"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."
Random individuals with guns are not a militia. The term "military force" implies some basic level of ORGANIZATION and training of individuals in to a group with clear and specific responsibilities and objectives.
I am all for the Second Amendment, but I believe you should prove you are worthy and capable of the rights granted therein. And if you do not find an organization you like and agree with to gain that knowledge from do not be surprised when one you do not like or agree with finds you and declares you un-worthy.
They can go bite a donkey by RoninRodent - Monday December 08, 2014 @11:34AM
"They use my bandwidth (without permission) to peddle me ads for things I don't want and they think the courts should force me to look at their ads by removing my choice? I use ABP specifically because I don't want their invasive rubbish. The courts should be forcing them to ASK me if I want them using my bandwidth if anything as they are effectively stealing it."
One reply to this correct him by saying that technically he did request the ads when he clicked the link to the page. But I do understand hi sentiment, sometimes the ad content is 90% of the bits making up the page.
"3. Acceptable Ads are transparent with us about being an ad."
It is an advertisements JOB to be seen, it by definition cannot be transparent.
I have no problem with most internet ads. However the full page loads that interrupt my reading, and the "key-word bubbles" that hide text (again interrupting my reading) are both terrible advertising ploys.
Advertising methods that make my visit to any given website LESS enjoyable do not make me want to consider your product OR return to your website!
"Compared to TV, it still cant handle large audiences for most."
This sounds like you are stuck in the mindset where "time-shifting" doesn't exist. Stop operating on the premise that all viewers must watch a program at a specific scheduled time.
I have always wondered why advertisers aren't demanding individualized programming, ad targeting would be far more focused and effective. Just because a program is streamed does NOT mean its viewers are intolerant of advertising. Viewers will accept advertising if it is not so heavy handed. And it would be nice to have 50 minutes / hour of actual PROGRAMMING.
To Mr. Henley et al. this is about money, however you you and I it is not. To me this is about our culture and our "world". As a work becomes more well known it becomes more and more pervasive, more a PART OF who we are, not just a picture, or sound or string of words. The adds referenced in this article, in fact MANY MANY ads and slogans have meaning NOT because an artist created then but because we are so familiar with them they are part of who we are.
We can (and SHOULD) be grateful to the artists among us for giving us these touchstones. But once the works have touched so many lives they can no longer be owned by anyone ... no matter what any law attempts to dictate. Rule and laws meant to contain ownership of ideas will never be effective or just.
To the artists I say thank you for your contributions to our world, I look forward to your next one.
The erosion of rights and liberties in response to so-called threats is in itself a far bigger threat
Precisely! And that agenda is being moved forward almost exclusively because of real and implied terrorist threats. The continual erosion of liberty around the world is a reaction to fear of terrorist actions. People do not give up liberty easily or willingly, they do it only in the face of fear. Yes there are people capitalising on and actively trying to make people more fearful. But they are only opportunists, they have no interest in the outcome, only profits. The problem is extremist and totalitarian behavior and beliefs ... on all sides.
You need to drop the toddler-speak, it greatly damages your credibility. It makes every bit of sense to be beside-yourself with anger, but if you cannot continue to communicate in an even-tempered and articulate manner no one will listen to you.
I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case? The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.