You can't tell what's being used in those photos, so the 'War On Drugs' doesn't really apply here... Bongs are sold all over America for tobacco use, too, you know. :)
Even if we could see that it was marijuana, she's in California and she may be using it legally.
Although I agree that there is a double standard, I don't think it's being shown here.
This already exists. It's called failure to devote your full time and attention to the road. Officers use it all the time, for everything from texting to putting on make-up to, literally, picking your nose. My father-in-law is a police officer and he actually ticketed someone for that once, after that were weaving on the road and failed to notice his lights (no siren) for two blocks.
Because laws like this are a waste of time and money.
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws (such as the one highlighted in the post) are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
Imagine if I called up my local electric company and said, 'My neighbors have a meth lab in their basement. Please shut off their electric so they can't cook anymore.'. Do you think that the company would shut off their services based on my statement?
Imagine if I were a rights-holder and I called my local ISP and said, 'Jane and Joe Doe are infringing on my rights with the Internet services that you provide. Please shut off their Internet so that they can't share my intellectual property anymore.'. Do you think that the ISP should shut off their services based on my statement?
However, in neither case is the electric company or the ISP responsible for what is being done with the aid of their services.
In regards to the liability of the company based on a 'notification', I don't think that 'notification' of the situation is enough.
I mean, should companies go around shutting off services that a customer has paid for just because someone claimed that they might be doing something illegal with them?
Imagine if I called up my local electric company and said, 'My neighbors have a meth lab in their basement. Please shut off their electric so they can't cook anymore.'. Do you think that the company would shut off their services based on my statement?
Imagine if I were a rights-holder and I called my local ISP and said, 'Jane and Joe Doe are infringing on my rights with the Internet services that you provide. Please shut off their Internet so that they can't share my intellectual property anymore.'. Do you think that the ISP should shut off their services based on my statement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
*sigh*
You really believe that?
You think that I should just suck it up if my Marine husband decided to beat on me?
Now, I am reasonably well-trained, but I'm also 4'10 against his 6'0 and military training. But I shouldn't complain about it unless I can defend myself? Huh.
That's a very strange way of thinking, and I absolutely disagree with it. I mean, there are so many holes there that it's not even funny.
But, hey, welcome to America, where everyone can have an opinion.
Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
By 'warehouse sized', do you mean 'non-specific'? If my understanding is correct, then you fail.
You said: If she cannot protect herself, then by what right does she expect to be protected?
That's pretty specific, and could apply to defenseless babies just as well as it could to the woman that you specified. There are an awful lot of rights of protection here in America, and, so far as I know, none of them have anything to do with how well you can defend yourself during a physical assault.
If you didn't mean 'non-specific', then please clarify your clarifying statement.
Yeah, so killing defenseless babies should be perfectly okay.
Also, Marines or other seriously well-trained professionals should totally be able to beat their wives because they'll obviously be stronger and better-trained than them.
And no way should the cops that they pay with my taxes even bother trying to protect the victims, and judges should scoff at requests for restraining orders, because it is totally the victim's fault for not being able to defeat everyone despite size and strength limitations.
I totally agree with you. People who can't protect themselves should just stop whining and hire bodyguards. Especially babies.
Age limits on movie entries are a voluntary policy, and have nothing to do with the government.
So if the government doesn't stop children from seeing adult content in the theaters, there's no reason that they should stop them from seeing it in a video game.
First, the rating system for movies suck. I'm saying that as a parent and a consumer.
Second, there is a voluntary rating system for games, just like for movies.
Third, the states asking for a government rating system for video games can't be asking for the same thing, because the government has nothing to do with the voluntary ratings system for movies.
Last, you do know that producers aren't required to submit their movies for a rating, right? Many movies are never, ever rated.
But the post isn't knocking the fees - it's knocking the daunting legal text. Personally, I would think twice about making a purchase that requires a wall of legalese...
...the eula is long and complicated because people have abused in the past or claimed rights they shouldnt have.
That's not true. EULAs are long and complicated because the companies want to limit the rights that the law gives you automatically. I blame the companies for that, because the companies are at fault for that.
Further, when you are bound by an agreement that you can't see and don't know exists until after you purchase the item, you are being forced.
I stream to my computer just as often as I stream through my Wii.
To stream to my computer (which was the only option I had until very recently), I had to download a program from a company that I don't trust, and then agree to a EULA that I didn't understand.
That's the DRM. That's just bad. :) So I am picking this fight wisely, I think, in hopes that I can one day uninstall Silverlight from my computer.
On the post: Post Semi-Nude Photos Of Celebs Doing Drugs... Get Hit With C&D That You Can't Show Anyone
Even if we could see that it was marijuana, she's in California and she may be using it legally.
Although I agree that there is a double standard, I don't think it's being shown here.
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
Re:
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Comment formatting
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
Re:
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws (such as the one highlighted in the post) are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
On the post: Can Oprah Do What Driving-While-Yakking Laws Can't?
There are already laws that cover texting, talking, having sex, applying make-up, picking your nose. picking your crotch, and/or anything else that leads to a failure to devote your full time and attention to the road.
More specific laws are publicity stunts for politicians paid for by our taxes instead of their campaign money.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Gamechanger
Imagine if I were a rights-holder and I called my local ISP and said, 'Jane and Joe Doe are infringing on my rights with the Internet services that you provide. Please shut off their Internet so that they can't share my intellectual property anymore.'. Do you think that the ISP should shut off their services based on my statement?
However, in neither case is the electric company or the ISP responsible for what is being done with the aid of their services.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
I mean, should companies go around shutting off services that a customer has paid for just because someone claimed that they might be doing something illegal with them?
Imagine if I called up my local electric company and said, 'My neighbors have a meth lab in their basement. Please shut off their electric so they can't cook anymore.'. Do you think that the company would shut off their services based on my statement?
Imagine if I were a rights-holder and I called my local ISP and said, 'Jane and Joe Doe are infringing on my rights with the Internet services that you provide. Please shut off their Internet so that they can't share my intellectual property anymore.'. Do you think that the ISP should shut off their services based on my statement?
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
You really believe that?
You think that I should just suck it up if my Marine husband decided to beat on me?
Now, I am reasonably well-trained, but I'm also 4'10 against his 6'0 and military training. But I shouldn't complain about it unless I can defend myself? Huh.
That's a very strange way of thinking, and I absolutely disagree with it. I mean, there are so many holes there that it's not even funny.
But, hey, welcome to America, where everyone can have an opinion.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: Re: Re: If you want to make something criminal...
You said: If she cannot protect herself, then by what right does she expect to be protected?
That's pretty specific, and could apply to defenseless babies just as well as it could to the woman that you specified. There are an awful lot of rights of protection here in America, and, so far as I know, none of them have anything to do with how well you can defend yourself during a physical assault.
If you didn't mean 'non-specific', then please clarify your clarifying statement.
On the post: Victim Of Domestic Abuse Sues GPS Company For Helping Her Assailant
Re: If you want to make something criminal...
Also, Marines or other seriously well-trained professionals should totally be able to beat their wives because they'll obviously be stronger and better-trained than them.
And no way should the cops that they pay with my taxes even bother trying to protect the victims, and judges should scoff at requests for restraining orders, because it is totally the victim's fault for not being able to defeat everyone despite size and strength limitations.
I totally agree with you. People who can't protect themselves should just stop whining and hire bodyguards. Especially babies.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: @42
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re: Violent games don't kill people...
So if the government doesn't stop children from seeing adult content in the theaters, there's no reason that they should stop them from seeing it in a video game.
Consistency is important.
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: OTOH
On the post: Supreme Court To Hear Case About Constitutionality Of Anti-Violent Video Game Law
Re: Re: Re: The Terminator
Second, there is a voluntary rating system for games, just like for movies.
Third, the states asking for a government rating system for video games can't be asking for the same thing, because the government has nothing to do with the voluntary ratings system for movies.
Last, you do know that producers aren't required to submit their movies for a rating, right? Many movies are never, ever rated.
On the post: Historical Association Claims Copyright To Scans Of 100 Year Old Photos
Re: these would not be 'exact' reproductions
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true. EULAs are long and complicated because the companies want to limit the rights that the law gives you automatically. I blame the companies for that, because the companies are at fault for that.
Further, when you are bound by an agreement that you can't see and don't know exists until after you purchase the item, you are being forced.
On the post: Nina Paley: My Decision To Turn Down Netflix Due To DRM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here we go...
To stream to my computer (which was the only option I had until very recently), I had to download a program from a company that I don't trust, and then agree to a EULA that I didn't understand.
That's the DRM. That's just bad. :) So I am picking this fight wisely, I think, in hopes that I can one day uninstall Silverlight from my computer.
Next >>