So, in Hawaii - for example - the age of consent is 16. Here in California, it's 18. If I watch porn in Hawaii, featuring a 16 year old girl, is that kiddie porn? What if I watch that same video here in Cali? Hell, in parts of Mexico, the AoC is 12. Is it kiddie porn if there's no force involved, and everyone is of AoC?
like, specifically, i'm thinking of the david bowie "space oddity" children's book that was told to cease and desist. i have a hard time imagining that it was bowie himself who had a problem with it. i may be wrong, but i doubt it. (yes, that's the title of charles barkley's book. sue me!)
he's turning into the worst governor ever. i have no love for the rebulicans, but gerry's idea of fixing the state is to spend more money on entitlement programs. and, in typical dem fashion, broaden government's powers. now that palin's gone, alaska's looking pretty good. just build a shack in the middle of nowhere, and hopefully get left alone.
i know, and i agree that if the lawyers get involved, it will surprise no one. and their track record has certainly led us to believe that that will be the case.
it's more the tone of the article that prompted my reply: it comes across as having been written after the mpaa had already filed a suit. you seem to be lambasting already, for something they haven't done. YET.
perhaps a cautionary tone for now; followed by a well-deserved bashing after the fact.
about 20 years ago, a friend of mine asked me what it was that I did that made me such a good drummer. i told him that i only stole the best techniques from the best drummers. that's how i found MY voice, musically.
isn't having the warhol foundation stamp "denied" on a warhol piece exactly the sort of thing andy himself would do?
i did something similar years ago: i purchased a couple of nice prints (the mona lisa and one by rembrandt, i forget which one). i had them mounted and then i spray painted "art" on the mona lisa and "not art" on the rembrandt. of course they're both art, but i was in my 20's, asking questions, etc.
"To purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern... [T]hreats of this nature are serious, and we caution the public to use common sense and good judgment."
FCC spokesperson, you got some 'splaining to do!
no, seriously, in the event of a national emergency, i think everyone would stop using their fart apps and try to call their friends and families, which would dangerously use all of att's bandwidth, which is a significant threat. oh, wait, you mean voice traffic doesn't use 3g? so, when the aliens invade, i can use my fart app and still make calls?
is that all? looking at all the tarp and bailout (and war) money we throw around, $30M barely seems like enough money to buy a backwoods senator. hell, $30M is less than it costs to make one non-special effects movie, right?
the principle sucks, of course. but the money is chump change.