, as we've seen in this example, the asshole who gets there first. Now, there's a philosophy that will improve society.
You missed my point - that only the bad ends of a deal are treated like common property.
You and normalvisual, below, are both wrong. I do believe that we should stick to copyright as defined in the constitution, not as amended by Disney, Inc. My point was that Salinger had an agreement the works would not be *published* until mid-century, and some random asshole decided otherwise.
Your examples make no sense at all. Ideas are different from the rights deriving from physical objects. The founding fathers thought so, anyway. It's not about his estate, it's about the agreement he had that these stories would not be release til mid-century. But you clearly seem to be on the "fuck that guy" bandwagon.
And your point is what, exactly? You don't seem to have replied to mine. Non sequitur.
we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired
What makes you think his wishes aren't being respected? Dead guy makes a lot of crazy rules just to read a few writings? Maybe he wanted us to break those rules.
That's an awesome rationalization! You can apply that, "hey, maybe it's a trick, and he wanted us to do the exact opposite!" to EVERYTHING.
How convenient.
Exactly what I said. The words exist, people have them, fuck that guy and his wishes, right?
...we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired. He put words on paper, so fuck him. They stopped belonging to him when they saw the light of day.
I love this socialist half-paradise, where Wall Street profits are privatized, gigantic losses from gambling with people's deposits are publicly insured, and intellectual works are treated like a turkey thrown into a pit filled with hyenas.
I do still buy some physical books, such as art books. And the illustrated version of "The Story of Salt" isn't much good on an ebook. But for text-only, I much prefer ebooks. I'm not saying anyone else needs to, should, are foolish not to, etc.