Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I used 56 years & JFK for a very specific reason. Do you not remember some of the most common attacks against JFK was precisely because of his being Catholic? Concerns of the Pope? Seems to me, that the Republican party still thinks all 3 of those should disqualify you for the office of POTUS. Not reading my bias into your argument, rather the bias of several of the newer conservative Judges that are probably going to say "**** it, I do what I want." Can you point out where exactly the constitution defines what a Person is? Whether Embryonic Cells, or even a Fetus are a 'person'? Clearly, you haven't been reading up on your conservative anti-choice game plan enacted across the country. They're passing their Religious Law across the country in the hopes that the Supreme Court will rule in Favor of Christian Sharia Law.
  3. Economic side of things yes, but you're forgetting that many artists don't personally profit from their works. (specially online). Many go the route of open licensing that allows anyone to use their work, so long as they acknowledge that they did the work. Effectively you're saying that if an artist doesn't seek to profit from their work, and you come along and steal it, That's fine. Because there was no economic harm. And again, the laws have not been updated to reflect technology. This is why I brought up a photo album. It exists as a physical object in your home. It is implied that photo album does not leave that house. That I may view it and it's contents, but those contents do not leave that house without your express consent. The fact that there exists technology, that I can simply scan the photos, or take pictures of those photos with the glasses I wear, and then distribute them, against your wishes is why said laws probably need to be updated to reflect technology. That perhaps it should be codified in law that personal pictures are private unless verbally or writtenly expressed otherwise?
  4. In this scenario, you are showing me your private family photo album. The fact that I could pull out a handheld scanner, scan them, and then proceed to upload them to the internet without even telling you I'm doing so. It is generally implied through social contract that a person won't effectively steal your photos without telling you the owner, what you're plans are with said photos. Just like If I were to show you artwork I painted, you take a picture of it, and then you proceed to post it online and act as if you were the original artist. The legal validity of these practices are being discussed precisely because the laws of the land & the constitution haven't caught up with technology. They' barely help to protect artists from plagiarism, and they sure in the hell don't help individuals in-regards to privacy concerns.
  5. "If you went to Photobucket, and started downloading artwork/pictures, and then tried selling/passing it off as your own, that's copyright infringement. The only difference between that, and revenge porn is you're more likely to get caught distributing revenge porn... getting caught distributing it is kind of the point." You are mixing two very different concepts. Copyright infringement is an economic right to the product of your sweat. You cannot "steal" my copyrighted material and make money of it in the same way you can not take the contents of my wallet. It's an economic right. A prviacy is a right to keep personal matters outside the perview of the public. Integral to the right of privacy is the notion that you have done nothing to endanger the private nature of such information. You cannot claim that a person who you gave access to such information is violating your privacy by deceminating such information unless you can show that the information was given with the proviso that it would not be further deceminated or used.
  6. Today
  7. As they say it takes one to know one!
  8. Last poll in PA seems to be the Quinnipiac Poll of 5/9-5/14 that had Biden with 39% support Sanders with 13%, Warren and Harris each with 8%. This is the Rea ClearPolitics aggragatePoll which includes three polls going back to the end of March. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary-6860.html
  9. "6 out of 9 Justices are part of a religion that 56 years ago, America was convinced shouldn't have been able to hold the office of POTUS because of prejudiced view that they would hold an allegiance to the Pope, over that of our constitution and country." Actually 56 years ago was 1963 three years after a Roman Catholic won election as President. Also does the fact that 56 years ago most Americans would agree that being black, a woman or an athiest disqualified one from being President mean that that view have any relevance for today? "Unless their judicial philosophy is to say F*** precedence , liberals, and any interpretation of the constitution that doesn't conform to the republican party's view.. :Wink:" I think you are reading your own biases into my argument. I may vehemently disagree with the decisions of many Liberal Justices. Indeed, I think both Roe V. Wade and the Gay Marriage decisions were fundamentally flawed. However I think that is do to the philosophical judical philosphy that those judges followd not becasue they went into the cases already determind to see a particular outcome and taylored their philosophical views to fit. " the moral & Philosophical aspects of the Mother's right to privacy and life, versus that of the Embryonic cell's/Fetus's right to life/self seems rather integral to the constitutional arguments of the validity of abortion rights." Only if you can point out to constituutional provision wish covers abortion rights or on the other hand are arguing that Fetus' have a constitutional right to be protected. THe view of most conservatives and all Conservatice Justices has been that a right to abortion is simply not covered in the constituition and that therefore states are free to restrict or ban abortions within their individual borders a they see fit.
  10. " News Papers are a bit more reputable than the random #fakenews website that grannies share on FB. Like, even the Inquirer is more reputable than some of these organizations that brand themselves as news..." So for you the fact that its a corporate entity that is deceminating the news makes it more valid?
  11. "If I gave you access to my cloud, You're able to view the files, you can download them, (technically seeing any picture online means you download it), but you don't own the intellectual property that is within it.Distributing my intellectual property against my express wishes, infringes upon my intellectual property rights." Sure I cannot sell your intellectual property and make a profit but the issue you do not address is that by giving me access to your cloud account yuo are voiding your claim of "privacy". Unless you can make a claim that access to the cloud was conditional on my agreement not to disclose anything disclosed there your giving me access voids your legal claim to a privcy right to whats in the cloud. And when you showed me the qalbum you gave me access to technalogy to duplicate the materials therein then your claim to a privacy interest in the pictures would have very little legal validity.
  12. Besides @Pandemoniumone of the reasons I think alot like GOT is because it revels in its graphic violence, sex and crudity and being offensive. I didn't watch the show but I hear it wasn't kind to women. If people weren't happy about Arya's role in Ep3 when becoming an assassin was the whole point of her story from after Ned dying, they really won't like Moiraine, Nyneave, Egwene, cadsuane, etc.
  13. We have quite a few "who would you cast" threads over at the White Tower Social Group, so feel free to join in there (you don't have to be a member of the White Tower & Warders to do that).
  14. Oh my word I did exactly that from my 2nd reread (when the 1st 4 or 5 books were out), but of the characters and their clothing, to try and figure out some of the hints. Only realised a few rereads later that the lists were at the back of each book 😛
  15. No-name actors for the main characters... bigger names (to pull viewers in) for the recurring roles. I could see a lot of bigger actors wanting to chew up the screen with juicy Forsaken roles.
  16. They both had separate accounts iirc.
  17. Not really. A cloud full of pictures can exist to be viewed. (Look at services like Photobucket). If I gave you access to my cloud, You're able to view the files, you can download them, (technically seeing any picture online means you download it), but you don't own the intellectual property that is within it. Distributing my intellectual property against my express wishes, infringes upon my intellectual property rights. To put it another way. If you went to Photobucket, and started downloading artwork/pictures, and then tried selling/passing it off as your own, that's copyright infringement. The only difference between that, and revenge porn is you're more likely to get caught distributing revenge porn... getting caught distributing it is kind of the point.
  18. I just started watching Lucifer. I got hooked on the first episode. I don't binge watch. I usually only have time for one episode at a time, so I'll be a while catching up. It reminds me of Castle, which was one of my favorite shows.
  19. I also think skin color is quite prevalent in WoT. Jordan went out of his way to describe some if the different ethnic groups of people in WoT so yes i will be upset if people are cast as characters part of different looking ethnic groups simply because of perceived politicial correctness/sjw BS. And it works any way....if someones who was supposed to be black ends up being played by a white guy or any which way it happens will be annoying and detract from the show at least to me.
  20. Theres an over 1000000 person online petition that might disagree with the bold....lol.
  21. I am currently rereading WOT for the first time since first reading it. I was just reading the following quote from chapter 12. “You must handle it,” Moiraine said in answer to something unheard from Lan. “He will remember too much as it is, and no help for it. If I stand out in his thoughts. . . .” I am trying to figure out what this might be referring to and can't remember what it might be. If somebody could point out what this is meant to reference I would appreciate it.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...