Create a Facebook account for yourself. Fill the profile with vague and useless data. Put up a useless dummy photo. Lock the account down totally. Then never touch it again.
It's one thing if your face ends up in an ad or in the newspaper because it was one in a crowd, and quite another when you're the only person in the picture and they used it without your expressed permission.
Facebook has your express permission to so use your profile picture.
If they use your photo for advertising without your permission you can sue them. They know that. That's why they will use only the profile photos (I predict that they will back down from that).
I already do, but my kids, mom*, sister, Evil-X, and nieces and nephews all use it, meaning my face might still wind up in a Starbucks ad.
No. They are only talking about the profile pictures, which they can reasonably assume were put there by the subjects. You could sue them if they did as you suggested and used your photo for advertising without your permission.
If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
They might get sued (and might lose) but that is not why. Being photographed does not give you any automatic rights in the copyright to the photograph.
> So...things that are not experienced do not exist?
No. Events that cannot possibly have been observed cannot be said to have happened. On the other hand, events that have been observed can be said to have happened at times prior to their observation.
There are no airliners and no passengers and no deaths: just the temporary shutting down of some pcs. The owners of those pcs may not know that they are being used to attack you, but they still are. I think a case can be made for your right to disable a weapon in the hand of your attacker even if it is not the attacker's property.
Another strained analogy. An enemy of yours is able to trick you neighbor's fancy automated lawn sprinkler into hosing down the front door of your business, driving off your customers. Are you justified in shutting off his water temporarily to stop the attack?
In the far field the effect of a black hole on space-time is indistinguishable from that of any object of equal mass.
If Betelgeuse went supernova and subsequently turned into a black-hole ~600 years ago, would the gravitational effects have already influenced the Earth, at least in the modern era?
The effects of gravity propagate at the speed of light. Nothing can go faster.
If I am hitting you through a botnet of compromised home users that I am renting from some botnet herder, do I fear your retaliation? Only if I think you are good enough to allocate it to me, despite multiple levels of indirection, and essentially innocent targets standing in your way.
Crippling the bots might achieve my immediate goal: bringing an end to your attack. If you are firing stolen missiles at me am I wrong to shoot them down?
Yes. But let's keep it non-nuclear, ok? Cruise missiles, Predator drones, maybe SeeBees with satchel charges: all fine. Just be sure the response isn't disproportionate.
Exactly. OPEC will not be pleased with this but processing and distributing hydrocarbons is what the oil companies do. Why would they object to a new source of feedstock? Do you think they like having to suck it out of the ground with increasing difficulty at locations controlled by criminals and loons?
The "Comic Code" never had any "teeth".
on
Comics Code Dead
·
· Score: 2
And it was always voluntary. The publishers were not subject to external censorship. They chose to follow that "code" (and of course not all did. You just never heard of those who didn't.)
Slashdot Mirror
Create a Facebook account for yourself. Fill the profile with vague and useless data. Put up a useless dummy photo. Lock the account down totally. Then never touch it again.
Facebook has your express permission to so use your profile picture.
If they use your photo for advertising without your permission you can sue them. They know that. That's why they will use only the profile photos (I predict that they will back down from that).
No. They are only talking about the profile pictures, which they can reasonably assume were put there by the subjects. You could sue them if they did as you suggested and used your photo for advertising without your permission.
They might get sued (and might lose) but that is not why. Being photographed does not give you any automatic rights in the copyright to the photograph.
> So...things that are not experienced do not exist?
No. Events that cannot possibly have been observed cannot be said to have happened. On the other hand, events that have been observed can be said to have happened at times prior to their observation.
n/t
And then there is this from a HuffPo article titled "Two Suns? Twin Stars Could Be Visible From Earth By 2012":
Dr. Carter said no such thing, of course.
But wait! How can that be? The HuffPo can never be wrong: they're politically correct!
There are no airliners and no passengers and no deaths: just the temporary shutting down of some pcs. The owners of those pcs may not know that they are being used to attack you, but they still are. I think a case can be made for your right to disable a weapon in the hand of your attacker even if it is not the attacker's property.
Another strained analogy. An enemy of yours is able to trick you neighbor's fancy automated lawn sprinkler into hosing down the front door of your business, driving off your customers. Are you justified in shutting off his water temporarily to stop the attack?
There is nowhere in the USA where use of deadly force against a mere trespasser is legal.
I'd say the law is fairly reasonable. In any case it clearly does not permit the use of deadly force against a mere trespasser.
> Betelgeuse is easily above the Chandrasekhar limit.
But it may not be once it has blown off mass during the supernova.
In the far field the effect of a black hole on space-time is indistinguishable from that of any object of equal mass.
The effects of gravity propagate at the speed of light. Nothing can go faster.
Wrong.
Crippling the bots might achieve my immediate goal: bringing an end to your attack. If you are firing stolen missiles at me am I wrong to shoot them down?
I take it that you are an english major? Education? Music? Art history?
> It is mostly unknown who is controlling the botnets behind DoS attacks.
Yes, but would it be wrong to cripple the bots if that would stop the attack?
> ...in real life there are consequences.
Not for the IDF.
Yes. But let's keep it non-nuclear, ok? Cruise missiles, Predator drones, maybe SeeBees with satchel charges: all fine. Just be sure the response isn't disproportionate.
Wrong.
Exactly. OPEC will not be pleased with this but processing and distributing hydrocarbons is what the oil companies do. Why would they object to a new source of feedstock? Do you think they like having to suck it out of the ground with increasing difficulty at locations controlled by criminals and loons?
They're looking for investors, right?
And it was always voluntary. The publishers were not subject to external censorship. They chose to follow that "code" (and of course not all did. You just never heard of those who didn't.)
> This is how language evolves.
Or devolves.
n/t