*(say, sent through text messages or simply taken with a camera-phone or digital camera)
UNHIVED
unhived
And what new precedent / standard would that be?
There has been no shortage of accusations of plagiarism in music over the decades, and it would have continued (with increasing frequency due to the proliferation of the internet, streaming services, and peer-to-peer sharing) even if Blurred Lines had never been produced. What some "experts" say about the blurred…
Cases regarding plagiarism in music have been occurring for decades (see: Bright Tunes vs. George Harrison case) - the Blurred Lines case is simply one of the most recent.
Funny how, if these photos were more recent (say, sent through text messages), and were featured on another site (say, one run by a man for the purpose of users uploading such types of photos and personal information of their ex-girlfriends), the writers here would have a shit fit about CONSENT!!! But since there’s…
Were they going for the “Dead victim on SVU / blow-up sex doll” look here...? Because that’s what she looks like.
No, airbrushing has been replaced by Photoshop. I doubt you would be able to find anyone in the photo / advertising industry using an actual airbrush anywhere anymore. This photo has definitely been retouched using Photoshop.
One would think that a writer for a celebrity gossip blog would know that Valerie Bertinelli and Eddie Van Halen used to be married and she is the mother of his son, who is a member of the band - therefore indicating the entire thing was a joke on Eric Stonestreet's part.
Sure - but as you point out, the topic is about the validity of having a statute of limitations at all, in the general sense. Put it this way; let's say you were accused of a crime you did not commit, after the time limit provided by the statute had expired. Would you voluntarily waive the protection of the statute…
There is because the accused has a right to a speedy and fair trial. The accuser is responsible for filing charges in a timely manner, for many reasons. Waiting 25 (or whatever excessive number of) years before filing charges against someone doesn't allow them a fair defense, as exculpatory evidence may be lost or…
.
...ok..?
Yes, there are. Did you have a point?
there is no need to continue harping on something that has been clarified.
You were replying in agreement / support of someone who was wondering why "they" (Veterinarians? Animal control officers?) can't put an RFID chip in their kid so they can find them if the kid wanders off. That is the comment of yours to which I was replying, not all of the others you allude to where you claim to be…
Now playing
Not really all that unique, futuristic, or reality-warping / breaking. More of a missed opportunity to really take advantage of the potential effects on perception.
Given the apparent demand for such a thing (as pointed out in the article above, from just one source), don't you think that if it were possible and a realistic option at this point (there are various medical, behavioral, and legal implications involved), it would exist already? Even as fast as it seems to progress,…
Look, I addressed the question alluded to in your original comment regarding RFID chips used in pets vs. children, and you then went on to change your point and draw an illogical comparison (the issues of which were plainly addressed in the article above). I don't see any reason you should feel the need to get snippy.
…
Again, I was addressing the comment you actually made, which was about RFID tags (those used in pets) and using them to find a missing child. That is not how RFID chips work. If you don't file a missing person report for your child when they go missing, then that is on you. It is not impossible to ID a decomposed body.