I did a little research and found O'Keefe uses staged encounters with real people in real situations for his expose' documentaries; however, he has been found to edit his materials severely, often leaving out the balance point or "other side" of the issue at hand. I have no doubt this footage is real, but the perspective is one of greatly altered footage that produces a negative piece of propaganda. That's not to say the phones are not being given out and that I truly believe everyone getting one is selling them or trading them for drugs, because any realist knows someone is doing that somewhere - but on what scale? We could all suck in air at this thought, but producing slanted propaganda is human nature and the American way - and it is a normal function we face everyday - marketing and advertising, government persuasion, pharmaceutical companies insisting we need a pill for every facet of our lives, technology saying we can't live without the newest and latest ... they all do what O'Keefe does. So why have an argument about it? Find your boundaries of belief and let others do the same? (I guess now you all can jump on me for trying to bring peace to this ugly discussion that has erupted in hatred, bullying and name-calling...over an internet video no less.)
Explore TIAs. I have had similar and after extensive testing that's what was happening. And the heart issue was similar to yours after wearing the monitor. No lasting damage and each episode concluded in a few hours with no residual so no one could figure it out at the time. I'm on Lipitor and baby aspirin now and doing much better. A second MRI will be done this week to look for blockages just in case.
Growing up, whenever I got a cold or other illness, my mother tied a long sock around my neck with cut onions and garlic in them. I'd go to bed smelling bad and feeling worse but got up the next morning feeling much better. No matter how sick I got, the most I'd wear a scented sock to bed was 2 nights before I was back outside playing again. Sometimes science and home remedies don't meet eye to eye, but from experience, onions and garlic do help treat congestion and chest ailments.
My best memory - the Indian reservation in the Big Thicket. East Texas is lush.
We use a cat for indoor control, and a doxie and a rat terrier for outside control. We have roof rats in the neighborhood and no one has discouraged feral cats. All the neighbors put out food for them. The small dishes of a few cat kibbles lures in rats and opossum too so the cats get to stay active without moving too far. :-) By the way, I have an extreme allergy to cats but feral cats usually don't come up to people.
My co-worker did a series of Yosemite photos and had blank greeting card sets made - 3 to a set. She sold them on consignment in an up-scale tourist shop in town. She did well and the demand expanded, however, the store owner wanted more variety, more packages and requested the cards be done on handmade paper so they'd sell for $20 a packet, rather than the $12 for commercial paper. The business folded because it was suppose to supplement her income - it was taking too much time away from her "day job" but didn't produce enough money to support her without the "day job."
Government micro-managing private lives is wrong IMO. I take great offense when government can tell me what to eat, how much to eat, and otherwise take my right to choose from me. It is my right to make poor choices and since there is also debate at this time about what actual "healthy" weight is, I don't think it's anybodies business if I'm 30 pounds overweight or 30 pounds underweight.
angry person, huh? :-)
As I said, if a person is recognizable, you can't make a profit off of them. That much I know as fact. In other countries, that policy is even more rigid.
As for opinion...we all have one.
And I'm sorry my opinion angers you. Please, take a deep breath. I'll refrain from responding any further in these forums. I'm here to help. Not take the butt of people's anger.
We all have an opinion.
I worked in the copyrights area of a large on-line gallery and this policy created zero problems with law suits. Previously, several of our contributors had encounter false suits that they paid to defend themselves from.
I have been working copyright law for 8 years. I have a policy stance that guarantees not even a slight chance of being sued and also has produced grounds for some photographers to bring suits of their own.
Unless a photographer is also a copyrights lawyer, one suit by one crackpot will cost him more than it's worth.
But please, this is only my opinion based on my study, research and work in copyrights for the past 8 years. I am not an attorney.
The rule of thumb is - if a person is recognizable in a photo, a release needs to be signed if that photo is to be used commercially, in brochures, marketing plans, for profit prints or other art. You cannot make a profit off of people without their permission.
You can split hairs and hope you aren't drawn up in a law suit, however, copyright law is not very clear on some points and brutally clear on others, so why take chances that a $100 photo will cost you $10K in the long run?
I've purchased 4 HDD from 3 different vendors including Amazon and all have arrived in perfect working order. (shrugs)
Yes. If a face is recognizable, you need permission. If you are a photojournalist, you can sell the photo as "news" to the AP or similar. But anything with a recognizable person in it sold for profit, gain or marketing can be challenged as profiteering from another's likeness without compensation. Best to avoid time in court and get permission first.
I got 52%. I'm not Catholic. Just an average person who listens to the news every night and reads the newspaper every morning. :-)
WIKI defines Vice as:
Vice is a practice or a behavior or habit considered [by whom?] immoral, depraved, or degrading
Therefore, I have none. But I have a short list of really fun, enjoyable and eyebrow-raising things I tend to do a on a most regular basis... :-)