Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Intellectual Property (Score 1) 64

by StikyPad (#48187021) Attached to: 3-D Printed "Iron Man" Prosthetic Hands Now Available For Kids

Eisner (the president of Disney at the time) was driving in Florida. He saw a small daycare where someone had painted Disney characters on the walls.

Close, but not quite.

The controversy over the cartoon characters began when Hallandale city officials realized the 5-foot-high painted figures violated the city's sign code. The cartoons are considered signs by city officials, and as such they cannot cover more than 20 square feet of wall space, Growth Management Director Ron Muscarella said.

After learning about the figures from the news media, Disney sent an investigator to photograph the murals. The photographs were reviewed by Disney attorneys, who agreed that the figures too closely resembled Disney's famous characters, Champlin said.


Comment: Re:Land of the Free (Score 1) 191

by StikyPad (#48095761) Attached to: DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

Read your own link: entrapment isn't not a crime; it's a defense.

And to the above poster who wrote, "courts used to take a very dim view of it,": Au contraire! Per your sibling poster's link:

Courts took a dim view of the defense at first. "[It] has never availed to shield crime or give indemnity to the culprit, and it is safe to say that under any code of civilized, not to say Christian, ethics, it never will" a New York Supreme Court said in 1864.[7] Forty years later, another judge in that state would affirm that rejection, arguing "[courts] should not hesitate to punish the crime actually committed by the defendant" when rejecting entrapment claimed in a grand larceny case.[8]

We humans find it much more satisfying to "find" and point out the evil in others than to look for the good, let alone encourage it. We like to admonish people for things we'd "never do," having never been tested to see if our morals really match our rhetoric, and knowing full well that we probably never will. I believe Jesus is quoted with words to that effect, though it doesn't take a self-proclaimed deity to realize that we're all capable of being shitty.

Comment: Re:disgusting (Score 1) 191

by StikyPad (#48095553) Attached to: DoJ: Law Enforcement Can Impersonate People On Facebook

Nice use of vague and (therefore) unverifiable claims to build a foundation for extraordinary claims of worldwide press censorship (in the face of nearly unfettered communication via the internet, no less). Some might call your post a conspiracy theory, but it all makes sense to me. Well done.

Comment: Re:Changes require systematic, reliable evidence.. (Score 1) 336

by StikyPad (#48073775) Attached to: Why the FCC Will Probably Ignore the Public On Network Neutrality

Note that doesn't mean always don't throttle stuff I have marked as Flash, because then everyone will just mark everything as a high priority. Just throttle the packets I marked lowest first

Six of one, half dozen of the other. If you get penalized for marking your packets lower priority than the same packets from your neighbor, who doesn't know/care what he's doing, and your experience degrades more than his during congestion, then what's your incentive to continue lowering your priority? That's why nobody implements it. It's a great idea in theory, but in practice, relying on people to both accurately and honestly assess the requirements of their traffic doesn't work.