Andrea Fornella Abbott yelled and swore at Transportation Security Administration agents Saturday afternoon at Nashville International Airport, saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.
After the woman refused to calm down, airport police said, she was charged with disorderly conduct and taken to jail. She has been released on bond.
[...]
There's some detail missing here: what was done to "calm down" Abbott? Did they attempt to kick her out of the airport before deciding arresting her? How long did it take before the TSA agents decided to pull out the handcuffs? The report says she was "belligerent"; was she being physically menacing (which is how I'd take it since they already mentioned she was yelling and swearing) or were they just tacking that on there to make the TSA look better?
Having more info might make this look less bad, though perhaps it could actually make them look a lot worse.
Re: Wait a sec, Mike: did the band get $1M? If so, that's plenty.
In the example given the band got $300,000 directly. The rest of the $1,000,000 advance went to pay for other things such as recording costs, staff, etc.
So no, the record label did not hand the band a $1,000,000 check and say "now go make us a winner!" Hope that clears it up for you.
I get the feeling the issue of corporate capture of the U.S. government is only going to get worse before it gets better. I really hope that the corporations try to do something utterly over the top sooner rather than later; the thought that scares me the most is a total corporate takeover of the government that's so slow that by the time it's really really bad people are too used to it to realize how bad it is.
This is along the lines of my thoughts as well. My impression from seeing some of the "behind the scenes" footage from Pixar is: for the most part they are artists and storycrafters that more often than not will look to the world (and culture) around them to enrich and enhance their works.
It's irony to be sure; though I'd bet that the lawyers at Disney wouldn't get it.
I'm surprised there isn't an "Association Association" to help track and manage all these associations! Seriously, how many do we need? I just did a Google search for all .org sites with the word association, and came up with 320 million results. According to the US Census that's more than the number of US Citizens.
The thing I don't get is how Twitter/Facebook professional contacts are different from offline professional contacts. Professionals leave employers and take their professional contacts with them to their new employers (or their own startups) all the time. Why is social networking in a professional context different?
The argument of branded social network accounts really boils down to that if companies really care about social networking, they should be making sure they are the creator/owners of their social networking accounts from day one. Otherwise, they'll have to play "rock'em sock'em" lawyers with their ex-employee and find out from a judge who really owns the branded account.
Though honestly professionals who invest any time in social networking should be doing so under their own identity in the first place and making sure that their employment terms and conditions allow them to do so before they are hired.
99% of credit fraud is facilitated by the services that credit reporting agencies provide? Really? Can you provide a source for this data? Otherwise it just looks like a number made up to support your own opinion of the credit reporting agencies.
Also it's fantastic that for you personal health info is not something you care about. However, you represent approximately 0.0000000014692409430778340298156402694208%* of the world's human population and given the lawsuits and legislation that has gone into protecting personal health info, one would have to be willfully ignorant to claim that it's a lesser invasion of privacy than the collection of financial info.
So that example is not very effective in supporting your claim that the credit agencies should be disbanded.
On that topic: while their advertising and business practices are pretty sketchy--in the past I've read dozens and dozens of people saying how difficult it was to actually cancel their subscriptions for Experian's "Triple Advantage" program despite multiple attempts to cancel--I think their commercials are something that holds up pretty well to the content-is-advertising/advertising-is-content model that Mike talks about.
The commercials are catchy, humorous, and the musicians in them always look like they're enjoying themselves. All in all, they're pretty fun to watch.
1. "Your song becomes the official olympic song, it's heard by billions worldwide, ..."
Section 2 of the VANOC's UPA frees them of any obligation to actually use the work. Saying it the way you do is naive or intentionally misleading. She would be giving up all rights to the work for the chance for a committee to decide if they want to use the song at all. If they don't use it, she won't get the rights back. If they did use it, there's no guarantee they would use it in a way that would receive a lot publicity.
2. "... and you become an international star as a result."
Section 7 of the UPA requires her to give up the rights to even claim anything to do with the Olympics whatsoever. She'd be betting on the kind hearts of the corporate machine to credit her and promote her as the artist of the song they might choose to use as some part of the Olympics. Which she still would lose all the rights to.
3. "Is it any different ... than putting your music in a sort of CC agreement ..."
If you can't see the difference you're probably so entrenched in your position that you can't even fathom another way to look at it. I'll point it out, just in case you're not that far gone: with a CC license you keep the rights to your work. With the VANOC's UPA you lose all rights.
4. "At least this way, there is a chance people hear your music."
I suppose this is technically correct. However, by releasing it herself the chances are somewhere around 99.999..% that _someone_ will eventually listen to it. With the VANOC, if they turn it down, those chances drop to zero. Forever.
Trusting the VANOC and the IOC to be her big ticket to stardom is about as realistic as trusting that next lottery ticket to be the one that brings in the hundred million jackpot. In the end, artists who dream big and try to get fame by submitting to draconian agreements because it looks like less work will be overtaken by the artists who keep their rights, put in hard work and dedication to reach their goals.
I see one question: "Did you vote for President Obama?" How he could the question without answering who he voted for? What alternate dimension are you posting from that questions can be answered in a quantum manner?
Additionally, the entire point your comments are to appear clever while bashing the current administration and telling Mike to shut up:
1) Assert Obama administration policy is bad.
2) Ask Mike if he voted for Obama.
3) Mike says "yes", proceed to assert he is part of the problem and as such he's whining about problems he had a part in causing.
OR
4) Mike says "no", proceed to whine that Obama administration is ruining everything.
5) Profit.
You're breaking my heart, fail-troll.
P.S.: I don't know if this is true, but I heard a rumor you raped and killed a young girl in 1990. If it's true, and it can provide some insight to your personality, then IMHO, is needs to be addressed.
... Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners. ...
Has Brooks ever heard of Victorian era England? In that time you were pretty much considered a fool if you married for love rather than status and money.
Setting aside the idea that a government spook or advert exec is trying to watch me though my TV, the biggest problem I see is false positives such as a portrait hanging on the wall getting picked up. A better technology (for privacy as well as accuracy) would be an infared light and camera, that picked up on the two brightly glowing spots your pupils make when the infared light reflects off the back of your eyeballs and is viewed in the infared spectrum.
It would have to be opt-in, so you have to turn it on in order to use it and be able to freely toggle the feature whenever you want. Also, infared light means that it won't bother the human eye, since we don't have any cells in the eye that are capable of sensing that type of light. The only privacy concern with such a setup is the potential to transmit how many people (actually pets too, since this would have the same effect on them) are watching at a given time.
Though to be honest I think that TVs and displays in general will cover the energy efficiency gap before a majority of people buy into this particular technology.
Salon's Ms. Miller seems to start off describing overwhelmingly common problems with projects and their management: poor/absent leadership, team members with subpar skillsets, and team members with poor attitudes. These sorts of issues occur regardless of project size, but to tack on the paragraph (My emphasis)
Most of us do recognize the real thing when we see it in action, but that's another matter. As Delany put it, "While many -- or even most -- people can internalize a range of literary models strongly enough to recognize and enjoy them when they see them in ... new works that they read, very few people internalize them to the extent that they can apply them to new material and use them to create. Lots of people want to. But not many people can." Not many people, and certainly no crowds.
At worst Ms. Miller can claim that the project was poorly executed, assuming the goal was to produce a quality work of fiction. This sort of strawman reporting while not surprising is a let-down.
I speculate that with more editorial control a more coherent story could be produced. But it's a fine line to dance on, with a bad story on one side and pissed off fans on the other. I have to agree with Techdirt on this one: it's better to have made the fans happy and ended up with a subpar work than the other way around at the end of the day. Not to mention all the attention it's getting.
Care to substantiate this claim? Hours of searching has turned up no clue on to what Trudeau's actual income from his work on Doonebury has brought him, and frankly I find that even "tens ... of millions" would have turned up something if it wasn't a highly exaggerated—or made up—number.
Mike, don't you know that with the "innovention" of the internets, all laws in existence need to have "on the web" appended to them so that the lawless hell-machines that sit in so many American's homes can finally be brought under control? Think of the children!
On the post: Justice Department Practicing Mix-And-Match, Sleight-Of-Hand Law In Seizure Case
Re: Re: The DOJ needs to hire better . . .
On the post: Woman Arrested For Not Letting TSA Grope Her Daughter
There's some detail missing here: what was done to "calm down" Abbott? Did they attempt to kick her out of the airport before deciding arresting her? How long did it take before the TSA agents decided to pull out the handcuffs? The report says she was "belligerent"; was she being physically menacing (which is how I'd take it since they already mentioned she was yelling and swearing) or were they just tacking that on there to make the TSA look better?
Having more info might make this look less bad, though perhaps it could actually make them look a lot worse.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: How To Sell 1 Million Albums And Still Owe $500,000
Re: Wait a sec, Mike: did the band get $1M? If so, that's plenty.
So no, the record label did not hand the band a $1,000,000 check and say "now go make us a winner!" Hope that clears it up for you.
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force
On the post: Disney: When We Copy, It's Inspiration; When You Copy, It's Infringement
Re: Small note
It's irony to be sure; though I'd bet that the lawyers at Disney wouldn't get it.
On the post: Can 'Reality' Be Copyrighted?
Time for an Association Association
On the post: Who Owns Employee Social Media Accounts? 'The Correct Answer Is: Shut Up'
How is this different from meatspace contacts?
The thing I don't get is how Twitter/Facebook professional contacts are different from offline professional contacts. Professionals leave employers and take their professional contacts with them to their new employers (or their own startups) all the time. Why is social networking in a professional context different?
The argument of branded social network accounts really boils down to that if companies really care about social networking, they should be making sure they are the creator/owners of their social networking accounts from day one. Otherwise, they'll have to play "rock'em sock'em" lawyers with their ex-employee and find out from a judge who really owns the branded account.
Though honestly professionals who invest any time in social networking should be doing so under their own identity in the first place and making sure that their employment terms and conditions allow them to do so before they are hired.
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re:
Also it's fantastic that for you personal health info is not something you care about. However, you represent approximately 0.0000000014692409430778340298156402694208%* of the world's human population and given the lawsuits and legislation that has gone into protecting personal health info, one would have to be willfully ignorant to claim that it's a lesser invasion of privacy than the collection of financial info.
So that example is not very effective in supporting your claim that the credit agencies should be disbanded.
*Source: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
On the post: FTC Finally Forces FreeCreditReport.com To Be Honest In Its Advertising
Re:
The commercials are catchy, humorous, and the musicians in them always look like they're enjoying themselves. All in all, they're pretty fun to watch.
On the post: IP Lawyer: If You Are Against Software Patents, You Are Against Innovation
Re: Why so intellectually dishonest Mike?
On the post: Vancouver Olympics Demands All Copyrights And Royalties From Musician Just To Hear Her Song
Re: Artists always have a choice
Your attempt to fabricate hypocrisy strawmen is "blind rage at it's best!" Shall we count the ways?
For reference, the agreement the VANOC sent in response to receiving the song: http://www.seatoskyway.com/Unsolicited%20Proposal%20Agreement.pdf
1. "Your song becomes the official olympic song, it's heard by billions worldwide, ..."
Section 2 of the VANOC's UPA frees them of any obligation to actually use the work. Saying it the way you do is naive or intentionally misleading. She would be giving up all rights to the work for the chance for a committee to decide if they want to use the song at all. If they don't use it, she won't get the rights back. If they did use it, there's no guarantee they would use it in a way that would receive a lot publicity.
2. "... and you become an international star as a result."
Section 7 of the UPA requires her to give up the rights to even claim anything to do with the Olympics whatsoever. She'd be betting on the kind hearts of the corporate machine to credit her and promote her as the artist of the song they might choose to use as some part of the Olympics. Which she still would lose all the rights to.
3. "Is it any different ... than putting your music in a sort of CC agreement ..."
If you can't see the difference you're probably so entrenched in your position that you can't even fathom another way to look at it. I'll point it out, just in case you're not that far gone: with a CC license you keep the rights to your work. With the VANOC's UPA you lose all rights.
4. "At least this way, there is a chance people hear your music."
I suppose this is technically correct. However, by releasing it herself the chances are somewhere around 99.999..% that _someone_ will eventually listen to it. With the VANOC, if they turn it down, those chances drop to zero. Forever.
Trusting the VANOC and the IOC to be her big ticket to stardom is about as realistic as trusting that next lottery ticket to be the one that brings in the hundred million jackpot. In the end, artists who dream big and try to get fame by submitting to draconian agreements because it looks like less work will be overtaken by the artists who keep their rights, put in hard work and dedication to reach their goals.
On the post: Patent Office Decides To Rush On Green Tech Patents, Rather Than Give Them Scrutiny They Deserve
Re:
Additionally, the entire point your comments are to appear clever while bashing the current administration and telling Mike to shut up:
1) Assert Obama administration policy is bad.
2) Ask Mike if he voted for Obama.
3) Mike says "yes", proceed to assert he is part of the problem and as such he's whining about problems he had a part in causing.
OR
4) Mike says "no", proceed to whine that Obama administration is ruining everything.
5) Profit.
You're breaking my heart, fail-troll.
P.S.: I don't know if this is true, but I heard a rumor you raped and killed a young girl in 1990. If it's true, and it can provide some insight to your personality, then IMHO, is needs to be addressed.
On the post: Judge Finalizes Tenenbaum Ruling, Trashes Nesson For Chaotically Bad Defense
Re: The dirt on techdirt.
On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline
Re:
On the post: David Brooks: Mobile Phones Are Destroying Courtship
On the post: Smart TVs Know When You Look Away
Let's be practical here
It would have to be opt-in, so you have to turn it on in order to use it and be able to freely toggle the feature whenever you want. Also, infared light means that it won't bother the human eye, since we don't have any cells in the eye that are capable of sensing that type of light. The only privacy concern with such a setup is the potential to transmit how many people (actually pets too, since this would have the same effect on them) are watching at a given time.
Though to be honest I think that TVs and displays in general will cover the energy efficiency gap before a majority of people buy into this particular technology.
On the post: Crowdsourcing Doesn't Guarantee Quality... But It Can Be Great Advertising
Disingenuous Indeed
I speculate that with more editorial control a more coherent story could be produced. But it's a fine line to dance on, with a bad story on one side and pissed off fans on the other. I have to agree with Techdirt on this one: it's better to have made the fans happy and ended up with a subpar work than the other way around at the end of the day. Not to mention all the attention it's getting.
On the post: Could Doonesbury Learn Anything From XKCD?
Re: Chump change
On the post: Anti-bullying Laws Don't Work Offline; Why Do Politicians Think They'll Work Online?
Next >>