You've got it backwards. I would never hire a man i had seen a naked picture of for any position of responsibility, no matter how old the picture was or how "arty" the picture. A woman would in some situations at least get the benefit of doubt.
The question of who is having sex with whom is not unimportant. There are still sexually transmitted diseases that are expensive, and difficult or impossible to cure. Knowing who to avoid can mean not leading a life of misery or not suffering an early death.
Do not confuse the value of having sex with the value of being filmed while having sex. The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged. Not properly evaluating those potential consequences is at least foolish and most likely stupid.
Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?
California does have anti-paparazzi law. IIRC it applies only to pictures taken in an abusive manner, such as deliberately frightening the subject to take a reaction photo.
Much of what stands for law in photography is "case law", i.e. law that has been established by court cases, not legislation. So it may well not exist in statute. Welcome to the real world.
In the age of photographic film, ownership and copyright vested in the owner of the film taking the original image, not the photographer, subject, or owner of the camera. In the digital age, that would transfer to either the owner of the photosensor (part of the camera) or the initial storage device. Since it's possible for more than one device to store the image simultaneously, the photosensor owner seems like the best choice.
However, if you send someone a letter, and you do not explicitly specify copyright, the person receiving the letter gets ownership. This gets murky if the sender retains the original. Have fun figuring that out.
Selfishness, for Rand, means making oneself the best person possible: wise, productive, sober, truthful, knowledgeable, etc.. The rewards for selfishness include monetary compensation and pride. Do you think that you can be proud of yourself if you know you've achieved wealth by screwing over others? If so, you're a hideous person, not a selfish person.
Being selfish is often not easy. Improving one's own mind is selfish, it can require hard study and thinking. Being productive, producing a quality product, is harder than being lazy or shoddy. Being wise is selfish (the opposite of being foolish), and it involves not only meeting standards of behavior, but discovery of what those standards are.
The opposite of being selfish is being self-destructive, as the word selfish clearly implies. If you can't understand that selfishness is good, then consider the moral qualities of self-destruction. Is a thief selfish or self-destructive? A drug addict? A liar? A despot?
Your failure to recognize that phrase as self-contradictory shows that you have no clue what you're writing about. Collectivism inherently includes such things as coercion and absence of property rights, whereas libertarianism requires property fights and shuns coercion.
The 801 was based on Motorola emitter coupled logic, and would have required memory capable of performing as fast as the processor. Figure a computer the size of a desk, with several loud fans to remove the 500 to 1000 watts I think it would draw.
Economical computers pretty much had to rely on n-MOS CPUs like the 8080, 8088, 6502 and Z80. From a standpoint of affordable hardware, it's hard to imagine anyone producing a home computer with even 2X the performance of historical hardware at any time in the last 35 years.
Reflectors aren't weightless, and neither are the extensive heat removal systems that will be required to cool a concentrated solar cell in space. I've never seen a representation of a satellite with anything but unconcentrated cells.
Not keeping your eye on textbook writers - what you preposterously call professionals - is a severe mistake that results in axe-grinders writing textbooks. It's why there's currently a big pushback against "Common Core", an inadequate and biassed educational system designed by anti-American progressives.
You are describing pantheism, one of the most pointless of all religious beliefs. If everything is god, then god has no distinguishing characteristics. Nothing can be deduced from his alleged existence.
One Christian belief is original sin: that every human is sinful when it is born. This belief is both evil and absurd.Sin requires volitional activity, and a newborn hasn't acted yet and therefor cannot have sinned. Saying that a human that hasn't acted yet is sinful is exceptionally nasty.
Slashdot Mirror
"You don't know how hard it is being a man looking at a woman looking the way you do." -- Eddie Valiant
You've got it backwards. I would never hire a man i had seen a naked picture of for any position of responsibility, no matter how old the picture was or how "arty" the picture. A woman would in some situations at least get the benefit of doubt.
The question of who is having sex with whom is not unimportant. There are still sexually transmitted diseases that are expensive, and difficult or impossible to cure. Knowing who to avoid can mean not leading a life of misery or not suffering an early death.
Do not confuse the value of having sex with the value of being filmed while having sex. The latter can result in being fired, snubbed, insulted, blackmailed, and justifiably having your judgement challenged. Not properly evaluating those potential consequences is at least foolish and most likely stupid.
Who would you prefer be hired as a kindergarten teacher, bank teller, secretary handling top secret documents: someone you saw in a porn video, or someone else?
California does have anti-paparazzi law. IIRC it applies only to pictures taken in an abusive manner, such as deliberately frightening the subject to take a reaction photo.
Much of what stands for law in photography is "case law", i.e. law that has been established by court cases, not legislation. So it may well not exist in statute. Welcome to the real world.
Offhand, I'd say that Sacramento and Los Angeles are Democrat. Oakland and San Francisco are so far left that they're national embarrassments.
You deliberately misrepresented the post you were replying to.
Model releases are relevant only to images that are paid for.
In the age of photographic film, ownership and copyright vested in the owner of the film taking the original image, not the photographer, subject, or owner of the camera. In the digital age, that would transfer to either the owner of the photosensor (part of the camera) or the initial storage device. Since it's possible for more than one device to store the image simultaneously, the photosensor owner seems like the best choice.
However, if you send someone a letter, and you do not explicitly specify copyright, the person receiving the letter gets ownership. This gets murky if the sender retains the original. Have fun figuring that out.
Oh dear ... how in the world could a girl possibly prevent herself from becoming drunk?
P.S. Don't sleep naked.
Selfishness, for Rand, means making oneself the best person possible: wise, productive, sober, truthful, knowledgeable, etc.. The rewards for selfishness include monetary compensation and pride. Do you think that you can be proud of yourself if you know you've achieved wealth by screwing over others? If so, you're a hideous person, not a selfish person.
Being selfish is often not easy. Improving one's own mind is selfish, it can require hard study and thinking. Being productive, producing a quality product, is harder than being lazy or shoddy. Being wise is selfish (the opposite of being foolish), and it involves not only meeting standards of behavior, but discovery of what those standards are.
The opposite of being selfish is being self-destructive, as the word selfish clearly implies. If you can't understand that selfishness is good, then consider the moral qualities of self-destruction. Is a thief selfish or self-destructive? A drug addict? A liar? A despot?
You and the real world are on separate paths.
Your failure to recognize that phrase as self-contradictory shows that you have no clue what you're writing about. Collectivism inherently includes such things as coercion and absence of property rights, whereas libertarianism requires property fights and shuns coercion.
Gloves. Most doctor/nurse visits to hospital rooms don't require more dexterity than can be provided through a pair of one-cent plastic gloves.
The 801 was based on Motorola emitter coupled logic, and would have required memory capable of performing as fast as the processor. Figure a computer the size of a desk, with several loud fans to remove the 500 to 1000 watts I think it would draw.
Economical computers pretty much had to rely on n-MOS CPUs like the 8080, 8088, 6502 and Z80. From a standpoint of affordable hardware, it's hard to imagine anyone producing a home computer with even 2X the performance of historical hardware at any time in the last 35 years.
If the underlying equation is exp(ct), c=arbitrary, t=time, 2 points suffice to determine a (real-valued, unique) c.
If the underlying equation is b+exp(ct), 3 points are needed to determine b and c.
Reflectors aren't weightless, and neither are the extensive heat removal systems that will be required to cool a concentrated solar cell in space. I've never seen a representation of a satellite with anything but unconcentrated cells.
AMD has lost money in the last 4 quarters, and 6 of the last 7. After accounting for cash on hand, they're a billion dollars in debt.
New species of Lounge Lizard found at Nude! Girls! Nude! near LAX.
BS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WHO_BAC_Relative_risk.png
Not keeping your eye on textbook writers - what you preposterously call professionals - is a severe mistake that results in axe-grinders writing textbooks. It's why there's currently a big pushback against "Common Core", an inadequate and biassed educational system designed by anti-American progressives.
You are describing pantheism, one of the most pointless of all religious beliefs. If everything is god, then god has no distinguishing characteristics. Nothing can be deduced from his alleged existence.
One Christian belief is original sin: that every human is sinful when it is born. This belief is both evil and absurd.Sin requires volitional activity, and a newborn hasn't acted yet and therefor cannot have sinned. Saying that a human that hasn't acted yet is sinful is exceptionally nasty.
<sarcasm> That's working really well in the case of North Korea. </sarcasm>