« First « Previous Comments 67 - 88 of 88 Search these comments
astrid,
Yes, I do consider my wife's co-worker extemely lucky! He's still there and his career is moving forward at a Fortune 500 company. SHE on the other hand has no doubt either gone back to being a pole dance "artist" or found somewhere else to hook up her umbilical cord. Not really, I can't back that up. She ruined our office with her distractions, stymied production with her endless "personal days" and my wife says her ex-fiancee still has to endure comments about his past. She just seemed to leave a trail of human wreckage and some how justify it in her own mind b/c "she had a hard life" growing up? Yeah, get in line.
DinOR,
Good luck to your friend! Anyone who is willing to treat someone else's kid (I assume the kid was born out of wedlock too) like their own is a good guy and don't deserve to be taken for granted.
SQT, astrid,
Actually what WW2 & DinOR described is pretty much the norm among pre-teen & early teenage boys. I spent many a fondly recalled summer setting "found" items on fire and/or blowing them up with my schoolyard pals. The fact that Mexico (and illegal fireworks/explosives) were in relatively easy reach would occasionally produce some, uh, 'interesting' results. I was probably the least destructive male in my family and even I nearly set a neighbor's car on fire (accidentally) after creating a rolling "roman candle" out of an old tire and some newspapers.
WWII,
My question is that would it be almost standard procedure simply to ask me to remove the image first.. or could they immediatly sue me for copyright infringement?!
Assuming that there is a copyright notice somewhere on the images, such as the circle "c" symbol, or the word "copyright," the year, and the name of the copyright holder, they can immediately sue you for infringment -- the copyright symbol satisfies the requirement that the infringer have actual notice that the material he is using is copyrighted, and there is no need to send a letter.
However, as a practical matter, copyright holders still send a cease-and-desist letter before filing suit about 99% of the time, especially if the infringer isn't making any money from the use of the copyrighted material. The letter is not a prerequisite for bringing an infringement claim, it is a means of putting you on notice of your infringement so that if you continue to do so, the copyright holder can claim that you are a willful infringer and win a larger damage award.
You could always find yourself in the unlucky 1%, but the odds are in your favor. Of course, copyright infringment is illegal, and I cannot recommend that anyone violate the law. I advise you to remove the copyrighted material immediately.
As before, this is just my seat-of-the-pants opinion; I haven't researched it and I may be wrong. We don't have any attorney-client relationship -- we've never even met -- and you should not rely on my off-the-cuff advice.
LOL -- everyone's experiences jive with mine. I was a pyromaniac too as a kid. My buddy Matt actually blew several fingers off when making a pipe bomb (they sewed them back and he got like 90% of normal range of motion, so it was okay). Karl almost chopped off his own foot with an axe. I broke my nose into several pieces while riding my bike through a construction site at high speed; I hit a metal bar with my face -- I stopped and my bike kept going. Ah, those were the days.
Btw, I think you people are being way too hard on Suzanah Juras and the "Femme de Maison" girls. Toplessness is a serious problem affecting a large chunk of the attractive U.S. female population and it's nothing to be taken lightly! These poor girls are simply trying to make a living with their God-given "talents", which is all they have. What's wrong with that?
Honestly, you people are so cruel and heartless sometimes!
SP,
Not every woman wants two lumps of silicon put into their chest. However, the coming recession may change their minds, per OO's observation.
I really don't get the appeal though. These guys are smart enough to know that the women are only feigning interest in return for money. What's do they get out of this?
Also, $2M estate is a pretty lame setting for an exclusive club.
SQT,
There's always a chance you'd end up with a Peter P on your hands..."mom, you're driving too fast" and "mom, can we go out for sushi?"
Thanks for the link, LILLL.
It’s a different approach to Christianity
That's putting it mildly. If church had been like that when I was growing up, I might still be going.
...Nah, who am I kidding! :twisted:
SQT,
"got a hold of some gun powder"
Let us just ponder that for a moment. Got a hold of some gun powder. Hmmm?
What good can come of this? I had to laugh at LILLL w/ the designated burn area! Good idea! I have to respectfully disagree w/HARM though as there is a "pyro club" that not only tolerates adults playing with things that go boom, they actually ENCOURAGE it. It's the world' largest canoe club and they call it the U.S Navy! Where you never grow old and you only grow up if you want to. Sad really.
What it was doing there, I have no idea. Maybe self-loading bullets???
Yeah, lots of guys do their own re-loads, either to save $$ or because the guns use hard-to-find (and expensive) ammo. With some rare antique/collector guns, it's the only way to supply ammo.
SQT,
Oh I'm sure of it. Usually guys get them from old shot gun shells left over from dad's last duck hunting trip or whatever. Gun safety. Much important. We've all had a few laughs here but I had a client that was an ER Doc. and many of these stories are not laughed at down the road. Like SP said, "It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye".
Oh, btw they no longer endorse the use of "bungee cords" to secure those loads of landscaping timbers you picked up at Home Despot! They now account for something like over a third of all eye related injuries! Me? I just buy a few extra in case some fall off. That's me! "Mr. Safety"
Kidding.
SP,
Perhaps, and no doubt about it, that woman was no lady. However, I do feel uncomfortable when someone treas me as a lady. It's gallant, but utterly unnecessary now that (sensible) women wear pants and flat heeled shoes.
I try to hold the door for anyone behind me who is carrying a lot of stuff. It just seems like common courtesy.
LILLL,
LOL! Perhaps. I don't notice if other people do it, but it seems to me a logical thing.
As for more elaborate displays of gallantry. I used to be friends with an ex-Marine and he would always open doors for me and walk next to the street on sidewalks (he explain the tradition goes back to days of big dresses and horse drawn carriages, so the inevitable mud wouldn't ruin the lady's dress), and it just got a bit awkward.
Plus, my boyfriend is a bit clumsy so I prefer to handle a lot of stuff myself than wait for him. I'm perfectly happy getting him to drive and pay for dinner though. :P
SQT,
The odds don't look very good, does it?
So far
blowy: HARM, SP, WW2, DinOR
non blowy: (maybe Peter P)
I think you better know the worst case scenario
I knew a guy in college who was into catching and keeping poisonous snakes. I think his life's ambition was to climb K2.
I didn't start blowing things up until I got to college. I teamed up with a Chemistry major and we made some *really* impressive explosives/fireworks. We stopped after we blew out all the windows in the courtyard one night and got the police called on us.
I blew up stuff too. I stopped after a mishap involving a model rocket (the real big kind), a farmers field, and lots of fire trucks.
« First « Previous Comments 67 - 88 of 88 Search these comments
Here's a question for the lawyers/intellectual property types on the blog: Is it legal to post an obviously doctored spoof of public figures (let's say, for example, Google co-Founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page).
I say it's perfectly legal and First Amendment-protected free speech, as long as it's (a) not mis-represented as real, and (b) not used commercially (to make a profit) without the consent of the person(s) being represented. Peter P disagrees with me. If he's right, I guess I could be in a lot of trouble.
Who's right?
HARM