The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)

Page: 1 ... 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 ... 912
Online now: Google [Bot], iDaemon
Post Reply
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Fancy cakemaker shows what is inside his cakes:

Image
Image


I had read somewhere that the heart is animated with a simulated beat. Otherwise it is all edible.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Goth wedding cake?

In all seriousness, that is both disturbing and awesome at the same time.
radarman posted:
Goth wedding cake?

In all seriousness, that is both disturbing and awesome at the same time.

Actually it appears he just made as a lark to answer the questions he got asking "What is in your cakes?"
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Hindu surgeon's wedding cake?

and if it's entirely edible, it certainly is
Quote:
both disturbing and awesome at the same time.

ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
That's beautiful, however they punched the colors up so much its too obvious, which detracts a bit.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Trying too hard to look like a face on the right there. Still, that's pretty.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
Image

Why grammar is important...
argh, yeah, wasn't a bad tattoo otherwise.
Still, that might be fixable.
Not that I'd ever get a tattoo. However I think I'd have just skipped the text and explained it to anybody that asked.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
TOS
User avatar
radarman posted:
Image

Why grammar is important...


never mind the grammar, why the hell would you get that message permanently put in your flesh?
lleviathann The itch you can't scratch
User avatar
So you have something you'll regret when you're 40.
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.
radarman posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.

While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.
Silliness on Facebook:

Image

With the caption:
Quote:
Jay Branscomb

Disgraceful photo of recreational hunter happily posing next to a Triceratops he just slaughtered. Please share so the world can name and shame this despicable man. — with John Baker, Jack Quevedo, Hono Elizalde and Desiree Elizalde.


Storm the Spielberg mansion!!!
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.

While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.


Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.

Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.
Donkey Butter jerk face
User avatar
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
radarman posted:
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.

While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.


Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.

Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.

The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).
maurvir Steamed meat popsicle
User avatar
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.

While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.


Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.

Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.

The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).


If the award had been something that didn't instantly bankrupt a person, I could see it as a penalty. As it stands, I see it more as a "We didn't pay all that money for favorable legislation to have you peasants to ignore our extortion letters." thing instead.

Fortunately, the recording industry still needs people to like them enough that they knocked it off after that. Unfortunately, it encouraged the trolls to come out from under their bridges.
radarman posted:
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DEyncourt posted:
radarman posted:
DukeofNuke posted:
Some one she loved left her for someone else.
She could have said, "If you love someone, set them free."

but that's copyrighted.


Yeah, it would suck to get sued, have to strip down for the court, and then get hit for $150k for willful infringement when it was all over with.

While I wouldn't put it above some copyright lawyers try this, doesn't there have to be some amount of financial gain to make such a lawsuit worthwhile? And while the pictured woman might have to display her tattoo if such a lawsuit got to the courts, the person being sued wouldn't be that woman but the tattoo artist.


Jammie Thomas (who admittedly is a dumbass) was briefly on the hook for $1.9M for non-commercial infringement while file sharing. It has since been reduced to a mere $222K. So no, apparently there doesn't have to be any financial gain to get nailed in the ass by a copyright holder.

Of course, the copyright holder has to expect to get something out of it, which in the case of Thomas, was a favorable court ruling with which to use in their other extortion attempts, er, lawsuits. (they haven't gotten a penny out of Thomas, despite spending more than $1M, so it had to have been the precedent) So, if this woman isn't worth all that much financially, she probably could have gotten away with it.

The difference in Thomas' case was that she was being fined statutory damages for violation of the RIAA-designed laws covering music copyright. Even with the various reductions those fines were designed to be monetary punishment as opposed to being appropriate compensation. Her case was supposed to be a lesson to us all not to violate music copyright (rather than the lesson that laws shouldn't be written by the people who stand to benefit directly from them).


If the award had been something that didn't instantly bankrupt a person, I could see it as a penalty. As it stands, I see it more as a "We didn't pay all that money for favorable legislation to have you peasants to ignore our extortion letters." thing instead.

Fortunately, the recording industry still needs people to like them enough that they knocked it off after that. Unfortunately, it encouraged the trolls to come out from under their bridges.

Well, I'm glad that someone here at Macstack considers $222K not enough to "instantly bankrupt a person.'
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.

Image
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
user Stupid cockwomble
User avatar
Such comfy chairs. Which expedition?
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
user posted:
Such comfy chairs. Which expedition?


No idea. There was no explanation at the source. Maybe if someone can identify some of the mission patches on the right.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
They made the aluminum thin for weight savings. I bet at this point they wished it was thicker.
ukimalefu want, but shouldn't, may anyway
User avatar
Kirk posted:
They made the aluminum thin for weight savings. I bet at this point they wished it was thicker.


Yeah, but didn't they test it here where there's more gravity? Shouldn't they have known better?

And it weighs a ton (not "a lot", an actual ton, like around 1000 Kg), that thing is bigger and heavier than a Smart Car.

Anyway, here's a link about the damage:

http://www.space.com/26472-mars-rover-c ... amage.html

Basically, it can still reach the intended destination, but they'll have to take a longer route with softer sandy terrain. They also say going backwards can help.
ukimalefu posted:
We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.

Image


And for those who couldn't afford a guy hanging off the front of their car:

Image
DukeofNuke FREE RADICAL
User avatar
j_tso posted:
ukimalefu posted:
We didn't always have gopros, and now that guys been replaced with a little box that fits in your pocket.

Image


And for those who couldn't afford a guy hanging off the front of their car:

Image

Jackie Stewart ?
Subsequent topic  /  Preceding topic
Post Reply

The Random Image Thread (keeping it PG-13 at the worst)

Page: 1 ... 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 ... 912