Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:39 AM) I want to kill zero Jews in concentration camps. They want to kill 100 Jews. A compromise of 50 is good policy! Yeah, it's intentionally absurd, but to illustrate a point. There's nothing inherently good about a centrist position because what is centrist is defined by what's at the ends of the current political spectrum. It's the Overton Window. If one 'side' stands pat for a decade while the other moves to an extreme position, suddenly the 'center' is redefined. There's nothing inherently bad about a position that happens to fall in between where the two parties' current positions are, either. Policy is either good or bad regardless of where it falls on some ill-defined and constantly shifting political spectrum. This is different from tribal cheerleading, which, to be fair, is more what Middle Buffalo referenced. This is just about the worst analogy ever attempted. Do not pass go...and proceed directly to FAIL.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:46 AM) As part of an operation to crack down on illegal Us-to-Mexico arms smuggling that was partially hamstrung by our own gun laws. Yea, well...that worked out well.

Getting back on topic... We need to enforce some federal laws on the restriction of automatic weapons, the sale of guns, and the tracking of those guns. On top of that, we need stiffer and ENFORCED penalties when these rules are broken, on a federal, state, or local level. If guns used in crimes are constantly tracked back to a few gun shops (this happens quite often), the sale of those guns needs to be investigated all the way back to the purchaser that will inevitably claim they were stolen from him/her. This person needs to be audited...because more often than not, you're going to find they spent a s***load of money that cannot be account for. People like this need to be held accountable, because they're arming these gangs and being paid to do so. If the investigation shows the guns were actually stolen...so be it...but more often than not, this person was paid to purchase guns and told to say they were "stolen"...follow the f***ing money trail. People found with illegal guns should be jailed. And kept there. And these laws need to be strictly enforced.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) Source? We have the gun manufacturers and the loose gun laws. Why would they need to be smuggled into here from somewhere with tighter restrictions? Some may be manufactured here, but after they're in Mexico, they can then be transported back and sold illegally to people in the US that otherwise would have no means of buying them here. Some are from Russia, etc...it's just that the US has a very unique path to shipping illegal guns, through various means, where Australia would be a lot harder to do that with...considering they're not surrounded by anyone nearly that large, or with nearly the lawless problems they have in Mexico. Mexico may have "strict laws", but it's pretty common knowledge the mexican police and bought and paid for...hence the f***ing warzone that it is outside of US tourist destinations. You can't go into a gun store in the US and buy an AK-47, either, but someone I know confiscated a few of them this year in Chicago.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:29 AM) The United States is surrounded by other countries with stricter gun laws and many of the guns used in Mexico are smuggled from the US. Most of the ones seized there are from here. Tons and tons of guns are smuggled into the US from Mexico, especially automatic weapons. If you'd like to believe otherwise, feel free.

Kodak just sold it's patent portfolio to Apple and Google (together who paid 525M for it).

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) Twenty 6 and 7 year olds get killed in a shooting spree and your response is basically "Oh well, s*** happens. No need to change anything." Again, I'm not sure that's what he's saying at all. My interpretation of what he said, and if it's what he meant, I agree with him... Australia's situation is unique to Australia. As I stated, the United states is surrounded by other countries with completely different laws. Australia has nothing of the sort to contend with. So applying their model to the US wouldn't work the same as you'd like to think. Our situation is unique to us...we MUST contend with the reality that our neighbors exist (less so Canada than Mexico), but it must be something we think about when we implement our solution. I think we've all agreed that better tracking of weapons, where they're bought, by who, when, what types...and if/when they're used in crimes that we actually do something about it. A base set of national laws must go into effect to set some rules of legal purchase, and the local laws can then say what types of weapons are actually allowed...but we need a better vetting system/tracking system for gun purchasing.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) How much money could someone honestly make selling instagram photos to ad companies. That sounds like the dumbest business model i've ever heard. Probably not much, but who knows...I think the TOS may have been written improperly, because Instagram backtracked and said it was never their intention to sell anybody's photos. I think it's more likely they wanted very loose customer agreements in place for their own protection, and didn't realize it went a bit too far.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) So we reduce the casualties in mass shootings by 50%+ and reduce the widespread availability of handguns, reducing the non-mass-shootings as well. Sounds good to me. I think his point, which your attempting to ignore, is that guns are guns...and if the person could do it with a handgun, they can do it with a a rifle/shotgun, and if they still have the rifle/shotgun, it could potentially not reduce anything.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) And yet you ignore the article from Australia where homicide and suicides plummeted significantly and there were no more mass shootings after the laws changed. ...and how would they import illegal guns into Australia? Much different world over here, when you have Mexico as your neighbor. If Australia bans guns, it'd be an order of magnitude harder to get them into the country than it would be here, via Canada, or more likely, from Mexico/South America.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 09:52 PM) There is nothing inherently good about a centrist position. Yes, actually, there is. It means the person is willing to look at both sides and move toward whichever side he/she happens to agree with. There IS, however, something wrong with a pure right or left position, regardless of topic.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) Or, they responded to the freakout after realizing it was bad press. Nah, that's not something Facebook does...who happens to own Instagram. Last public backlash against Facebook resulted in nothing. Big names started revoking their Instagram accounts, like National Geographic, because their lawyers said the new TOS went too far and were unacceptable.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) So this for me, is episode 400 of internet freakout over original "cool startup" trying to monetize itself in the face of it's childish and conspiracy-theoried users. It's amusing. For one, they are basically getting the right to advertise themselves, and do the same promoted crap that facebook does. But what does everyone assume? That instagram is going to make money by selling off their pictures of s***ty spaghetti they made to advertising companies and magazines. It's a wonderful mix of narcissism and stupidity. ...and Instagram just backed out of this. So maybe there was more too it than you and others were willing to admit.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) Well they are right. You can do anything. You just may have liability for doing it. This makes more sense to me than the convoluted answers everyone else is trying to give me.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) Woah woah woah I thought we were talking about men buying guns, I assume we can all agree women should have no right whatsoever to a weapon that could possibly damage my penis. I thought we changed these laws after Lorena Bobbit.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could. Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) And this is why I say "its a fact based question" and "its hard to answer without a specific fact pattern", because if the case is what you just said, then obviously Instagram would have potential liability. I thought you were talking about the following: I take a picture of my friends and I out on a lake. I post the picture on Instagram. Instagram sells my picture to random company Y. Random company Y puts my picture (unedited) on a website to show people having a good time. No, I was trying to go more into the situation I posted just now...that I took a pic of Cruise sipping Starbucks, and now Instagram sells it as advertising for Starbucks as if Cruise endorsed them...because I uploaded a photo of it there.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) ...wait for it.

...and thread has move into shark jumping the fonz territory now... This is about to break down into bad hypothetical and extreme situations from both sides. ...and yes, i realize fonzie jumped the shark, i'm switching it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:11 PM) Magazines publish pictures of celebrities all the time. I'm failing to see why Instagram couldn't sell your pic of Tom Cruise to People or whatever. Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can. Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!"

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) As for the rest, you do realize that the law would ultimately place the liability on the person who took the photo. Because all instagram will do is put in the terms of service "I warrant and represent that I have full ownership over the photo and that I will indemnify and hold instagram harmless for any lawsuit that may derive from my posting of an infringing work." Actually, while I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't sound quite right. If that were the case, Instagram has just created a situation where they can use pictures of people and then put the onus on the person that took the picture... Example: 1) I take a picture of Tom Cruise drinking a Starbucks, I post it on Instagram. 2) Instagram takes the photo of Tom Cruise drinking Starbucks and sells it for advertising. 3) Tom Cruise sues ME? That doesn't sound right. Sounds like in such a case, Instagram is using the likeness of someone else and saying they can simply because a random person took a picture of them and put it on Instagram via attempting to hide behind a weakly written TOS that most people haven't read. I think I have every right to post a picture of Tom Cruise on instagram drinking a cup of coffee...if instagram used it, they'd be at fault, not me.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:50 AM) Well then you are just arguing for arguments sake, because its the same way every photo, video, ownership argument goes. If you take a picture of me, you may or may not have the right to use it. Its complicated and is based on a lot of facts. That being said, the person who took the picture can not transfer more than they owned to instragram. So if they did not have a valid ownership over the original work, instragram cant get it either. These are very fact based cases, so without an a real example its hard to explain. But if your daughter is in a public place, and I take a picture of her, I may or may not be able to sell that picture. It doesnt give Instagram more rights than you had, the other party who actually owns it, has no privity of contract to the agreement and therefore its not binding. Sorry that I missed that, I just assumed that everyone knew you cant give away what you dont own. And why should it be illegal? Why cant 2 parties contract away rights to ownership over photos? That seems to be a pretty unnecessary law. The law should be in place to protect those in case Instagram decides to go ahead and do something without prior consent. Otherwise you're looking at them doing it to regular people that they know cannot afford to take them to court. A lot of these "grey area" rights cases need some law presiding over them to set precedent, so people cannot be taken advantage of. Think of IP lawsuits where regular people were offered a 3K settlement or to go to court. They knew that the court case would be lost...so they offer a settlement LESS than it could actually cost to go to court...so most people pay it. Conversely, if they got a lawyer, went to court and fought it (loss of time, lawyers fees, etc), the case would have been thrown out...but it would have ended up costing them MORE to do that than just settle. Law needs to exist to protect people from crap like that.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) I think you are confusing the term "illegal" with "may have potential liability." Ill use your examples. If you take a picture of Tom Cruise and use it for advertising, you likely would get sued by Tom Cruise's people if the advertisement suggests that Tom Cruise supports the product. But Tom Cruise's people have no way of stopping them from posting the picture, because the owner of the copyright is the person who took the picture, and that ownership could be transferred to instagram via agreement. As for the second part. You take a picture of your daughter, you have an inherent ownership right over that photo, unless another agreement supersedes (work for hire). In the example at hand (and this is without me reading the article or even knowing what instagram is doing, so lets assume) Instagram has a terms of use, that specifically state "In order to use instagram you agree to the following 1: You agree to transfer all right title ownership copyright or any other claim to any picture on instagram. So now Instagram has the right to sell a copy of the picture. Now you can argue false light, you can argue missapropriation of likeness, you can argue anything you want. But that doesnt make it "Illegal", it may mean that instagram would have some liability. But if they are just taking pictures and selling them, when you explicitly allow that, its going to be a rough case. These type of agreements have been upheld in courts before, so I am not sure there is any reason to expect a different outcome. Once again, if you do not like it, dont use instagram. I said YOU took the picture of my daughter, not me. YOU have no inherent right to her likeness. And that's the problem with this TOS. Anyone and everyone can use Instagram to take photos of things they have no inherent right to use. I can be walking through a mall, snap a picture of you (whom I've never met before), and because I posted it on Instagram because I thought it was funny, how does that give Instagram the rights to use a photo that I don't even technically have rights too? I didn't say it WAS illegal, I said it should be.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:39 AM) I ordered a HD Kindle for my daughter myself for Christmas, looking forward to playing around with it. Fixed.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:28 AM) http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition...troversies.html Inconclusive. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-protein-diets/AN00847 While also inconclusive...let's just look at this logically. Too much of anything is ALWAYS bad for you. The fact that you can OD on water and die (has happened), should tell you that you can, in fact, intake too much protein.