Re: Re: Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
This is almost like a dr Phil session where the parents bring their misbehaving spawn into the studio only for the (admittedly douchebaggy) doctor to spend the entire show whaling on them for consistently rewarding his bad behavior.
To be fair, failing to impose consequences on the misbehaving spawn is //exactly// why the misbehaviour continues. Consider the case of a youth who lived with his parents and spent most of his time smoking dope in his bedroom. The parents went to a shrink to ask for help. The advice? "Tell him to pack up and leave. Help him pack to show him you're serious."
The lad quit the dope and got a job.
The moral of the story is that pandering is counter-productive. Voters gonna vote, and they'll vote for the candidate they like. A candidate aiming at the sensible vote ought to behave sensibly. Taking a mindless populist stance assumes that all voters are thick. Not true.
I suppose so, but there's the risk of the outed guy retaliating anyway. Jerks will be jerks, and one of the more jerky things they do is fail to consider the consequences of their actions.
If publicly identifiable information can be kept anonymous, your idea would work, TKnarr.
Confirmed correct. The Right is particularly bad at this. They've ceded all decency to the Left, for reasons I will never understand. They need to be more eager to clean house and kick out bad actors before the only thing they stand for is oppression of anyone who's not white and male.
(1st Q)These woman being banned from tinder, does that hinder their career? Is their career dependent on tinder dates? Is their career "permanently and irrevocably destroyed?"
No, jerks being jerks caused some minor annoyance and inconvenience by causing these women to look on other dating sites for partners (I'd recommend the less dodgy ones, but given that it's unlikely that much is done in the way of background checks on all applicants, I'd say that, to err on the side of safety, they're all dodgy. Some may attract less dodgy applicants because they're aimed at a certain demographic, but honestly, I wouldn't trust myself to any of them if I were looking for a partner). It's petty and pathetic, but not life-changing or anything.
(2nd Q)Are there no other dating apps/sites the women can use to further their career?
The only women looking to dating apps/sites to further their careers would be on the admin/IT side of things. Merely putting up some bait to hook a man does nothing for one's career unless one is also seeking networking opportunities.
Your points make no sense, AC. The story is, jerks being jerks commit acts of petty vengeance, making themselves look even jerkier than before and explaining why they can't find partners.
I can see that. Those men need to lose their sense of entitlement. And everyone else needs to stop tying sexual activity to notions of manliness or rites of passage into adulthood.
Re: Re: Some simply can not accept and move on, they get tangled
Erm, no. They're looking for a living sex doll who won't talk back or expect anything of them; unconditional acceptance.
Even women with low standards (why the hell would ANYONE with half a brain and any shred of self-respect go on Tinder?) won't oblige demands for sex or put u with bad manners.
It's not a matter of refusing to accept and move on; their sense of entitlement has been offended and the dudes will not abide. Losing that sense of entitlement would go a long way to resolving their problems. Decent, kind people tend to have better luck in love than jerks.
For those of you who think Hillary Johnson was unfairly treated by an unfair system, consider this: you also like to claim that the heirs to the estate of a deceased creative have the right to continue to make money from sales of the creative's works.You also claim that the item used to do any recording, e.g. cameras, belonging to an individual automatically cede any copyright interest to that individual (remember the Monkey Selfie case?). Bearing all of that in mind, let's take it from the top.
1). Radner was a comedian and actress; an actual creative. Johnson is a journalist, grifting (per your logic) off of Radner's creativity. No Radner, no subject. Any copyright interest, per your logic, is Radner's, not Johnsons's, otherwise any journalist interviewing a subject for a newspaper, or indeed a biography, would own the copyright on each interview. Imagine the licensing issues that would create!
2). If Radner's brother had the post-interview tapes, that means Johnson had ceded ownership of the tapes to Radner, who then left them to her brother. If Radner's estate (in the person of her brother) OWNED the tapes, Johnson has no more claim therein than Naruto the monkey does.
3). Johnson no doubt resorted to the sweat o' the brow argument. Okay, fine. If that's the case, so does Radner. She not only took part in the interview, she did this while suffering from the breast cancer that killed her. Now ratio the work; who did most of the talking? Johnson asked questions, but I'd argue Radner did more actual talking by answering the questions -- which were about her stage and screen work. If we were to split the baby by counting each word, any remuneration due Johnson would be tiny compared to Radner's estate.
In any case she had no legally provable claim on the tapes as she not only didn't own or possess them, she had not registered the copyright she was claiming against. tl:dr; Radner made the tapes AND owned them, ergo her copyright. Case dismissed.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the goose and the gander on the same pag
That's true. I can't help thinking that these judges ought to do what some American ones do; educate themselves on the subject. They don't know how search engines work.
In any case, someone has only to do a search result with "John Smythe court case" and that will bring it up, no matter what SEO, etc., has been done to bury it. So anyone wishing to check someone out has only to add the word "court" or "offence" or "crime" to someone's name to bring up the required search results. Even if Google removes the link from the search results, people posting and sharing the link will put it back on. This is a stupid ruling.
If someone has done something stupid back in the day, they need to own it, move on, and show how they've become a wiser person. The ability to learn from mistakes instead of doubling down on them is a desirable trait, isn't it?
Re: Re: Re: Websites using clients' names and links, etc.
Thank you for the update. We both agree that Yeager's response was ridiculous. As for the hosting angle, if he's using the hosting service, he flippin' well approves of it. I believe we can agree on that, too.
If you can't let people know who your clients are in case they charge you for mentioning their names without consent, it's not worth the hassle of taking their business, IMHO. Mind you, I daresay you can add it into TOS or something. Is this something web hosting and design companies will have to do going forward?
Per @EPP and other pro-ISDS twerps I've argued with online, it's about upholding the law and protecting foreign corporations from being shafted by their host nations. There seems to be a thought barrier of some kind that rises at the mention of the word "trade," the idea being if you oppose any aspect of a trade agreement, you're against trade itself. And if you oppose ISDS, you oppose law enforcement.
Basically, the proponents are having their opinions fed to them by lobbyists and it never occurs to them to question what they're told. None of these people have ever expressed the least bit of concern for ordinary citizens affected by this crap.
When the officers of the corporations believe that it's their fiduciary duty, first and foremost, to make a profit for their shareholders, they will hammer anything that gets in the way of that, even if it means foisting cigarette advertising, pollution, and other horrors on the rest of us.
...are a web designer's bread and butter. How else can you advertise your business if you can't point to the work you've done for your clients. Also, if your client is using your service of course he is endorsing it!
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Re: Re:
My only hope is that when a Dem gets in the White house, that they get the constant barrage of investigations that Trump did from the Right.
So the Benghazi debacle wasn't enough? They OWNED both Houses and still couldn't impeach Hillary.
On the post: The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
Re: Re: Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
This is almost like a dr Phil session where the parents bring their misbehaving spawn into the studio only for the (admittedly douchebaggy) doctor to spend the entire show whaling on them for consistently rewarding his bad behavior.
To be fair, failing to impose consequences on the misbehaving spawn is //exactly// why the misbehaviour continues. Consider the case of a youth who lived with his parents and spent most of his time smoking dope in his bedroom. The parents went to a shrink to ask for help. The advice? "Tell him to pack up and leave. Help him pack to show him you're serious."
The lad quit the dope and got a job.
The moral of the story is that pandering is counter-productive. Voters gonna vote, and they'll vote for the candidate they like. A candidate aiming at the sensible vote ought to behave sensibly. Taking a mindless populist stance assumes that all voters are thick. Not true.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suppose so, but there's the risk of the outed guy retaliating anyway. Jerks will be jerks, and one of the more jerky things they do is fail to consider the consequences of their actions.
If publicly identifiable information can be kept anonymous, your idea would work, TKnarr.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re:
Confirmed correct. The Right is particularly bad at this. They've ceded all decency to the Left, for reasons I will never understand. They need to be more eager to clean house and kick out bad actors before the only thing they stand for is oppression of anyone who's not white and male.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re:
(1st Q)These woman being banned from tinder, does that hinder their career? Is their career dependent on tinder dates? Is their career "permanently and irrevocably destroyed?"
No, jerks being jerks caused some minor annoyance and inconvenience by causing these women to look on other dating sites for partners (I'd recommend the less dodgy ones, but given that it's unlikely that much is done in the way of background checks on all applicants, I'd say that, to err on the side of safety, they're all dodgy. Some may attract less dodgy applicants because they're aimed at a certain demographic, but honestly, I wouldn't trust myself to any of them if I were looking for a partner). It's petty and pathetic, but not life-changing or anything.
(2nd Q)Are there no other dating apps/sites the women can use to further their career?
The only women looking to dating apps/sites to further their careers would be on the admin/IT side of things. Merely putting up some bait to hook a man does nothing for one's career unless one is also seeking networking opportunities.
Your points make no sense, AC. The story is, jerks being jerks commit acts of petty vengeance, making themselves look even jerkier than before and explaining why they can't find partners.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re: Re:
I can see that. Those men need to lose their sense of entitlement. And everyone else needs to stop tying sexual activity to notions of manliness or rites of passage into adulthood.
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re: Re: Some simply can not accept and move on, they get tan
*put up
On the post: Jerks 'Reporting' Women Who Swipe Left On Them In Tinder, Once Again Highlighting How Content Moderation Gets Abused
Re: Re: Some simply can not accept and move on, they get tangled
Erm, no. They're looking for a living sex doll who won't talk back or expect anything of them; unconditional acceptance.
Even women with low standards (why the hell would ANYONE with half a brain and any shred of self-respect go on Tinder?) won't oblige demands for sex or put u with bad manners.
It's not a matter of refusing to accept and move on; their sense of entitlement has been offended and the dudes will not abide. Losing that sense of entitlement would go a long way to resolving their problems. Decent, kind people tend to have better luck in love than jerks.
On the post: The Differences Between Copyright And Possession: Gilda Radner Interview Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed For Lack Of Registration
Re: Re: Re: If IP maximalists had their way
@Ken Ettic the Asteroid-buster: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190917/17352343012/differences-between-copyright-possession-gild a-radner-interview-copyright-lawsuit-dismissed-lack-registration.shtml#c539
On the post: The Differences Between Copyright And Possession: Gilda Radner Interview Copyright Lawsuit Dismissed For Lack Of Registration
Copyright is in the hand of the beholder
For those of you who think Hillary Johnson was unfairly treated by an unfair system, consider this: you also like to claim that the heirs to the estate of a deceased creative have the right to continue to make money from sales of the creative's works.You also claim that the item used to do any recording, e.g. cameras, belonging to an individual automatically cede any copyright interest to that individual (remember the Monkey Selfie case?). Bearing all of that in mind, let's take it from the top.
1). Radner was a comedian and actress; an actual creative. Johnson is a journalist, grifting (per your logic) off of Radner's creativity. No Radner, no subject. Any copyright interest, per your logic, is Radner's, not Johnsons's, otherwise any journalist interviewing a subject for a newspaper, or indeed a biography, would own the copyright on each interview. Imagine the licensing issues that would create!
2). If Radner's brother had the post-interview tapes, that means Johnson had ceded ownership of the tapes to Radner, who then left them to her brother. If Radner's estate (in the person of her brother) OWNED the tapes, Johnson has no more claim therein than Naruto the monkey does.
3). Johnson no doubt resorted to the sweat o' the brow argument. Okay, fine. If that's the case, so does Radner. She not only took part in the interview, she did this while suffering from the breast cancer that killed her. Now ratio the work; who did most of the talking? Johnson asked questions, but I'd argue Radner did more actual talking by answering the questions -- which were about her stage and screen work. If we were to split the baby by counting each word, any remuneration due Johnson would be tiny compared to Radner's estate.
In any case she had no legally provable claim on the tapes as she not only didn't own or possess them, she had not registered the copyright she was claiming against. tl:dr; Radner made the tapes AND owned them, ergo her copyright. Case dismissed.
On the post: Other Big CJEU Case Says Google Must Put Certain Links At The Top Of Search Results
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are the goose and the gander on the same pag
That's true. I can't help thinking that these judges ought to do what some American ones do; educate themselves on the subject. They don't know how search engines work.
In any case, someone has only to do a search result with "John Smythe court case" and that will bring it up, no matter what SEO, etc., has been done to bury it. So anyone wishing to check someone out has only to add the word "court" or "offence" or "crime" to someone's name to bring up the required search results. Even if Google removes the link from the search results, people posting and sharing the link will put it back on. This is a stupid ruling.
If someone has done something stupid back in the day, they need to own it, move on, and show how they've become a wiser person. The ability to learn from mistakes instead of doubling down on them is a desirable trait, isn't it?
On the post: Should The Media Voluntarily Embrace A 'Right To Be Forgotten'?
Re: Re: Re:
Yep.
On the post: US Court Says Fair Use Nullifies French Rightholder's Attempt To Extract $2.25 Million From A California Art Scholar
Re: Corrections for Tim Cushing
Thanks for the update. :)
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re: Re: Re: Websites using clients' names and links, etc.
Thank you for the update. We both agree that Yeager's response was ridiculous. As for the hosting angle, if he's using the hosting service, he flippin' well approves of it. I believe we can agree on that, too.
If you can't let people know who your clients are in case they charge you for mentioning their names without consent, it's not worth the hassle of taking their business, IMHO. Mind you, I daresay you can add it into TOS or something. Is this something web hosting and design companies will have to do going forward?
On the post: Another Nail In the Coffin Of Corporate Sovereignty, As Massive Asian Trade Deal RCEP Nears Completion Without It
Re: Re: Re:
tl:dr; lobbyists.
Per @EPP and other pro-ISDS twerps I've argued with online, it's about upholding the law and protecting foreign corporations from being shafted by their host nations. There seems to be a thought barrier of some kind that rises at the mention of the word "trade," the idea being if you oppose any aspect of a trade agreement, you're against trade itself. And if you oppose ISDS, you oppose law enforcement.
Basically, the proponents are having their opinions fed to them by lobbyists and it never occurs to them to question what they're told. None of these people have ever expressed the least bit of concern for ordinary citizens affected by this crap.
When the officers of the corporations believe that it's their fiduciary duty, first and foremost, to make a profit for their shareholders, they will hammer anything that gets in the way of that, even if it means foisting cigarette advertising, pollution, and other horrors on the rest of us.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re:
Apparently he's also a mad racist. Jerk is as jerk does.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re: Re: any rights to the event probably belong to the US Air Fo
We'd never be able to talk about anything without paying for it if they did.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Printing more money has its place, but only in a deflationary economic environment.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well he's famously a total jerk these days.
On the post: Chuck Yeager Sues Airbus For Mentioning That Chuck Yeager Broke The Sound Barrier
Re: Websites using clients' names and links, etc.
...are a web designer's bread and butter. How else can you advertise your business if you can't point to the work you've done for your clients. Also, if your client is using your service of course he is endorsing it!
Next >>