"We're gonna sentence you to speak at 14 places you have to drive to, but we're taking away your right to drive, so we'll see you back here next month to discuss new charges for skipping out on your community service." Asshole. I agree, he should lose his ability to drive, in lieu of the community service; or maybe he showed remorse for his severe fuckup and, like people do, learned that he shouldn't fucking do that again?
As I said, a definite revocation of his license in lieu of the community service. However, since he was sentenced to carry out the community service, it would have been inappropriate to revoke his license.
Ok, the fines should have maybe been much MUCH higher, that much I definitely agree with. However, I don't see a problem with him being allowed to keep his license given that he has been ordered to carry out community service at locations that are likely outiside any reasonable walking distance from his residence; were he not ordered to perform this community service, I'd say he should lose his license for somewhere between 1 and 5 years, to be determined by a jury who spent enough time in the courtroom with him to be able to base that duration on his demeanor and whether or not he showed any genuine remorse during the trial (e.g. longer if it seems like he'll do it again). I don't think this was a slap on the wrist; it would be unusually unfair (therefore falling under cruel and unusual punishment) to expect him to speak at schools he can't get to (not every school is within range of public transportatio aside from school busses which many districts now also don't have; and he, himself, may live outside the reach of public transportation). Again, the fines should have been much, much higher; unless, of course, he doesn't have tons of money and they want to leave him with enough cash for gas to get to those schools they're ordering him to speak at. I don't know enough about his financial situation to speak as to the appropriateness of the fines.
I took the photo, I didn't copy the structure or the meal. If I had copied a structure in exact detail, I would expect to be sued. As for the meal, the written form of a recipe can be protected by copyright, but the finished product is an artistic work of its own right; much like the written lyrics and music to a song can be protected by copyright, but it's perfectly legal to perform a cover of someone else's song, since that performance is a separate artistic work.
This b***h honestly reminds me of my ex, who studied criminilogy and thought that put her on a higher tier than everyone else.
She now works at an outsourced call center, taking calls for an insurance company. She's been there, full time, for over four years now and her student loans from the one year she actually attended calsses, part time, still outweigh the total of her gross income from this job.
I'd feel bad for her if she wasn't a stuck-up b***h. Instead, I feel bad for her daughter.
It also seems that he would have been perfectly happy to receive an email asking for permission to use the image on a nonprofit site. He likely would have just asked for a proper citation in the footer or some other credit for the photo. It's simple things like this that, done prior to simply taking someone's work, garner a lot of good will, but, done after you've been caught, buy you nothing.
He put a picture on the internet to share it with others who might want to *SEE* it. He did want to share his picture, he simply didn't want someone else claiming it as their own without compensation. Seems fair enough to me.
I know, if this ad was for a relevant product, like Microsoft Office or Google Chrome, it would surely get a few clicks from this story. I'd click just for the amusement factor of the story, for sure. Not for this likely scam product, though.
Ultimately, Motorola still made the final decision and filed all the paperwork. Whether or not Google wanted them to do so is irrelevant. Google wasn't suing, that was my point, it is factual; therefore, it still stands.
The lawsuit in which Microsoft sued Motorola started long before Google began the process of acquiring Motorola Mobility and the judgment was made about a week before the acquisition. This lawsuit, in which Motorola sued Microsoft, began around the same time. Further, this was Motorola suing Microsoft, no Motorola Mobility, which Google fully acquired just a few days ago.
Google may not be perfect, but they're also not the assholes who started this shit; hell, they're not even involved int it. If anything, they're getting screwed on the Motorola Mobility deal because of this.
Stores and malls have every right to hire whoever they want to work whatever position they want *on their own property*. Any person on the street has every right to hire a private investigator to investigate somebody *from their own property or public property*. The problem here is that the MPAA hired someone to investigate this guy *in his own home*, and not from within the confines of the MPAA or investigator's own property or while on public property.
Parking your car in front of someone's home and taking pictures through their open window is a gray area; entering someone's home under false pretenses is not.
It's almost excusable when there's only a shoulder to ride on. Hoewever, in the bay area, there's either a sidewalk, a bike lane, or both, so there is zero excuse for a bike to ever put itself in front of a car; and if they'd obey traffic laws like the rest of us, they simply wouldn't get hit. My boss bikes everywhere unless he's going out with his wife or taking his kids somewhere and he rants about other cyclists being douchebags *all the time*.
By "like the test of us" I mean "once in a while".
I know, right? Of course, my anecdote may or may not fit reality; and the fear that it might prove true is precisely the reason such research will never be conducted.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, also... comprehension fail; I wasn't talking about taking a picture of a meal or a building, go read it again. Derp.
As a photographer who has spent years honing his skills, fuck you.
"We're gonna sentence you to speak at 14 places you have to drive to, but we're taking away your right to drive, so we'll see you back here next month to discuss new charges for skipping out on your community service." Asshole. I agree, he should lose his ability to drive, in lieu of the community service; or maybe he showed remorse for his severe fuckup and, like people do, learned that he shouldn't fucking do that again?
I can get on board with either, or both, of those ideas.
As I said, a definite revocation of his license in lieu of the community service. However, since he was sentenced to carry out the community service, it would have been inappropriate to revoke his license.
Ok, the fines should have maybe been much MUCH higher, that much I definitely agree with. However, I don't see a problem with him being allowed to keep his license given that he has been ordered to carry out community service at locations that are likely outiside any reasonable walking distance from his residence; were he not ordered to perform this community service, I'd say he should lose his license for somewhere between 1 and 5 years, to be determined by a jury who spent enough time in the courtroom with him to be able to base that duration on his demeanor and whether or not he showed any genuine remorse during the trial (e.g. longer if it seems like he'll do it again). I don't think this was a slap on the wrist; it would be unusually unfair (therefore falling under cruel and unusual punishment) to expect him to speak at schools he can't get to (not every school is within range of public transportatio aside from school busses which many districts now also don't have; and he, himself, may live outside the reach of public transportation). Again, the fines should have been much, much higher; unless, of course, he doesn't have tons of money and they want to leave him with enough cash for gas to get to those schools they're ordering him to speak at. I don't know enough about his financial situation to speak as to the appropriateness of the fines.
I took the photo, I didn't copy the structure or the meal. If I had copied a structure in exact detail, I would expect to be sued. As for the meal, the written form of a recipe can be protected by copyright, but the finished product is an artistic work of its own right; much like the written lyrics and music to a song can be protected by copyright, but it's perfectly legal to perform a cover of someone else's song, since that performance is a separate artistic work.
This b***h honestly reminds me of my ex, who studied criminilogy and thought that put her on a higher tier than everyone else.
She now works at an outsourced call center, taking calls for an insurance company. She's been there, full time, for over four years now and her student loans from the one year she actually attended calsses, part time, still outweigh the total of her gross income from this job.
I'd feel bad for her if she wasn't a stuck-up b***h. Instead, I feel bad for her daughter.
It also seems that he would have been perfectly happy to receive an email asking for permission to use the image on a nonprofit site. He likely would have just asked for a proper citation in the footer or some other credit for the photo. It's simple things like this that, done prior to simply taking someone's work, garner a lot of good will, but, done after you've been caught, buy you nothing.
^-- This.
He put a picture on the internet to share it with others who might want to *SEE* it. He did want to share his picture, he simply didn't want someone else claiming it as their own without compensation. Seems fair enough to me.
I know, if this ad was for a relevant product, like Microsoft Office or Google Chrome, it would surely get a few clicks from this story. I'd click just for the amusement factor of the story, for sure. Not for this likely scam product, though.
This isn't about supporting or not supporting. It's not even about including or bundling... Why the fuck would they INTEGRATE it?
OSX and Linux both support Flash (other way around, actually). Neither of them integrate it.
And we're no stran.... aww, screw it.
Netflix is keeping it alive, apparently.
You mean like CleanMyPussC.com?
Only if you're watching them on a computer, apparently.
Can someone hand me a phone? I need to make a call
/me dials the phone
Hello, Bullshit?
Why the fuck would MS integrate Adobe's competitor to their own Silverlight platform into their own OS? Get off the crack.
Ultimately, Motorola still made the final decision and filed all the paperwork. Whether or not Google wanted them to do so is irrelevant. Google wasn't suing, that was my point, it is factual; therefore, it still stands.
At any rate, my point still stands that Google wasn't suing.
Both this action by Motorola (Google)...
The lawsuit in which Microsoft sued Motorola started long before Google began the process of acquiring Motorola Mobility and the judgment was made about a week before the acquisition. This lawsuit, in which Motorola sued Microsoft, began around the same time. Further, this was Motorola suing Microsoft, no Motorola Mobility, which Google fully acquired just a few days ago.
Google may not be perfect, but they're also not the assholes who started this shit; hell, they're not even involved int it. If anything, they're getting screwed on the Motorola Mobility deal because of this.
Stores and malls have every right to hire whoever they want to work whatever position they want *on their own property*. Any person on the street has every right to hire a private investigator to investigate somebody *from their own property or public property*. The problem here is that the MPAA hired someone to investigate this guy *in his own home*, and not from within the confines of the MPAA or investigator's own property or while on public property.
Parking your car in front of someone's home and taking pictures through their open window is a gray area; entering someone's home under false pretenses is not.
It's almost excusable when there's only a shoulder to ride on. Hoewever, in the bay area, there's either a sidewalk, a bike lane, or both, so there is zero excuse for a bike to ever put itself in front of a car; and if they'd obey traffic laws like the rest of us, they simply wouldn't get hit. My boss bikes everywhere unless he's going out with his wife or taking his kids somewhere and he rants about other cyclists being douchebags *all the time*.
By "like the test of us" I mean "once in a while".
I was going for Insightful, but I'll take Funny if that's what I can get.
I know, right? Of course, my anecdote may or may not fit reality; and the fear that it might prove true is precisely the reason such research will never be conducted.