Obama FEMA Boncentration Bamps!
He’s coming for yer gunz!
They repeat the same lie over and over and over again, and these one-dimensional simpletons swallow the entire thing, time after time after time.
The problem is, these one-dimensional simpletons vote.
And you know who doesn’t vote? The other type of simpleton who swallows that other cherry-picking lie, over and over and over again: bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe.
And you know who doesn’t vote? The other type of simpleton who swallows that other cherry-picking lie, over and over and over again: bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe.
Well, they are over here… and I do vote, just scratch out everyone.
Laugh all you like, it’s reality over here. There is vote snatching every election, dead people voting, abroad voters voting here (locally)… this is not the US 🤷.
Really? I thought it signalled that I don’t like either of the choices 🤔… maybe get them thinking about the representatives they select to put on the voting lists.
No they’d just be happy that there’s less people they have to convince to vote for them. Less people voting means it’s easier to pass policies that enrich them. You aren’t doing some meaningful protest, you’ve removed yourself from the conversation.
There’s tons of money in seeding voter apathy and people like you are why. They get you to remove your own voice and make you think you’re hurting them and not yourself.
I am not hurting myself, it doesn’t make the slightest difference to me if one party or the other wins. I just don’t want my vote stolen, I’d rather it burned.
In the end, it’s my vote… the same as the hillbilly with down syndrome. If he can choose, so can I.
No one’s saying you can’t do anything. I’m simply explaining that your “protest” is ignorable at best and actively beneficial to the people you hate at worst.
I would however like to clarify that neither Republicans nor Democrats will solve the systemic issues in any meaningful way, and it’s not saying “both sides are the same” to point this out. I literally voted for Biden, but I still have Democrats accuse me of “voting for Trump” when I point out ways the Democrats do things like uphold a capitalist economy, extend the reach of fascist agencies like ICE, take power away from the working class, compromise with right-wing extremists, and observe a hierarchical system.
I can agree that Republicans are far worse, and I can cast my vote, while still being honest about the situation.
I’ll take a foldable solar panel, a tablet PC with its entire storage full of porn, and the dog.
Everything else I need I’ll trade in exchange for a half hour in my dog-guarded porn booth.
You could instead have a solar panel, light laptop with lots of nudes, and a printer. Source out the ink and paper from office buildings and trade nudes for stuff.
When the ball drops in Times Square, I’m going to yell “Steamboat Willie’s in the public domain (in the U.S. at least)” instead of “Happy New Year.”
Yes Disney is using clips from Steamboat Willie at the beginning of all movies and such to try to establish a case for trademark protections (again at least in the U.S.), but it’s still a bit of a victory.
They use a different version of it though, while based on the original they don’t only use it. You can’t claim only part of a intellectual work. That’s why Winnie the pooh in blood and honey is allowed, because its different from the Disney verison
I’m not sure I fully understand your statement here.
(For purpuoses of this conversation, I’ll be limiting my comments to U.S. law. I can’t say I’m any expert on that, even, but as little as I know about U.S. law, I know far less about any other country’s law. IANAL. Not legal advice.)
I’m referring to this intro sequence that they’ve started adding at the beginning of the significant majority of Disney movies and TV shows. (I don’t think they add it to Marvel or Star Wars things, for instance. Only to more explicitly Disney-branded ones.) It’s probably restored, but it’s the clip from the original Steamboat Willie short.
When you say “you can’t claim only part of an intellectual work” I assume you’re referring to copyright. But what I’m saying is that Disney has finally accepted that they can’t prevent copyright protections on the original Steamboat Willie short from expiring on January 1st 2024 (I don’t think there’s any likelihood of them pulling out a last-minute surprise before then) and are changing their approach. They’re trying to establish a case that they’re using Steamboat Willie (or that clip, at least) as a trademark. (Trademark law and copyright law are different. The rules are different.) I don’t think there’s any reason to suspect that a part/clip of the original Steamboat Willie short couldn’t be used as a trademark.
If someone made/released a film featuring Steamboat-Willie art of the Steamboat-Willie Mickey Mouse on January 2nd 2024, that would be fine from a copyright perspective. (So long as they didn’t do something else that infringed on copyright somewhere.) But it looks like Disney has specifically taken steps to ensure they have an option to come after such a person on trademark grounds.
Now (oh blast, I said I wasn’t going to talk about non-U.S. law, didn’t I? I guess I lied), my understanding about Blood and Honey is that a) it was made in Great Britain and b) the copyright in Great Britain technically hadn’t expired when Blood and Honey was released. Basically, Blood and Honey was (technically) a pirate film. It wasn’t (technically) allowed. (Any more so than would be an unlicensed romcom starring Darth Vader and Jar Jar Binks would be in the U.S. – both characters from works that are fully covered by copyright.) In fact the director of Blood and Honey has said he’s shocked he hasn’t been sued yet and that if Disney did sue, they’d probably have a case.
Now, theoretically, if someone had made a movie in the U.S. with Winnie the Pooh as a character after January 1st 2022, that wouldn’t have infringed any copyright so long as they used only art styles and story elements and such from what Winnie The Pooh works had entered the public domain. Mostly just the original Milne book.
There was a court case where someone made an unlicensed Sherlock Holmes book while some of the original Sherlock books were still in copyright but others had passed out of copyright protections and the courts basically said that you can use any element of Sherlock from the public domain books, but not any elements (such as his dog or his bipolar (which I’m guessing they called “manic depression”) diagnosis) that were from works still covered by copyright. (And it sounds like you understand that last bit. Just wanted to add clarification for other folks that might see this thread.)
So you basically just can’t use the character in the exact same way? How far does that go though? What if I made a Winnie the Pooh show that’s exactly the same but instead of Christopher Robbins it’s Kristoffer Robkins?
How close does it have to be? Is any shirt not allowed? Would a red tank top be OK? Or maybe put him in a maroon shirt? What if he wears a red shirt with a white collar? Feels like splitting hairs, but there IS a line somewhere.
This is Disney we talk about so getting sued is probably expected, they will explain in court how your character ripped of theirs, you defend. Court decides.
If you can point to a non Disney older source where these same details are present you have a likely win.
If there is a Christopher Robbins in the original you can use the name but if there is not it then having roughly the same letters or sound will likely be a loss.
Of course this more assumed law theory of not a layer. Some rich dudes can just trademark the name of fruit, a basic word or even a single letter and we just let them.
Thinking of “fake Winnie Poohs”, I was gaslit by my parents into thinking that the Soviet version of Winnie the Pooh I grew up watching was the OG and that the yellow bear in a red shirt was derivative of it. I couldn’t believe it when I found out that the Soviet version was the “fake” lol
That’s assuming that half of the gut biomes of all humans was just left floating around. No, it’s more likely that the biomes were snapped out of existence with their hosts.
well when you get snapped all that’s left is dust. perhaps that dust is all the microbes in your body that survive the snap. It clearly takes up far less space that if it just disintegrated you.
Mine often become visible to me shortly before experiencing a migraine. Is there a reason for this? I’ve told my doctor, but they didn’t seem to react to this information much, just said it can happen.
Not sure about seeing floaters before migraines, but what you see could be migraine auras. I have them and they affect my field of vision prior to a migraine. I’ll see flashy/persistent “dots” or completely be unable to focus on certain things, like I have a blind spot. Hate it, but it at least gives me time to grab meds before the pain sets in. Usually happens ~20-60 minutes before onset.
They’re little bits of debris and fibrous points in the gel matrix of your eye. They don’t go away ever, but they float to a part of your eye you don’t pay as much attention to. They tend to “go away” in people who consistently sleep on the same side. If you’re a back sleeper, or move around a lot, they tend to stick near your macula (your main focal point).
When I run ocular scans on people I can see them drifting around. They’re not a problem unless they’re dense or dark, then they might be blood due to a retinal tear or diabetic retinopathy.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.