Who said anything about protecting only female privacy? I'd say the same things if it was showing nude pictures of men. I haven't heard of such sites, and if I do hear of one I'll happily condemn it.
In the US, at least, the copyright does belong to the photographer - which, in the case of a selfie, is the subject. If there are selfies on the site without proper licensing, they're violating copyright law. However, there are restrictions on what a photographer can do with a photo without the consent of the subject(s), which I don't understand at all well,. I suspect that, in the US, publishing nude pictures of people without a release is illegal.
Or I could conclude that you're an asshole and a troll, and show your inane comments to your employer, and you'd deserve that for what you said, right? If you're an asshole and I key your car, you're not a victim, right?
If you ever get a girlfriend, and she turns on you, you go out and find a better one. My second marriage has lasted thirty-six years now, and we're very happy together. I don't talk about my ex in public. What more revenge do I need?
I'm a progressive, and I don't judge other people's sex lives (as long as it involves only consenting adults in private). Whether a woman is a virgin or a prostitute (which I consider a legitimate profession prone to serious abuse) has no bearing on how virtuous she is.
Why not? Often, when I'm not doing anything in particular, the camera on my phone sticks out over the edge of my pocket. I could be recording. I could set up some sort of inconspicuous camera. Heck, I could just take a picture of my wife nude without asking. (She'd object, but I'd still have taken the picture.)
Those who gave photos of themselves to trusted people can be victims. That's like saying that giving out my WiFi password to a guest means that if the guest is caught doing illegal stuff on my connection, I'm not a victim. Or that if I let a friend borrow my car, and it gets totaled, I'm not a victim.
We should be able to trust people without being blamed if they turn out to be assholes.
The Democratic Party is a private organization, and can select its nominees as it pleases. Back around 1970, the party was tearing itself apart ideologically, and in 1972 nominated McGovern for President, who was steamrollered in the general election. After that, the party decided to put some establishment input into the process to try to stop people who weren't electable (and to change the odor of the smoke-filled rooms back to what it had been). I have no desire to repeat my memories of 1968-1972 politics.
Comey did an extensive investigation, and concluded that what Clinton did wasn't worth prosecuting. I found cases of people who did what she did, and they did not face criminal prosecution or go to prison. It's arguable that this should not be the case, but starting with Clinton would have been a highly partisan act, and would strongly discourage people from reporting inadvertent mishandling of classified material.
The problem is that some people don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant, at least not in any quantity under perhaps 5000 ppm (the OSHA limit on exposure).
The "hottest year ever" stuff is about global temperatures. We're pretty good at measuring them, and getting better. Last I checked, record high temperatures outnumbered record lows by a good margin.
You're making that up about the US being a good measure for the world. If the NYT quote you mentioned says it's colder now in the US than it was back then, we've got an example of a temperature trend in the US (there were the 48 contiguous states in the 20s and 30s) that the world didn't follow.
Insurance companies know how many people are likely to get cancer or Alzheimer's with a good deal of precision. They know about world poverty. They have no expertise in solving those problems, and perhaps not incentive (although a cure for cancer would reduce payouts on policies whose premiums have already been collected).
Any investment company is in the business of predicting the future. They may not be good at it (it's surprisingly hard to beat an index fund), but they are putting real money (not necessarily theirs) on the line. When a newspaper reporter makes a prediction, it's likely crap. When a politician makes a prediction, it's very likely to be crap. When an insurance company makes a prediction, they're betting a chunk of business on it. Investment firms are sort of in a middle ground; they may be looking to scare up short-term business with other people's money, in which case they're likely to say whatever drums up business, or they may be looking to go long-term or invest with their own money, in which case they're likely to mean it.
What you need to do is look at the source of claims. Were they from someone who should know what they were talking about? Is the claim quoted accurately? What was the confidence level of the claim (and if there is none, either it's not scientific or it's not fully reported)? If a scientist says "It's conceivable that X", the media will want to report it as "X" to attract more eyeballs.
So, under the above restrictions, can you come up with a legitimate claim from a scientist that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2017 or earlier with a reasonably high degree of confidence?
This is why I go to IPCC reports for the claims. They can be wrong, but they are from climate scientists, they do have confidence levels, and they're falsifiable.
And, obviously there's tons of claims about global warming that have been wild. The legitimate scientific claims have been conservative.
Yup, the observed dark matter isn't neutrinos, but neutrinos are dark matter by the definition of not interacting electromagnetically.
Neutrinos are weird. Back when we thought they moved at lightspeed, they were understandable. Another massless particle moving at c. The reason we know they don't is that they change flavor, and hence have to be experiencing time . Other than that, we can't tell the difference. In a supernova, the neutrinos show up a few hours early because the light has to make it out of the core. You'd expect that the light, which has to be moving faster, would catch up with the neutrinos sometime, but we haven't seen that happen in any supernova that I've heard of.
Sure. I'm happy with the idea that, if God exists, God caused the Big Bang. What I'm saying is that it only matters if you have other reasons for believing in God, because in either case you're looking at one thing without cause.
No, you can't have general FTL and special relativity and no time travel. The Bergenholms were no better than warp drive in that regard. In fact, since the ship settled at a speed where the thrust from the thrusters matched the power of the ambient stuff hitting the ship, it'd be slower than light. (That was the explanation, and the trip to Lundmark's Nebula was possible only because of the extreme rarity of intergalactic matter.)
I'm not complaining. There's lots of stuff I don't believe in the Lensmen series, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it.
What I'm basically saying is that it's complicated, and people are going to get hurt no matter what we do, no matter how much we wish they wouldn't be. There are reasons for affirmative action, and reasons against it. It's frequently not okay, but it's not malicious in intent.
No, the question was about white male privilege. Does everyone have the same opportunity to get out of a lower socioeconomic class?
My problem with telling privilege is that I am a white heterosexual cisgender man in the upper middle class. I'm not Christian (or a member of any other organized religion), but nobody can tell that by looking at me, and since I rarely discuss religion in public I get classified as "probably Protestant or something". I'm privileged. I don't experience the issues that a black or Native American, a gay person, a trans person, or a poor person would get. The treatment I get seems perfectly normal, and I wish everybody was treated the same. I'm not interested in shedding my privilege, but I am interested in learning more about how I'm privileged and I'm for others getting the same treatment.
I don't care that you're a poor white man or whatever, I want you to have opportunities, and it sucks that you don't have them. I'd like you, and everyone else, to be able to succeed in life (whatever that means to them, within certain limits). Clinton did have programs in mind that would have helped some poor white people a lot more than Trump's lies did, but that's water over the damn now.
I'm so old I remember when tech companies used to hire individuals based on their ability to do the work.
Man, when was that? I'm not that old, at 63.
When I was young, if you were not a white man you faced some serious obstacles in getting a good job. Hiring was often based on how the person would fit in, making something of a social club at an office.
I find it similarly unbelievable that you are openly admitting, as a self-proclaimed Google manager, that Google is perfectly willing to prosecute people over their political opinion.
Where did you get that from the AC? AC said that there were similarly toxic situations going on around politics, and Google ordered people to not discuss it. This is reasonable. For about the last year, political opinions have been discussed in very divisive ways. I had to stop following a friend on Facebook because I found his political views dogmatic and baseless and extreme, based on selective reporting, and I was really tired of wondering if we were still friends. (We are.)
It seems to me that most of the people defending him are the sorts that tend to view corporate profit as a right. The guy in question caused unprofitable disruption within Google, and therefore I'd expect the corporatists to think his firing was natural.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said anything about protecting only female privacy? I'd say the same things if it was showing nude pictures of men. I haven't heard of such sites, and if I do hear of one I'll happily condemn it.
In the US, at least, the copyright does belong to the photographer - which, in the case of a selfie, is the subject. If there are selfies on the site without proper licensing, they're violating copyright law. However, there are restrictions on what a photographer can do with a photo without the consent of the subject(s), which I don't understand at all well,. I suspect that, in the US, publishing nude pictures of people without a release is illegal.
Or I could conclude that you're an asshole and a troll, and show your inane comments to your employer, and you'd deserve that for what you said, right? If you're an asshole and I key your car, you're not a victim, right?
If you ever get a girlfriend, and she turns on you, you go out and find a better one. My second marriage has lasted thirty-six years now, and we're very happy together. I don't talk about my ex in public. What more revenge do I need?
I'm a progressive, and I don't judge other people's sex lives (as long as it involves only consenting adults in private). Whether a woman is a virgin or a prostitute (which I consider a legitimate profession prone to serious abuse) has no bearing on how virtuous she is.
Why not? Often, when I'm not doing anything in particular, the camera on my phone sticks out over the edge of my pocket. I could be recording. I could set up some sort of inconspicuous camera. Heck, I could just take a picture of my wife nude without asking. (She'd object, but I'd still have taken the picture.)
Those who gave photos of themselves to trusted people can be victims. That's like saying that giving out my WiFi password to a guest means that if the guest is caught doing illegal stuff on my connection, I'm not a victim. Or that if I let a friend borrow my car, and it gets totaled, I'm not a victim.
We should be able to trust people without being blamed if they turn out to be assholes.
How many of those pictures were shared with strangers by the victim? Some women send nude pics to people they trust, and find the trust abused.
This is the United States, a very wealthy and large modern democracy. We should have better internet speeds than most of the rest of the world.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of an SUV barreling down the highway loaded with microSD cards.
The Democratic Party is a private organization, and can select its nominees as it pleases. Back around 1970, the party was tearing itself apart ideologically, and in 1972 nominated McGovern for President, who was steamrollered in the general election. After that, the party decided to put some establishment input into the process to try to stop people who weren't electable (and to change the odor of the smoke-filled rooms back to what it had been). I have no desire to repeat my memories of 1968-1972 politics.
Comey did an extensive investigation, and concluded that what Clinton did wasn't worth prosecuting. I found cases of people who did what she did, and they did not face criminal prosecution or go to prison. It's arguable that this should not be the case, but starting with Clinton would have been a highly partisan act, and would strongly discourage people from reporting inadvertent mishandling of classified material.
We can call it "pollution".
The problem is that some people don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant, at least not in any quantity under perhaps 5000 ppm (the OSHA limit on exposure).
The "hottest year ever" stuff is about global temperatures. We're pretty good at measuring them, and getting better. Last I checked, record high temperatures outnumbered record lows by a good margin.
You're making that up about the US being a good measure for the world. If the NYT quote you mentioned says it's colder now in the US than it was back then, we've got an example of a temperature trend in the US (there were the 48 contiguous states in the 20s and 30s) that the world didn't follow.
Insurance companies know how many people are likely to get cancer or Alzheimer's with a good deal of precision. They know about world poverty. They have no expertise in solving those problems, and perhaps not incentive (although a cure for cancer would reduce payouts on policies whose premiums have already been collected).
Any investment company is in the business of predicting the future. They may not be good at it (it's surprisingly hard to beat an index fund), but they are putting real money (not necessarily theirs) on the line. When a newspaper reporter makes a prediction, it's likely crap. When a politician makes a prediction, it's very likely to be crap. When an insurance company makes a prediction, they're betting a chunk of business on it. Investment firms are sort of in a middle ground; they may be looking to scare up short-term business with other people's money, in which case they're likely to say whatever drums up business, or they may be looking to go long-term or invest with their own money, in which case they're likely to mean it.
What you need to do is look at the source of claims. Were they from someone who should know what they were talking about? Is the claim quoted accurately? What was the confidence level of the claim (and if there is none, either it's not scientific or it's not fully reported)? If a scientist says "It's conceivable that X", the media will want to report it as "X" to attract more eyeballs.
So, under the above restrictions, can you come up with a legitimate claim from a scientist that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2017 or earlier with a reasonably high degree of confidence?
This is why I go to IPCC reports for the claims. They can be wrong, but they are from climate scientists, they do have confidence levels, and they're falsifiable.
And, obviously there's tons of claims about global warming that have been wild. The legitimate scientific claims have been conservative.
All these rapture predictions and bumper stickers, and no free cars.
Yup, the observed dark matter isn't neutrinos, but neutrinos are dark matter by the definition of not interacting electromagnetically.
Neutrinos are weird. Back when we thought they moved at lightspeed, they were understandable. Another massless particle moving at c. The reason we know they don't is that they change flavor, and hence have to be experiencing time . Other than that, we can't tell the difference. In a supernova, the neutrinos show up a few hours early because the light has to make it out of the core. You'd expect that the light, which has to be moving faster, would catch up with the neutrinos sometime, but we haven't seen that happen in any supernova that I've heard of.
Sure. I'm happy with the idea that, if God exists, God caused the Big Bang. What I'm saying is that it only matters if you have other reasons for believing in God, because in either case you're looking at one thing without cause.
No, you can't have general FTL and special relativity and no time travel. The Bergenholms were no better than warp drive in that regard. In fact, since the ship settled at a speed where the thrust from the thrusters matched the power of the ambient stuff hitting the ship, it'd be slower than light. (That was the explanation, and the trip to Lundmark's Nebula was possible only because of the extreme rarity of intergalactic matter.)
I'm not complaining. There's lots of stuff I don't believe in the Lensmen series, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it.
What I'm basically saying is that it's complicated, and people are going to get hurt no matter what we do, no matter how much we wish they wouldn't be. There are reasons for affirmative action, and reasons against it. It's frequently not okay, but it's not malicious in intent.
No, the question was about white male privilege. Does everyone have the same opportunity to get out of a lower socioeconomic class?
My problem with telling privilege is that I am a white heterosexual cisgender man in the upper middle class. I'm not Christian (or a member of any other organized religion), but nobody can tell that by looking at me, and since I rarely discuss religion in public I get classified as "probably Protestant or something". I'm privileged. I don't experience the issues that a black or Native American, a gay person, a trans person, or a poor person would get. The treatment I get seems perfectly normal, and I wish everybody was treated the same. I'm not interested in shedding my privilege, but I am interested in learning more about how I'm privileged and I'm for others getting the same treatment.
I don't care that you're a poor white man or whatever, I want you to have opportunities, and it sucks that you don't have them. I'd like you, and everyone else, to be able to succeed in life (whatever that means to them, within certain limits). Clinton did have programs in mind that would have helped some poor white people a lot more than Trump's lies did, but that's water over the damn now.
By itself, that's nowhere near an indication of biological differences. There's lots of fields that have changed sex ratios dramatically.
Man, when was that? I'm not that old, at 63.
When I was young, if you were not a white man you faced some serious obstacles in getting a good job. Hiring was often based on how the person would fit in, making something of a social club at an office.
Where did you get that from the AC? AC said that there were similarly toxic situations going on around politics, and Google ordered people to not discuss it. This is reasonable. For about the last year, political opinions have been discussed in very divisive ways. I had to stop following a friend on Facebook because I found his political views dogmatic and baseless and extreme, based on selective reporting, and I was really tired of wondering if we were still friends. (We are.)
It seems to me that most of the people defending him are the sorts that tend to view corporate profit as a right. The guy in question caused unprofitable disruption within Google, and therefore I'd expect the corporatists to think his firing was natural.
It seems to me that using terms like "virtue signaling" and "SJW" is very often an example of virtue signalling.