Soxbadger

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) I completely disagree with the bolded. I would argue the spread actually places more emphasis on winning 1 on 1 battles as it forces players to play both east/west and north/south and exploits man coverage. The term "spread" is also extremely generic and broad. The spread was definitively created for the purpose I explained. The idea was that a small school maybe had 1 or 2 players who had the talent to compete with the big school and thus you wanted to spread the field to take advantage of your 1 or 2 good match ups. Rusty Russell and his Mighty Mites are pretty legendary.

The culture of Wisconsin also changed somewhat last year with Russel Wilson. People are okay with new things if you win. Utah State lost @ Wisconsin this year due to a 37 yard missed field goal. Their only other loss was @ BYU by 3 points. Its hard to believe Wisconsin hired a coach of a team that is ranked in the top 25.

I think that Wisconsin fans are stupid if they dont recognize that when Canada started to be more successful he was using spread principles in pro-set formations. He actually implemented a version of the wildcat as well. Also its important to remember that just because someone ran a spread at a smaller program does not mean that they will run a spread at a bigger program. The entire purpose of the spread was to help teams that did not have the talent to line up 1 on 1. When Andersen gets to Wisconsin, he will get much better O-line talent. When you have guys averaging 320 lbs you tend to want to take advantage of your strength. I really dont care and I think that Alvarez understands it doesnt matter what you label the offense, what matters is how many points you score. Not 1 Wisconsin fan was complaining about style when they decimated Nebraska. Winning is all that matters, go figure.

Reports are that Wisconsin is going to hire Gary Andersen from Utah State as the next Head Coach.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening. I think most rational people believe that there is almost impossible to guess who is going to "snap" and thus it is very difficult to prevent them from snapping. Thus it is easier to just restrict guns. I mean the obvious solution is to just not allow people who will kill someone to buy a gun. Unfortunately this isnt Minority Report, so I dont have a precog to tell me which of you is a murderer and which of you arent. So all things being equal, Id just rather play it safe and not let anyone have a gun.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:16 PM) You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims? To the 10 people who would have otherwise died, I assume there is a very large difference. We have to be honest here. If many people wanted to, they could easily put up a body count far greater than anything most of these shooters could imagine. A simple gasoline tanker driven into the schools front door at the moment school is ending would likely result in massive casualties. It is our responsibility to try and create laws to minimize the ability for people to kill other people. That is the best we can do.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) I think there will always be these types of massacres and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. So, to some extent my answer is yes. You take away guns, these crazies will just find another means of achieving their goal. The other means generally take far more sophistication and intelligence. The reason guns are dangerous is because it allows someone who doesnt have that intelligence to inflict massive damage. You can extrapolate your argument into "Why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon, they can kill people without them." Well that is true, the nuke just makes it a lot easier.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 04:47 PM) Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns. Yes we can. Havent you heard that criminals will get guns no matter what and the black market is like a 24 hour Walmart. What I find the most ironic is the people who say how easy it is for criminals to do things, are generally people who dont break any laws and have no experience with black markets. Its bad logic. Because if it was good logic, the same people would be arguing that drugs should be legal, because making drugs legal wont make them easier to get. Yet when it comes to drugs, everyone agrees that if they are legal, they are easier to get. Its just common sense.

I really thought the "I need a gun to protect me against the govt" argument went the way of the Dodo bird. A gun isnt a deterrent against a tank, helicopter, nuclear weapon.

I said likely have "POTENTIAL" liability. It would depend on the facts. Starbucks isnt going to buy that photo from Instagram without an indemnification statement. That would just be stupid. I was assuming we were talking about the real world where corporations like Starbucks have lawyers and they dont buy anything unless the seller warrants and represents good title.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Wasn't my point that it's limited to that scenario...I'm saying it's saying the CAN do that scenario, and I don't think they can. Well they are right. You can do anything. You just may have liability for doing it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) No, I was trying to go more into the situation I posted just now...that I took a pic of Cruise sipping Starbucks, and now Instagram sells it as advertising for Starbucks as if Cruise endorsed them...because I uploaded a photo of it there. Instagram would likely have potential liability to Tom Cruise (unless Tom Cruise was a member of instagram and the tos of instagram states that by being a member you allow us to do anything with your likeness.) You cant bind someone who doesnt have privity of contract. Thats just basic contract law.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) But Instagram's new TOS isn't limited to your weird scenario, it's just giving them the ability to sell your photos to whomever they want. So they could sell that pic you snapped of Tom Cruise to People the same as a freelance photographer could. Or lets say you took a really amazing picture of the Sears Tower that did not have any people in it. As Sears Tower is a building that functions there is no copyright that protects its reproduction, thus Instagram could sell your Sears Tower picture. Im pretty sure that Instagram will have a few attorneys reviewing this before they do anything. Id hope that they are smarter than me about this.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:55 PM) ...wait for it. Woah woah woah I thought we were talking about men buying guns, I assume we can all agree women should have no right whatsoever to a weapon that could possibly damage my penis. I thought we changed these laws after Lorena Bobbit.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) Magazines aren't RESELLING the picture for advertising purposes, Instagram is attempting to say they can. Tom Cruise drinking a cup of starbucks on a magazine isn't the same as Instagram popping up a picture of Tom Cruise drinking starbucks that says "Tom Cruise Loves Starbucks...so should you!" And this is why I say "its a fact based question" and "its hard to answer without a specific fact pattern", because if the case is what you just said, then obviously Instagram would have potential liability. I thought you were talking about the following: I take a picture of my friends and I out on a lake. I post the picture on Instagram. Instagram sells my picture to random company Y. Random company Y puts my picture (unedited) on a website to show people having a good time.

Im thinking its more likely that kid gets gun and shoots teacher or other students.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) Actually, while I'm not a lawyer, that doesn't sound quite right. If that were the case, Instagram has just created a situation where they can use pictures of people and then put the onus on the person that took the picture... Example: 1) I take a picture of Tom Cruise drinking a Starbucks, I post it on Instagram. 2) Instagram takes the photo of Tom Cruise drinking Starbucks and sells it for advertising. 3) Tom Cruise sues ME? That doesn't sound right. Sounds like in such a case, Instagram is using the likeness of someone else and saying they can simply because a random person took a picture of them and put it on Instagram via attempting to hide behind a weakly written TOS that most people haven't read. I think I have every right to post a picture of Tom Cruise on instagram drinking a cup of coffee...if instagram used it, they'd be at fault, not me. Well I didnt explain how the liability would work because I was being lazy but Tom Cruise would not have a cause of action directly against you. Tom Curise sues instagram, instagram sues you to indemnify and hold them harmless. Basically its like an insurance contract. If you cause an accident, the other driver sues you, but your insurance is responsible for the liability due to a contractual relationship. I bolded a part because I want to make it clear that this is acceptable. There is tons of case law on this subject due to credit cards. And the courts have consistently held that it is the responsibility of the user to read and understand the terms of their contract and that it is also okay for the CC to change the rules and say that your use of your CC is an agreement of the changes, even if you have never seen them. If you extrapolate that law to instagram, I am pretty confident that a TOS that stated you agree to any changes when you post a photo would be legal and enforceable.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) True, but I think they are contenders for the worst hate group. They do some pretty hateful things. One of my favorite stories of all time is how the Texas A&M students formed a human wall around them to protect a funeral. I think they are hurting a lot of people by the way. A lot of people want to celebrate their loved ones lives at funerals of their loved ones, not deal with some f***s from Topeka screaming, "God hates XXXs." Im pretty sure that most of the top hate group spots are reserved for groups who actually killed people. You know, the Nazis, KKK, etc. Jerks doing stupid things are just idiots.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) You don't love children at all, otherwise you'd be advocating to allow them to defend themselves instead of relying on nanny-state public school teachers. Damn your you are right, why must I be so noncommital on my child loving.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 01:47 PM) There have to be some parents of the 20 angels who would love additional gun control and get some of these weapons of war/terror off the streets. I wonder how some of the loudmouths against gun control would treat such a parent in a debate situation. Would they try to speak over that parent like most of these "discussions" on Chris Matthews' show and O'Reilly's show or would they let the parent speak. I mean, how the f*** can a human being argue with a mom or dad whose baby has been executed by weapons of terror??? Its pretty easy, I dont agree with the position but I can easily argue it. "Look Mr. X, I love children, I love children so much that as we sit here I am destroyed inside. I am completely gutted. This is the worst tragedy that has ever happened in the United States. But we have to ask ourselves why did this tragedy occur? And the answer is that the children that we love so much are not being protected. If the principal had a tank, this would not have happened. If the school had Robocop, this would not have happened. If you truly love children as much as I do, you will see that what we need is more law abiding citizens with weapons. The police can not stop every terrible crime before it happens. That is why we need citizens who can react to a situation like this and stop it before a single child gets hurt. I love children so much, I just cant stand to let them be victims. As I say this I am getting worked up and angry, because these children just couldnt fight for themselves. We send them to schools where they have no protection, where they think they are safe, but its just a fallacy. We need more guns, its the only solution."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) Yeah, Austin is a liberal enclave in a sea of red. How are you familiar with Austin in 1966?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) The law should be in place to protect those in case Instagram decides to go ahead and do something without prior consent. Otherwise you're looking at them doing it to regular people that they know cannot afford to take them to court. A lot of these "grey area" rights cases need some law presiding over them to set precedent, so people cannot be taken advantage of. Think of IP lawsuits where regular people were offered a 3K settlement or to go to court. They knew that the court case would be lost...so they offer a settlement LESS than it could actually cost to go to court...so most people pay it. Conversely, if they got a lawyer, went to court and fought it (loss of time, lawyers fees, etc), the case would have been thrown out...but it would have ended up costing them MORE to do that than just settle. Law needs to exist to protect people from crap like that. Nuisance settlements occur in million dollar cases, so not sure what law could be created to stop that. As for the rest, you do realize that the law would ultimately place the liability on the person who took the photo. Because all instagram will do is put in the terms of service "I warrant and represent that I have full ownership over the photo and that I will indemnify and hold instagram harmless for any lawsuit that may derive from my posting of an infringing work." And once again, we are back to where we started. If you do not want Instragram to gang rape you, dont use their service. If you dont want facebook to steal your s***, dont use facebook. People have no right to "free services" from these companies. So if the companies want to make terms of service, they have every right to. No one has to use instagram and if your friends take pictures of your kids and put them on instragram, sue your friends. Because its really the person who took the photo that is infringing. Instagram is just reproducing an infringement.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:42 AM) I said YOU took the picture of my daughter, not me. YOU have no inherent right to her likeness. And that's the problem with this TOS. Anyone and everyone can use Instagram to take photos of things they have no inherent right to use. I can be walking through a mall, snap a picture of you (whom I've never met before), and because I posted it on Instagram because I thought it was funny, how does that give Instagram the rights to use a photo that I don't even technically have rights too? I didn't say it WAS illegal, I said it should be. Well then you are just arguing for arguments sake, because its the same way every photo, video, ownership argument goes. If you take a picture of me, you may or may not have the right to use it. Its complicated and is based on a lot of facts. That being said, the person who took the picture can not transfer more than they owned to instragram. So if they did not have a valid ownership over the original work, instragram cant get it either. These are very fact based cases, so without an a real example its hard to explain. But if your daughter is in a public place, and I take a picture of her, I may or may not be able to sell that picture. It doesnt give Instagram more rights than you had, the other party who actually owns it, has no privity of contract to the agreement and therefore its not binding. Sorry that I missed that, I just assumed that everyone knew you cant give away what you dont own. And why should it be illegal? Why cant 2 parties contract away rights to ownership over photos? That seems to be a pretty unnecessary law.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) For example...what if I'm Tom Cruise...and you took a picture of me browsing at the local mall and post it on Instagram. Does that give Instagram the rights to use your photo, of Tom Cruise in their advertising as they're trying to say it does? For that matter, what if you take a picture of my daughter at a kids toy store because you thought it was a cute picture to share, and Mattell thinks it's a great picture...how does that give instagram the right to sell the likeness of my daughter to Mattell...again, like they're claiming it does. Just because YOU took a photo of something, doesn't mean YOU own the rights to it...and it sure as hell doesn't mean THEY own the rights too it. I can go on an on about the implications of this...it should be illegal...and I hope they get sued into the dirt. I think you are confusing the term "illegal" with "may have potential liability." Ill use your examples. If you take a picture of Tom Cruise and use it for advertising, you likely would get sued by Tom Cruise's people if the advertisement suggests that Tom Cruise supports the product. But Tom Cruise's people have no way of stopping them from posting the picture, because the owner of the copyright is the person who took the picture, and that ownership could be transferred to instagram via agreement. As for the second part. You take a picture of your daughter, you have an inherent ownership right over that photo, unless another agreement supersedes (work for hire). In the example at hand (and this is without me reading the article or even knowing what instagram is doing, so lets assume) Instagram has a terms of use, that specifically state "In order to use instagram you agree to the following 1: You agree to transfer all right title ownership copyright or any other claim to any picture on instagram. So now Instagram has the right to sell a copy of the picture. Now you can argue false light, you can argue missapropriation of likeness, you can argue anything you want. But that doesnt make it "Illegal", it may mean that instagram would have some liability. But if they are just taking pictures and selling them, when you explicitly allow that, its going to be a rough case. These type of agreements have been upheld in courts before, so I am not sure there is any reason to expect a different outcome. Once again, if you do not like it, dont use instagram.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) Thankfully a service I never used. But this sort of policy change sounds borderline illegal, and if it isn't, it needs to be. This is one of the drawbacks to these free service offerings and why I tend to avoid them when possible. Why would that be illegal? People are using instagrams service, if a condition of use is that you give up all your rights to anything on instagram, dont use instagram.