>> ^Payback:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOvZRG2goU


It's Charlize Theron's character from Monster! I've put it all together.

>> ^Sarzy:
They are probably both sociopaths -- something most people associate with serial killers and the like, though they're actually much more common than you'd think (according to this book, 1 in 25 people is a sociopath).

wit has its downsides. Sometimes, all too often, the devil gets a bad rap.

but thanks for considering me "smart" and expecting much from me. Personally, I prefer to expect less, that way I'm not disappointed. It's nice to meet somebody with some faith in humanity.

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
I like you, you're witty. Pardon my wanting the smartest males on our site to be ..uh more gentlemanly?

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
>> ^swampgirl:
Oh Rotty, tsk tsk..

Explain to me how they don't deserve it. It'll take something of that measure to knock them down a peg or two. If it makes you feel better, it doesn't have to be their creepy uncles. A creepy family friend that the parents know from their college days works too

I like you, you're witty. Pardon my wanting the smartest males on our site to be ..uh more gentlemanly?

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
>> ^swampgirl:
Oh Rotty, tsk tsk..

Explain to me how they don't deserve it. It'll take something of that measure to knock them down a peg or two. If it makes you feel better, it doesn't have to be their creepy uncles. A creepy family friend that the parents know from their college days works too

>> ^swampgirl:
Oh Rotty, tsk tsk..

Explain to me how they don't deserve it. It'll take something of that measure to knock them down a peg or two. If it makes you feel better, it doesn't have to be their creepy uncles. A creepy family friend that the parents know from their college days works too

>> ^Farhad2000:
Wait for the State Attorney to press charges?
WHAT THE FUCK?


Law is not my forte, but I believe I can explain this. Someone has to press charges for a crime to be processed. Charges can only be filed by the victim and family or by an officer who directly witnesses the crime. It seems the victims here did not press charges and the crime was not witnessed by an officer. Apparently, the SA has the power to press charges in this situation.

>> ^jwray:
I know lots of people like that.


Friends-reunited speed dating?

I did something resembling a spit take when I read that <wipes spit off monitor>

>> ^rottenseed:
hopefully they're raped by their creepy uncles.

Stealing girl scout cookie money? That's pretty damn low imo, almost comical.

>> ^Sarzy:
They are probably both sociopaths -- something most people associate with serial killers and the like, though they're actually much more common than you'd think (according to this book, 1 in 25 people is a sociopath).

In particular they would seem to fit the description of Dissocial personality disorder perfectly.

Their parents have an awful, awful lot to answer for.

>> ^dannym3141:
Fucking little "i've got tits i can do what i want" slappers
i fucking hate girls like this at that age... there's no worse type of creature on the planet

That's exactly why I finally had to stop dating them this summer! I couldn't put up with that attitude for another decade.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I can't wait to see their conversation in a few years...
"Like, whatever, I've been shining that pole all night and I only got nickels thrown at me. I mean, what the fuck? Right? I should at least get, like, you know, twenties and thirties shoved in my g-string..."


Found their mother... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOvZRG2goU

well, the girl scout shouldn't have been selling those cookies out of the back of her 64 Impala, with diamond rings blingin'. She had it comin'

Great film, Sarzy. Makes me feel less foolish about my silly triple homicide. Trust me, those Girl Scouts had it coming.

At the end of the piece, the narrator quotes Judge Alex Kozinski of the Federal 9th Circuit Appellate Court. I've included the extended version of that quote here. His opinions on the "right of publicity" are best summed up in his White v. Samsung Electronics Dissent. The entire opinion is worth reading, but the critical summary is found in the first section which reads:

"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.

Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.

So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.

The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."

-- Judge Alex Kozinski

that is foul

where's the girl scout?