Who really cares, the Wiimote was a nice novelty, but that wore off real quick. 90% of the games for the Wii are aimed at the under 10 crowd. While I admit that is a large market share, those aren't the games I want to play. Trying to use the Wiimote like a normal controller for the games I DO want to play is just horrific. I'll stick with my 360 thank you.
Did anyone else notice that at the end of those two ads to try and get people to stop using email and go with snail mail that you have to go online to their website to learn more about it? Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
it is when those put in a position to supposedly protect and represent the citizens go out of their way to block any checks and balances the system has in place. (how appropriate, Pennywise's F**k Authority just started playing on my iPod as I'm writing this).
With the evidence recently of how important it is for us to be able to record police, as proved by the pepper spray incident in NYC, not only do we need to make sure that the courts realize this is a first ammendment right, but it is also necessary for our physical safety.
The police need to realize that just because they've been given a badge, that does not give them the right to trample on our civil liberties.
Obviously these backups are NOT a regular occurance, since the article said the traffic light went out!
Deputizing volunteers? In L.A. county, the only deputies are of the sherrif's department, which is actually the police force in many communities that can't afford their own police force. So are you suggesting we send people through police academy simply to direct traffic at intersections where the traffic light has stopped working?
Just to show you that the labels truly are disconnected with their artists, this is an email I recieved from the Offspring on July 28th, 2011. (yes, I'm on their mailing list)
Hey Offspring Fans,
The excellent music service Spotify is now available in the U.S. by invitation only. Basic accounts are free and allow you to stream millions of songs instantly, higher access levels (mobile access, no ads, etc.) require monthly fees.
CLICK HERE to get your invite
Once you've confirmed your Spotify account, click the link below to hear a new playlist just picked by The Offspring.
The Offspring's Current Faves
Invites are limited, first come first served until we run out.
It would seem that the bands really like the idea of Spotify, so we have a case of the left hand not telling the right hand what it's doing.
Could someone please tell me why the labels still exist!
I know this isn't going to be popular opinion here, but I'm still in favor of red light cameras, and think they should be put on every light controlled intersection in the country.
I just don't buy the argument that the presence of red light cameras cause more accidents than they prevent. The common excuse given for this is that because of the camera, and in an attempt to avoid a ticket, when the light turns yellow, people slam on their brakes, causing them to get rear-ended.
If this is truly the case, then it presents more to the fact that people can't drive for shit, rather than the cameras cause the accident. First, there is no need to slam on the brakes when the light turns yellow, if you're so concerned about getting rear-ended, run the yellow and take your chances with the much cheaper ticket you "might" get than the inevitable collision that will occur.
Second, if the person behind you isn't capable of paying attention to the fact that the traffic light their approaching is turning yellow and they need to consider stopping, and instead is driving so close to you that when YOU stop for the yellow light, they use the back of your car to stop theirs, then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
Maybe if we taught people how to be better drivers, and made them pass a more rigorous test before just handing out licenses all willy-nilly, then maybe accidents at intersections would be reduced whether there was a camera or not. But blaming accidents on the presence of a camera is just a cop-out and an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for ones own actions and crappy driving skills.
No, I did not mean that any photograph whose subject matter consists of "Fem-Domme" ideas would be eligible for a lawsuit against LaChapelle.
What I DID mean was that there are plenty of photographs that fall under the "Fem-Domme" category that have similar ideas as those portrayed in the photos posted in Mike's original article.
e.g. A photograph of a woman wearing a latex hood. Go ahead, do a Google search for "woman in latex hood" and see how many results you get that are similar to the two photographs posted above. You can even turn safe search up to strict and you still get tons. If LaChapelle wins this case, each of the photographers that took those photographs in your Google image search prior to LaChapelle now have a precedent on which to sue LaChapelle.
Look at the other photos, do you think it would be really hard to find a photograph of a man walking on hands and knees wearing a collar, with a leash held by a woman walking behind him, in front of some big building? Oh, and you can even specify that the subjects are walking towards the right side of the photograph, with the leash in the woman's hand and a long slender object in her right hand.
My point is that LaChapelle is not the first one to photograph this "idea". And when you break down the composition of the photographs to these basic elements, you should be able to see that there is no infringement going on here.
But if you're too stubborn to admit that, then when LaChapelle wins this case, he's opening up a Pandora's box of new litigation that has him as the target.
If Rhianna is infringing on LaChapelle, doesn't that mean that LaChapelle is infringing on any number of other photographers whose work has been copyrighted and produced much earlier than LaChapelle's? Any number of Fem-domme photos posted on BDSM sites around the web such as kink.com, insex.com, and insexm.com to name just a few.
If LaChapelle ends up winning this lawsuit, won't that open the door for all those other photographers to turn around and sue LaChapelle for the same thing? I think in the long run any money he may recieve from this lawsuit would be miniscule compared to the money he would have to pay out to all those other photographers.
OMG, that list is a riot, it was way too long for me to go through the whole thing, but this one pretty much puts everything in perspective when talking about the Daily Mail, from this article claiming oral sex causes cancer.
What I see happening is that the ISPs will recieve notices, they will then issue strikes, people won't realize they've received said strikes, or won't think that its really all that big of a dael, so won't do anything about it. Millions of people will amass the five/six strikes and get booted off the internet. Online retailers will lose millions of customers do to inability to connect, causing billions of dollars in lost revenue. These online retailers will then file suits against the ISPs for said losses.
Meanwhile, because of all the people booted off the internet, the ISPs will lose millions in revenue that a mere $35 won't recoup, and will then turn around and file suit against the RIAA/MPAA for talking them into such a ridiculous scheme in the first place.
Online retailers will boost their prices to cover their losses and legal bills, ISPs will boost their prices to cover their losses and legal bills.
The citizens/consumers lose in the end. No matter what happens at this point, its a lose lose situation for us.
They think the only stakeholders are the businesses, and leave out the citizens they're supposed to represent.
The reason for this is because the businesses see all, and I do mean ALL, citizens as the pirates/criminals. When you are trying to eradicate this group of people, why would you invite them to the table for talks.
You've got a point, they haven't seized any evidence, what they've seized is an address. It would be like me naming my house, then during the accusation of some crime, instead of the authorities seizing that house, or anything in it, they seized the name I gave the house.
Or, lets say some other country accuses the Obama of something, instead of seizing anything of relevance in his home, they seize the name of his home, preventing him (or anyone else) from using the name "The White House".
Ok, so after reading this post last week I went to the site linked to and left a comment there:
Take the copyright notice OFF the images since federal agencies cannot copyright content!
Federal government cannot copyright content, anything created by a federal government agency must go immediately into the public domain, yet your images clearly display a copyright logo misleading viewers that the HHS holds the copyright on these images.
Just today I recieved this back from one of their admins(I've left his name out in respect of privacy):
I wanted to get back to you with some information regarding your concern.
The images used for the graphic health warnings were created by government contractors who established copyright in the works, and assigned that copyright to the government. FDA/HHS holds the assigned rights. The images that will appear on cigarette packaging and in cigarette advertisements will not display a copyright logo.
At this time, we have given permission for use to the companies required to display the warnings on cigarette packaging and in cigarette advertisements, as required by the FDA regulation. Currently, parties can also use the images as permitted under the Copyright Act, which means that individuals can use the images for their own personal use and for fair use such as news reporting or parody.
How much you want to bet that the person that wrote the second one is a comment troll. Their over reaction, and blatant ability to hear only what suits them is highly evident.
Instead of responding to the claims of fair use, which Mike never actually declared, but rather opened up for discussion, where completely ignored in favor of resulting to inaccurate assumptions and name calling.