The trick to this sort of thing is making it actually stick, when the guy you're dismissing as no longer in charge is still able to hand cash and other incentives to the people who are piloting the combat aircraft being used to attack you and your Rebel Scum.
Why be appalled? Attention to detail and the desire to parse a writer's actual meaning aren't bad things. It means you actually understand the distinction, and that you give a damn about clear thinking and clear communication. You don't want to get rid of that.
What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more.
It's the same disengenuous strategy that makes them blame baseball bats, knives, guns, or cars for murder. Lots of people like to avoid standing in judgement of another person's choices and actions, because that means they have to sort through their value system, deal with philosophical contradictions, face down their own hypocrisies, and all of that other annoying stuff that requires a dash of intellectual honesty and integrity. It's so so much simpler to blame the tools. And, of course, it increases the odds that a lawyer can sue a third party for a pile of cash, on the grounds that tools have the magic power to make you use them, and that the people who make the tools are the villains that make other people use them in a criminal or otherwise unethical way.
I'm sure the Huffington Post, known far and wide for its even-handed, thoughtful editorial positions and rational world view (including endless articles touting homeopathy's amazing medical powers, or junk science pieces trying to talk people out of getting their kids vaccinated, etc), surely has vetted this fine article. It only looks like a press release from an axe-grinding activist entity that hasn't been able to attract its desired level of attention by other means.
He has no need for funds, since the military (of which he is still a part, despite his decision to commit the crimes in question) will provide him with a team of lawyers at no cost to him whatsoever.
How about a fair trial first (which is what he needs the money for), THEN you can condemn him.
He joined the military. Despite the fact that he decided to betray his own oaths by lying, stealing sensitive material, etc., he still gets complete legal representation as part wearing the uniform. He doesn't need to raise money to pay for lawyers. The legal team at his disposal is exactly as good as the legal team that's prosecuting him for his acts. If they are seen dragging their feet or being useless, his JAG defense team are themselves in big trouble.
Instead of fighting the Taliban, Holmes and his team were now responsible for using their training to win the hearts and minds of John McCain and Al Franken.
And if succinctly, and convincingly doing so is the key to gaining the support needed to well and truly (and succesfully) fight the Taliban, that is the time of a few personnel very, very spent.
The PAO doesn't formulate the general's message, or do the fact finding about how to best deliver it. The public affairs types aren't the ones dealing directly with high-level policy makers and budget and budget appropriation people. Rather, they deal with the public (hence the name of their position). Regardless, they do what they do based on direction from their chain of command. If the key person at the top of the local on-the-ground chain of command wants the shrewd observational skills of people in his command to help him form his message and make the most of his limited time with the people that control the resources with which he has to do his job, more power to him.
Jones: What's our mission?
Officer: To convince them more troops and materiel will help us meet our mission.
OK, so you don't think the mission is to keep the Taliban at arm's length while Afghanistan builds a functioning civic society capable of defending itself. Fine. You don't think it's worth it, but the military people who are there think it's worth it, and their commander in chief (the last one and the current one) are saying that's why they're there. So why wouldn't they want to convince the people who allocate them the money and resource to actually do what they're being told to do that what they think is true? Why wouldn't a general want to do everything he can to make sure that he gets the job done while writing fewer "Dear Mrs. Smith, I regre to inform you... " letters? I would be disgusted by any general that didn't make it is business to understand every last thing he can about how to make his case to those that control the money he needs to function, and the rules of engagement under which he must operate.
The Psy-Ops guys were asked to study the dignitaries in order to find our how to manipulate them
Which is the first rule of rhetoric: know your audience. If you have a need to convey something to someone, and you want to be sure they understand what you need to communicate, you need to know how they think, what they already know or don't, and how they process information. Just because the psyops guys are good at that doesn't mean it's evil to use their talents to tell their bosses, "I find that Senator Smith is a cold sumbitch that will simply not respond with any pathos to a local villager explaining what it's like to have his wife shot in the head by the Taliban for teaching girls how to read. But I find that Congresswoman Smith is very receptive to the emotions surrounding what happens in these towns, and that's the best way to communicate to her."
What are people saying, here? That the mission in Afghanistan won't be impacted by the level of support given to it? What this really boils down to is what obersvers of this situation think about whether it's worth keeping the Taliban at bay, or not. Period. If the people working in the field - with that group's victims and tasked with protecting that territory while it claws its way to being able to fend for itself against well-financed insurgents from across the border - think that it takes well-crafted communication (aimed well and at the right people who might otherswise miss the point) to explain that, then so be it. If they're lying (about the substance of the entire discussion), then the techniques used in arriving at the right way to lie are more or less beside the point. The people grousing about this are really grousing about dealing violently with the Taliban in the first place, not about military commanders tailoring their message to different people in the most effective way they can.
Right. But remember: the only people who are allowed to pull together information and paint a compelling, persuasive picture of what the troops in the field need are those who are sitting in a chair in a senate hearing room thousands of miles away, or those that have been asked by their new commander in chief (for the first time in months after he got elected to the job, during a war!) to fly all the way from Afghanistan for a 20-minute meeting.
Officer: Jones, I want you to be the guy from your unit that talks to the Senators when they mingle with troops to get a feel for things.
Jones: Why me? I'm psy-ops, and I'm not supposed to do any Jedi mind tricks on US citizens.
Officer: You also happen to be the most articulate person in the unit, and have an actual understanding of how to communicate a position based on local experience and observations, and even know what the word "rhetoric" actually means when someone wants to know your boiled-down opinion about a complex, topic.
Jones: OK, what's my opinion?
Officer: You tell me! Do we need more troops, materials, and support in order to get this whole thing moving along faster, and with fewer casualties?
Jones: We always do. It's the nature of this sort of activity, period.
Officer: There you have it. Our people in the field have a direct interest in that point being very, very clear to anyone who's sitting on the fence.
Jones: So, no Jedi mind tricks, just be a soldier with an informed opinion and the conviction that more support for the mission is better than less.
Officer: Is that propoganda?
Jones: Not if it's true.
Officer: Is it true?
Jones: Yes.
... or...
Officer: Jones, I want you to give the visiting people false information, convincing them that more support for the mission would help accomplish the mission.
Jones: That's false information?
Officer: It is if Rolling Stone says it is, m'kay?
You're missing the point. I'm trying to explain that the Tolkien estate didn't make up the concept of publicity rights, as asserted above. Whether or not it's being applied correctly at the estate level in this case, it's a real and plainly understood legal concept.
No. You are displaying your ignorance, here, or trolling.
If you take a photo of, say, Mick Jagger as he's smiling and walking out of the door of a restaurant, you can run that in the style section of the Washington Post (or on their web site, etc), accompanying an article, without any considerations at all. That is classic editorial use. Doesn't matter that the Post is a commercial venture... the use of the image is "editorial," and this has very specific meaning in the context of privacy and publicity rights. On the other hand, if that same image were used by the owner of the restaurant, he'd need a signed release from Jagger. This is because showing him smiling under the restaurant's sign - as seen in an ad - can be interpreted as an endorsement of the business. They can't use a picture of you in that capacity, either, without you signing a release. But they can use a photo of you as they publish editorial material.
and we wouldn't feel that we *have* to drill in water a mile deep
We don't have to. There are huge amounts of oil under easy-to-get-to shallow water. The only thing that's forcing extractors to go for the far more difficult, expensive, and riskier deep water stuff is politics. The shallow stuff is being blocked by NIMBYism, just like the huge number of nuclear reactors we should be building.
I didn't say you couldn't. I was replying to the notion that "right of publicity" was some new concept that Tolkien's estate had synthesized out of whole cloth. It's not. Whether or not it's a good fit in this case is a separate discussion.
You're (deliberately, I expect) failing to make the distinction between editorial and commercial use of someone's likeness. This stuff is very well established.
They are claiming a right to manage their own publicity. I have no idea where they got the idea such a right exists
The notion of "right to publicity" has ample precedent. It's used every day, and it's why you can't use a picture of Steve Jobs in your own advertisement or product without getting his permission.
Yes, but can you imagine if the new system had a part of the MS stack running it? Slashdot would be full of people casually blaming that, instead of the app/dev side of things. You know it's true.
What's more interesting is that you equate being social with using dumbed-down communication, and have such an abiding hatred for people who actually think about what they say. It's sort of an odd quirk. I'd venture to say it's actually a form of deflection/projection. Likely it's you, actually, that are the one stuck in the basement and lashing out at people who comment on language use. I'm sure the irony is escaping you at the moment, but it will dawn on you eventually.
How commonly a phrase is used has nothing to do with how useful it. People use out of context or annoyingly vague/misleaning phrasing all the time (especially with regard to percentages in comparisons or in relating a change in size). It's laziness, or sometimes a deliberate attempt to distort. In this case, it's more work to parse the misleading "A is ten times smaller then B" than it is to parse "A is a tenth the size of B." The word smaller, when used along side the multiplier times is used to multiply the notion of the original "small." It means "more small than something else is small." It's fine to say "A is smaller than B," but saying that "A is ten times smaller than B" absolutely connotes the notion that B is already small, and that A is ten times more so. It's a pointless thing to say, but people use the phrase because they think it makes them sound more important, or that they're delivering a more sensational number.
Slashdot Mirror
The trick to this sort of thing is making it actually stick, when the guy you're dismissing as no longer in charge is still able to hand cash and other incentives to the people who are piloting the combat aircraft being used to attack you and your Rebel Scum.
While spamming isn't illegal, it is pretty unethical
Actually, depending on a few variables, it's almost always both.
The apostrophe will be gone in 50 years.
Like the comma? I don't think either will.
Why be appalled? Attention to detail and the desire to parse a writer's actual meaning aren't bad things. It means you actually understand the distinction, and that you give a damn about clear thinking and clear communication. You don't want to get rid of that.
What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more.
It's the same disengenuous strategy that makes them blame baseball bats, knives, guns, or cars for murder. Lots of people like to avoid standing in judgement of another person's choices and actions, because that means they have to sort through their value system, deal with philosophical contradictions, face down their own hypocrisies, and all of that other annoying stuff that requires a dash of intellectual honesty and integrity. It's so so much simpler to blame the tools. And, of course, it increases the odds that a lawyer can sue a third party for a pile of cash, on the grounds that tools have the magic power to make you use them, and that the people who make the tools are the villains that make other people use them in a criminal or otherwise unethical way.
Because they are a quazi-monopoly on ebay
They are eBay. That's like complaining that GM has a monopoly on making and selling Chevrolet cars.
It's their auction site, and there's nothing stopping you from starting up your own, or using any of the others that are out there.
I'm sure the Huffington Post, known far and wide for its even-handed, thoughtful editorial positions and rational world view (including endless articles touting homeopathy's amazing medical powers, or junk science pieces trying to talk people out of getting their kids vaccinated, etc), surely has vetted this fine article. It only looks like a press release from an axe-grinding activist entity that hasn't been able to attract its desired level of attention by other means.
He has no need for funds, since the military (of which he is still a part, despite his decision to commit the crimes in question) will provide him with a team of lawyers at no cost to him whatsoever.
How about a fair trial first (which is what he needs the money for), THEN you can condemn him.
He joined the military. Despite the fact that he decided to betray his own oaths by lying, stealing sensitive material, etc., he still gets complete legal representation as part wearing the uniform. He doesn't need to raise money to pay for lawyers. The legal team at his disposal is exactly as good as the legal team that's prosecuting him for his acts. If they are seen dragging their feet or being useless, his JAG defense team are themselves in big trouble.
Instead of fighting the Taliban, Holmes and his team were now responsible for using their training to win the hearts and minds of John McCain and Al Franken.
And if succinctly, and convincingly doing so is the key to gaining the support needed to well and truly (and succesfully) fight the Taliban, that is the time of a few personnel very, very spent.
The PAO doesn't formulate the general's message, or do the fact finding about how to best deliver it. The public affairs types aren't the ones dealing directly with high-level policy makers and budget and budget appropriation people. Rather, they deal with the public (hence the name of their position). Regardless, they do what they do based on direction from their chain of command. If the key person at the top of the local on-the-ground chain of command wants the shrewd observational skills of people in his command to help him form his message and make the most of his limited time with the people that control the resources with which he has to do his job, more power to him.
Jones: What's our mission?
Officer: To convince them more troops and materiel will help us meet our mission.
OK, so you don't think the mission is to keep the Taliban at arm's length while Afghanistan builds a functioning civic society capable of defending itself. Fine. You don't think it's worth it, but the military people who are there think it's worth it, and their commander in chief (the last one and the current one) are saying that's why they're there. So why wouldn't they want to convince the people who allocate them the money and resource to actually do what they're being told to do that what they think is true? Why wouldn't a general want to do everything he can to make sure that he gets the job done while writing fewer "Dear Mrs. Smith, I regre to inform you... " letters? I would be disgusted by any general that didn't make it is business to understand every last thing he can about how to make his case to those that control the money he needs to function, and the rules of engagement under which he must operate.
The Psy-Ops guys were asked to study the dignitaries in order to find our how to manipulate them
Which is the first rule of rhetoric: know your audience. If you have a need to convey something to someone, and you want to be sure they understand what you need to communicate, you need to know how they think, what they already know or don't, and how they process information. Just because the psyops guys are good at that doesn't mean it's evil to use their talents to tell their bosses, "I find that Senator Smith is a cold sumbitch that will simply not respond with any pathos to a local villager explaining what it's like to have his wife shot in the head by the Taliban for teaching girls how to read. But I find that Congresswoman Smith is very receptive to the emotions surrounding what happens in these towns, and that's the best way to communicate to her."
What are people saying, here? That the mission in Afghanistan won't be impacted by the level of support given to it? What this really boils down to is what obersvers of this situation think about whether it's worth keeping the Taliban at bay, or not. Period. If the people working in the field - with that group's victims and tasked with protecting that territory while it claws its way to being able to fend for itself against well-financed insurgents from across the border - think that it takes well-crafted communication (aimed well and at the right people who might otherswise miss the point) to explain that, then so be it. If they're lying (about the substance of the entire discussion), then the techniques used in arriving at the right way to lie are more or less beside the point. The people grousing about this are really grousing about dealing violently with the Taliban in the first place, not about military commanders tailoring their message to different people in the most effective way they can.
Right. But remember: the only people who are allowed to pull together information and paint a compelling, persuasive picture of what the troops in the field need are those who are sitting in a chair in a senate hearing room thousands of miles away, or those that have been asked by their new commander in chief (for the first time in months after he got elected to the job, during a war!) to fly all the way from Afghanistan for a 20-minute meeting.
Officer: Jones, I want you to be the guy from your unit that talks to the Senators when they mingle with troops to get a feel for things.
... or ...
Jones: Why me? I'm psy-ops, and I'm not supposed to do any Jedi mind tricks on US citizens.
Officer: You also happen to be the most articulate person in the unit, and have an actual understanding of how to communicate a position based on local experience and observations, and even know what the word "rhetoric" actually means when someone wants to know your boiled-down opinion about a complex, topic.
Jones: OK, what's my opinion?
Officer: You tell me! Do we need more troops, materials, and support in order to get this whole thing moving along faster, and with fewer casualties?
Jones: We always do. It's the nature of this sort of activity, period.
Officer: There you have it. Our people in the field have a direct interest in that point being very, very clear to anyone who's sitting on the fence.
Jones: So, no Jedi mind tricks, just be a soldier with an informed opinion and the conviction that more support for the mission is better than less.
Officer: Is that propoganda?
Jones: Not if it's true.
Officer: Is it true?
Jones: Yes.
Officer: Jones, I want you to give the visiting people false information, convincing them that more support for the mission would help accomplish the mission.
Jones: That's false information?
Officer: It is if Rolling Stone says it is, m'kay?
You're missing the point. I'm trying to explain that the Tolkien estate didn't make up the concept of publicity rights, as asserted above. Whether or not it's being applied correctly at the estate level in this case, it's a real and plainly understood legal concept.
Editorial = Commercial
No. You are displaying your ignorance, here, or trolling.
... the use of the image is "editorial," and this has very specific meaning in the context of privacy and publicity rights. On the other hand, if that same image were used by the owner of the restaurant, he'd need a signed release from Jagger. This is because showing him smiling under the restaurant's sign - as seen in an ad - can be interpreted as an endorsement of the business. They can't use a picture of you in that capacity, either, without you signing a release. But they can use a photo of you as they publish editorial material.
If you take a photo of, say, Mick Jagger as he's smiling and walking out of the door of a restaurant, you can run that in the style section of the Washington Post (or on their web site, etc), accompanying an article, without any considerations at all. That is classic editorial use. Doesn't matter that the Post is a commercial venture
and we wouldn't feel that we *have* to drill in water a mile deep
We don't have to. There are huge amounts of oil under easy-to-get-to shallow water. The only thing that's forcing extractors to go for the far more difficult, expensive, and riskier deep water stuff is politics. The shallow stuff is being blocked by NIMBYism, just like the huge number of nuclear reactors we should be building.
I didn't say you couldn't. I was replying to the notion that "right of publicity" was some new concept that Tolkien's estate had synthesized out of whole cloth. It's not. Whether or not it's a good fit in this case is a separate discussion.
You're (deliberately, I expect) failing to make the distinction between editorial and commercial use of someone's likeness. This stuff is very well established.
They are claiming a right to manage their own publicity. I have no idea where they got the idea such a right exists
The notion of "right to publicity" has ample precedent. It's used every day, and it's why you can't use a picture of Steve Jobs in your own advertisement or product without getting his permission.
the government had not given Comcast/Verizon an exclusive monopoly
Which government ... your local city government?
This is nothing to do with Linux.
Yes, but can you imagine if the new system had a part of the MS stack running it? Slashdot would be full of people casually blaming that, instead of the app/dev side of things. You know it's true.
What's more interesting is that you equate being social with using dumbed-down communication, and have such an abiding hatred for people who actually think about what they say. It's sort of an odd quirk. I'd venture to say it's actually a form of deflection/projection. Likely it's you, actually, that are the one stuck in the basement and lashing out at people who comment on language use. I'm sure the irony is escaping you at the moment, but it will dawn on you eventually.
it's part of common language now
How commonly a phrase is used has nothing to do with how useful it. People use out of context or annoyingly vague/misleaning phrasing all the time (especially with regard to percentages in comparisons or in relating a change in size). It's laziness, or sometimes a deliberate attempt to distort. In this case, it's more work to parse the misleading "A is ten times smaller then B" than it is to parse "A is a tenth the size of B." The word smaller, when used along side the multiplier times is used to multiply the notion of the original "small." It means "more small than something else is small." It's fine to say "A is smaller than B," but saying that "A is ten times smaller than B" absolutely connotes the notion that B is already small, and that A is ten times more so. It's a pointless thing to say, but people use the phrase because they think it makes them sound more important, or that they're delivering a more sensational number.