Hillary "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,"
The "things" to which she was referring were the Bush tax cuts as applied to the top-bracket earners in the audience she was addressing.
Clinton is more than the champion of nanny government, she's a Marxist.
Really? I had no idea she called for a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, because if not, charges of "Marxism" are just more of the ignorant slurring with loaded words that defines American politics.
Her actions now are just posturing to hide her agenda.
And this is based on what, exactly?
Hillary sucks, but calling her a "Marxist" is no more true than if I were to call her a "Fascist" based on her support of the PATRIOT Act.
Suppose there's a law stating that no one can donate more than $1000 to any candidate. How would that stop me from selling marketing services to some candidate at a $100 thousand loss for my company? When the other candidate comes, "sorry, we do not offer that service anymore, here, check our catalog for our new price list".
I'd imagine a conviction for conspiracy to conceal election fraud would stop you for a few years, depending on the skills of your lawyer and the zeal of the prosecutor.
Set the individual contribution limit so low as to make any one individual contribution a non-influence. Something in the range of a couple of hundred bucks should do the trick. Now, if only we could get the courts to stop confusing money with speech...
I concur with JzNat, and would add the necessity of making the limit really small, something in the order of $250, with an annual review to adjust for inflation in terms of media advertising costs.
I tried this before but in hindsight I realise that letting my goldfish determine how the country was run was really just putting them under too much stress and pressure for their tiny brains and hearts to deal with.
That's why I've felt so bad for the Republican Congress since 1994. At least they've been honest with us. P.J. O'Rourke (approximately): "Republicans are the party that tells you how government never works, and then they get elected and prove it."
No! Vote for the Popular People's Anarcho-Syndacalist party! They're the only really pure group of politicians!
Nah, just kidding. They're all shits, just a bunch of grubby salesmen pushing ridiculous dreams on the uncritical masses. Oh, and a foundation of democracy and all that.
In the US, no model release is required for images taken in public.
Especially if you don't mind leaving yourself open to suit from the people who appear in the images, if they can find a way to demonstrate something like defamation or privacy infringement as a result of your use and correlation of their image and identity. Privacy laws regarding images vary state-to-state, but laws like Florida's are common.
Your making a pun, but you're not seriously suggesting that there's a relevant contradiction between the freedom of association (freedom to hang out with people, or even to NOT hang out with people, for that matter,) and the freedom of speech here...
Right.
To be more explicit: I'm saying that if a friend used his freedom of speech in this manner and then refused the courtesy of removing my name from the picture's tags upon a polite request, I would cease hanging out with that particular person. No contradiction between the freedoms of speech and association was meant to be implied. The pun hadn't even occurred to me, but it's early and I've had no decent sleep.
Well, it hasn't happened yet, if that's any indication. Oddly enough, I'm not that close with anyone unconcerned with privacy. Exhibitionists, in my experience, are generally exhibitionists because their lives are too boring to hide, or at the other end of the spectrum, outrageous for the sheer purpose of provoking outrage.
The article proposes a registry of people who want to be excluded from automatic (machine) tagging, based on face recognition software; It's not proposing that we limit your friends' free speech rights.
Indeed, but I was responding to someone who'd obviously not read the article, so I didn't figure that was too relevant.
IE, "This is a picture of Sunburnt, who is user 890890 on Slashdot," would still be legal, as far as I understand the article's efforts.
As it should be. My point was that a friend's freedom of speech to provide unwelcome public identification would likely bring my freedom of association into play, assuming the person in question wasn't willing to remove my real name from Flickr. Or, in this case, disassociation.
My associates and I make out livings photographing and videotaping people in public places, labeling the images with their respective names and the location the image was acquired in, uploading portions onto the internet, and selling the ultimate result by the thousands on DVD internationally[...]There is nothing wrong, immoral or insidious about it.
Yeah, it's not like there are laws against commercial exploitation of another's image without their express consent. Of wait, there are, so I guess there is something "wrong" with it, assuming that consent is not sought before publication.
And before some karma-seeking moron comes back with "What about when you're in the stands at a sporting event," let me point out that purchasing a ticket provides consent in that instance. Read the back of your ticket sometime. Many other public settings that require a ticket or an entry fee also require you to surrender a bit of your right to privacy.
It's like those stupid "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs: you have to make sure and get the girls to sign waivers (or "model release" papers). Alcohol helps, I hear, which is among the reasons why that vile fuckwit Joe Francis is probably headed to jail in the near future.
The big fucking deal isn't the picture itself, but the connection of the picture with your name. I don't mind that unknown people can find pictures with my unlabeled self in the frame by poking around websites relevant to my hobbies. I DO mind, however, if a simple search for my real name can present the searcher with a look into my private life because some "friend" feels it necessary to catalogue the names of everyone in their photos.
Huh! And I thought only the GP was foolishly misinterpreting the study; I didn't realize that those dastardly idiots in the field of overhyped science jounralism were up to no good again.
We're not having it near as bad in this part of NE as in other parts of the country, but that's an anecdotal statement and not intended as a substitute for scientific evidence.
Not "consumed" per se, but cell phones generate electro-magnetic radiation - which kill off bees that are necessary for their survival.
(From the FTA to which you linked:) One team of reseachers at Landau University in Germany discovered that if you put cell phones right next to beehives, some of the bees appear to become confused and have difficulty communicating. They don't die, and people who believe that this happens are apparently too lazy to even read the original research that started people discussing cell phones as a possible cause of CCD. Especially, it seems, when this sort of thing confirms pre-existing prejudices.
Standard boilerplate: In the event that the Parent is determined to be satirical in nature, congratulations! You got me.
How exactly are the First Nations incurring a loss of use? Do they have some demonstrable manner in which cell phone traffic through their airspace is harming them financially?
The guy contends that nobody wanted to take these books, but the low demand is not surprising. He mentions "slogging" through tens of thousands of books. What does this mean? That he's taken out any rare or high-demand books - like those commonly on assigned reading lists - that have a hope of re-selling. Trying to sell mass market paperbacks in used condition is next to impossible.
Also... not reading a book is as good as burning it? Couldn't someone else read it?
Yeah, for a buck at this guy's store. Somehow I suspect this is the entire point of this media exercise.
Slashdot Mirror
The "things" to which she was referring were the Bush tax cuts as applied to the top-bracket earners in the audience she was addressing.
Really? I had no idea she called for a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, because if not, charges of "Marxism" are just more of the ignorant slurring with loaded words that defines American politics.
And this is based on what, exactly?
Hillary sucks, but calling her a "Marxist" is no more true than if I were to call her a "Fascist" based on her support of the PATRIOT Act.
I'd imagine a conviction for conspiracy to conceal election fraud would stop you for a few years, depending on the skills of your lawyer and the zeal of the prosecutor.
From the GP: "A friend of mine, who used to drive cab and has nothing to do with computers (except ripping borrowed music and movies)"
So, by the standards you've expressed for honesty, no.
Set the individual contribution limit so low as to make any one individual contribution a non-influence. Something in the range of a couple of hundred bucks should do the trick. Now, if only we could get the courts to stop confusing money with speech...
Say we get rid of this destructive legal fiction that identifies corporations as persons, and set their max contribution to zero.
While I'm at it, I'd really like a pony.
You must be new here.
Isn't it? I can barely hold in the belly laugh when I hear right-wing friends and acquaintances refer to that "far-left socialist Clinton."
I concur with JzNat, and would add the necessity of making the limit really small, something in the order of $250, with an annual review to adjust for inflation in terms of media advertising costs.
No! Vote for the Popular People's Anarcho-Syndacalist party! They're the only really pure group of politicians!
Nah, just kidding. They're all shits, just a bunch of grubby salesmen pushing ridiculous dreams on the uncritical masses. Oh, and a foundation of democracy and all that.
Which just goes to show that porn stars are pretty much mainstream entertainment, hypocritical public exhortations to morality aside.
It's really that hard to draw a line between individual and corporate sponsorship?
Especially if you don't mind leaving yourself open to suit from the people who appear in the images, if they can find a way to demonstrate something like defamation or privacy infringement as a result of your use and correlation of their image and identity. Privacy laws regarding images vary state-to-state, but laws like Florida's are common.
Thanks for playing, anonymous coward.
That's what I'm advocating, yes. Disagreeing with a replier to the main article does not denote approval of the article's content.
Right.
To be more explicit: I'm saying that if a friend used his freedom of speech in this manner and then refused the courtesy of removing my name from the picture's tags upon a polite request, I would cease hanging out with that particular person. No contradiction between the freedoms of speech and association was meant to be implied. The pun hadn't even occurred to me, but it's early and I've had no decent sleep.
Nice user #, BTW.
Well, it hasn't happened yet, if that's any indication. Oddly enough, I'm not that close with anyone unconcerned with privacy. Exhibitionists, in my experience, are generally exhibitionists because their lives are too boring to hide, or at the other end of the spectrum, outrageous for the sheer purpose of provoking outrage.
Indeed, but I was responding to someone who'd obviously not read the article, so I didn't figure that was too relevant.
As it should be. My point was that a friend's freedom of speech to provide unwelcome public identification would likely bring my freedom of association into play, assuming the person in question wasn't willing to remove my real name from Flickr. Or, in this case, disassociation.I didn't say "insight." I said "a look." Frankly, nobody has the right to either without one's consent, implicit or express.
Damn, you still haven't bothered to RTFA?
And before some karma-seeking moron comes back with "What about when you're in the stands at a sporting event," let me point out that purchasing a ticket provides consent in that instance. Read the back of your ticket sometime. Many other public settings that require a ticket or an entry fee also require you to surrender a bit of your right to privacy.
It's like those stupid "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs: you have to make sure and get the girls to sign waivers (or "model release" papers). Alcohol helps, I hear, which is among the reasons why that vile fuckwit Joe Francis is probably headed to jail in the near future.
The big fucking deal isn't the picture itself, but the connection of the picture with your name. I don't mind that unknown people can find pictures with my unlabeled self in the frame by poking around websites relevant to my hobbies. I DO mind, however, if a simple search for my real name can present the searcher with a look into my private life because some "friend" feels it necessary to catalogue the names of everyone in their photos.
We're not having it near as bad in this part of NE as in other parts of the country, but that's an anecdotal statement and not intended as a substitute for scientific evidence.
(From the FTA to which you linked:) One team of reseachers at Landau University in Germany discovered that if you put cell phones right next to beehives, some of the bees appear to become confused and have difficulty communicating. They don't die, and people who believe that this happens are apparently too lazy to even read the original research that started people discussing cell phones as a possible cause of CCD. Especially, it seems, when this sort of thing confirms pre-existing prejudices.
Standard boilerplate: In the event that the Parent is determined to be satirical in nature, congratulations! You got me.
Umm, indeed.
How exactly are the First Nations incurring a loss of use? Do they have some demonstrable manner in which cell phone traffic through their airspace is harming them financially?
Yes. Imagine what a toxic fire that would be!
Hell, yes! They belong in a museum!
Seriously (and sadly), I'd probably love having a copy of KQ1 on 5.25", at least so I'll have a prop for a future "back in my day" story.
Yeah, for a buck at this guy's store. Somehow I suspect this is the entire point of this media exercise.