In that situation, the stupidity was engaging in a sexual act with people she didn't know well enough to realize one of them would hide a camera, and in not being aware enough of her surroundings to realize someone was putting/had put up a camera.
Taking pictures and never expecting them to be seen is also stupidity. If you don't want people seeing pictures... don't take them. Don't put yourself into situations where pictures you don't want being seen, can be taken without your knowledge.
I never encountered anyone with the idea that piracy was "wrong" until after the Napster controversy - and even then most people saw it as bad in the sense that "You could get in legal trouble" rather than "You'll go to hell". A lot of people I encountered in the Doom days didn't even realize what piracy was, that getting a copy of something from someone was illegal. It was no different than exchanging a mix tape - illegal, but no one realized it was illegal, and no one thought it was wrong or bad. It was seen as odd when I wanted to actually purchase a piece of software I already had. It was not so much a question of honesty, but ignorance...
I'm the only one that thinks this being illegal is ridiculous.
Do we honestly have to protect women from their own stupidity (in giving nude pictures to people that will post them online when they break up)? Because in doing so, we are just exacerbating that stupidity. And if women are of equal intelligence to men, then they shouldn't need a law that protects them from such stupidity (and while I realize that the law covers both genders, I don't see men getting into this same situation). I say get rid of the law that makes "revenge porn" illegal, and let the women pay the fee to have their pics removed, so that they can learn their lesson, and other women will not continue to be stupid (in that way) with the idea that they have the safety net of the law.
You don't walk for 8 - 10 hours when you go to Six Flags or Disney World; you wait in lines at times, you stop to eat and drink, you stop to talk to whomever is with you about where you're going next. You may be on your feet but you aren't constantly walking, and that's quite a difference. (Ask any cashier that is on their feet 8 hours a day to walk for 8 hours a day instead.) I had no problem walking around "all day" for 3 days at a convention a few weeks ago, but if I am walking from one location to another, I can walk for maybe 40 minutes before getting tired out, and in that time I walk just over a mile. The difference is, when you don't have a destination you're trying to get to, you take a lot of breaks that you don't think about.
Yes, I could build that endurance up, and be able to walk faster and for longer amounts of time (I use to walk 4 miles to work in an hour, then back home again after a day of working, without getting tired out - because I did it every day); but a horse used for traveling is already conditioned to walk for longer and faster than I am, because he does it every day - on days when he isn't used for traveling, someone has him run around in a circle.
It's already illegal for ME to sell pseudoephedrine. It's also illegal, in my state, for me to buy enough pseudoephedrine for both my husband and I to take the normal amount per day.
The pharmacy gets a special and regulated (by laws) pass to buy and sell pseudoephedrine. If they decided to just not pay attention, leave pseudoephedrine out on the shelf, not have a system where it asks for ID when pseudoephedrine is scanned, not educate the cashiers that it is suppose to be regulated; and someone bought a bunch and made meth, the pharmacy would be in trouble too.
As long as they are not drug dealing and prostituting on school grounds, it is none of the school's business. If, while on school grounds, they have a fight resulting over a drug deal gone bad (off of school grounds) then the school deals with that fight, not the drug deal that went bad.
What solved the problem was moving him to another school.
That right there is what you are suppose to do. If your kid is being bullied and the school won't kick out the bully, you remove your kid. Schools are paid based on attendance; removing your child means they get less money. If more people were willing to remove their children due to bullying, schools would start kicking out the 1 bully to keep the 10 kids he's bullying. Parents would teach their kid to cut that shit out, because now instead of just sending Bully Jimmy out the door to walk to school every day, they have to get up early and drive him to school across town. And most importantly, your kid isn't forced to return to be bullied day after day.
i.e. assaulting other students, not just making "threats" but actually doing things, they let that slide. But pretending to shoot other students is an arrest-able offense.
There is noting unwise about posting videos of a game on youtube. What was unwise was assuming the adults in the school - the people that are suppose to be educating these students, and who are basically raising them, since they are with them more waking hours than their parents - have half a brain between them.
I'm confused about why Google using things for commercial purposes in this way is a bad thing. If someone searches for something, and Google shows them my image, it doesn't matter to me that they have ads on the side (that the person is likely to ignore anyway); that's another person exposed to my image, and quite likely to click and go to my site (as it is, presumably, relevant to what they were searching for). Then I'm making a few pennies because they're viewing my ads, maybe a few more pennies if my ads interest them; and if they buy something from me, then I'm making some dollars.
It seems like a symbiotic relationship to me; Google is using my images to make money, but in return, they are giving me high-traffic, targeted advertisements, which I don't have to pay for, and which is very easy to convert into profit (as the person was likely interested). Why is this bad? Why would I waste my time suing rather than creating?
Exclusively? I more believe that she did something wrong, than that something that has been seen to work time and time again failed. And since she was having sex less than 5 weeks postpartum, I'm thinking odds are high she did something else wrong.
He has to find people that like what he creates so much that they are willing to pay so that he can put food on the table, and therefore live to create more.
Limiting the amount of people exposed to his creations with copyright law actually works against that.
Why, exactly, do we need pictures of fire #242351598 that happened in the middle of the night? It really only matters when something major or historical is burning; and in those cases, there are SURE to be people that take pictures. (Though really, yes, in Chicago I do see random people taking pictures of fires that happen in the middle of the night.)
If you want to encourage talented artists to make more art, hand them some money and ask them to make more art. There's no laws needed for that transaction.
YOU would, perhaps. But I personally find new music either from word-of-mouth, or from the personal websites or twitter accounts of music artists that I liked before Google was even founded. If any "label" was being oppressive, people would create a new place (if they were free to take their music elsewhere instead of being forced to sign exclusive contracts).
I see no reason to believe that the number of people that create books, songs, pictures etc. for a living will go down if copyright is done away with. It's easy to get any book, song, or picture for free; but people still pay, and I believe that most of them do it because they want to support the creator, or because it is faster/more convenient to them to pay; and only a few do so because they truly want the item but believe violating copyright is wrong.
I really believe MORE people will be able to make a living creating books, songs and pictures when the public gets to decide what sells (rather than publishers) and the creators are getting a bigger cut of what customers are paying. Only the people that create crap no one wants will have to get day jobs.
How would you pay the authors, musicians and photographers?
Uh, you'd had them money, or send them payment via paypal, or via Amazon, or some other payment processor? And they'd get a much bigger chunk of that money, because there would no longer be a publisher taking a cut.
But charging for access doesn't work anymore in today's world, since books, music, and software can easily be copied by anyone (with no expense to the copier). Once one person has it, you have actually lost control of who can copy it - not legal control, but control in reality. Fighting against this fact just ensures fewer people will access your work.
Yeah, this is why the majority of the outgoing mailboxes were removed in the city where I grew up... the few left are in parking lots with cameras, which most people have to drive to anyway. I don't know why they were removed in my current neighborhood (where I'm not afraid to leave packages out on my porch for pickup), but I'm guessing that having people schedule pickups is more efficient than checking the outgoing boxes every day. However, if I just put something in my mailbox (or on the porch) without scheduling a pickup, the mailman will simply not take it. And you have to schedule it the previous day, so if I've got something that has to be in the mail today and I forgot to schedule a pickup yesterday, I have to make a trip to the post office.
So, schedule a pickup at USPS's site, or schedule a pickup at UPS's site... go to the post office, or go to the UPS store... it makes little difference to me. And I've found UPS and FedEx to be MUCH more reliable, I have never had a package lost or damaged by them, never had them lie about attempted delivery (I know other people have, but I haven't), etc. but I have had countless problems with the USPS...
You can do that as often as you want, as long as you don't create any more copies than you are licensed to have at any one time.
Nope, that's not how copyright law works. Netflix would not be able to switch their current licensing system over to this new idea; a whole new licence would have to be created. And movie companies would have to agree to it, despite the fact that there is no way to ensure a copy is destroyed before a new copy is made. Due to that hangup, I'm sure this new licence would be very costly.
Slashdot Mirror
In that situation, the stupidity was engaging in a sexual act with people she didn't know well enough to realize one of them would hide a camera, and in not being aware enough of her surroundings to realize someone was putting/had put up a camera.
Taking pictures and never expecting them to be seen is also stupidity. If you don't want people seeing pictures... don't take them. Don't put yourself into situations where pictures you don't want being seen, can be taken without your knowledge.
I never encountered anyone with the idea that piracy was "wrong" until after the Napster controversy - and even then most people saw it as bad in the sense that "You could get in legal trouble" rather than "You'll go to hell". A lot of people I encountered in the Doom days didn't even realize what piracy was, that getting a copy of something from someone was illegal. It was no different than exchanging a mix tape - illegal, but no one realized it was illegal, and no one thought it was wrong or bad. It was seen as odd when I wanted to actually purchase a piece of software I already had. It was not so much a question of honesty, but ignorance...
I'm the only one that thinks this being illegal is ridiculous.
Do we honestly have to protect women from their own stupidity (in giving nude pictures to people that will post them online when they break up)? Because in doing so, we are just exacerbating that stupidity. And if women are of equal intelligence to men, then they shouldn't need a law that protects them from such stupidity (and while I realize that the law covers both genders, I don't see men getting into this same situation). I say get rid of the law that makes "revenge porn" illegal, and let the women pay the fee to have their pics removed, so that they can learn their lesson, and other women will not continue to be stupid (in that way) with the idea that they have the safety net of the law.
You don't walk for 8 - 10 hours when you go to Six Flags or Disney World; you wait in lines at times, you stop to eat and drink, you stop to talk to whomever is with you about where you're going next. You may be on your feet but you aren't constantly walking, and that's quite a difference. (Ask any cashier that is on their feet 8 hours a day to walk for 8 hours a day instead.) I had no problem walking around "all day" for 3 days at a convention a few weeks ago, but if I am walking from one location to another, I can walk for maybe 40 minutes before getting tired out, and in that time I walk just over a mile. The difference is, when you don't have a destination you're trying to get to, you take a lot of breaks that you don't think about.
Yes, I could build that endurance up, and be able to walk faster and for longer amounts of time (I use to walk 4 miles to work in an hour, then back home again after a day of working, without getting tired out - because I did it every day); but a horse used for traveling is already conditioned to walk for longer and faster than I am, because he does it every day - on days when he isn't used for traveling, someone has him run around in a circle.
It's already illegal for ME to sell pseudoephedrine. It's also illegal, in my state, for me to buy enough pseudoephedrine for both my husband and I to take the normal amount per day.
The pharmacy gets a special and regulated (by laws) pass to buy and sell pseudoephedrine. If they decided to just not pay attention, leave pseudoephedrine out on the shelf, not have a system where it asks for ID when pseudoephedrine is scanned, not educate the cashiers that it is suppose to be regulated; and someone bought a bunch and made meth, the pharmacy would be in trouble too.
Well kind of. You use the internet to wirelessly download them.
Nah, they'll just post that stuff on a site the adults don't know about yet.
As long as they are not drug dealing and prostituting on school grounds, it is none of the school's business. If, while on school grounds, they have a fight resulting over a drug deal gone bad (off of school grounds) then the school deals with that fight, not the drug deal that went bad.
Nothing you just said is correct.
What solved the problem was moving him to another school.
That right there is what you are suppose to do. If your kid is being bullied and the school won't kick out the bully, you remove your kid. Schools are paid based on attendance; removing your child means they get less money. If more people were willing to remove their children due to bullying, schools would start kicking out the 1 bully to keep the 10 kids he's bullying. Parents would teach their kid to cut that shit out, because now instead of just sending Bully Jimmy out the door to walk to school every day, they have to get up early and drive him to school across town. And most importantly, your kid isn't forced to return to be bullied day after day.
groceries are probably the only thing where it is less efficient to buy online and have delivered than to go to a store.
i.e. assaulting other students, not just making "threats" but actually doing things, they let that slide. But pretending to shoot other students is an arrest-able offense.
There is noting unwise about posting videos of a game on youtube. What was unwise was assuming the adults in the school - the people that are suppose to be educating these students, and who are basically raising them, since they are with them more waking hours than their parents - have half a brain between them.
Okay, so let's just FedEx that water right over there.
Not really an option in today's world...
I'm confused about why Google using things for commercial purposes in this way is a bad thing. If someone searches for something, and Google shows them my image, it doesn't matter to me that they have ads on the side (that the person is likely to ignore anyway); that's another person exposed to my image, and quite likely to click and go to my site (as it is, presumably, relevant to what they were searching for). Then I'm making a few pennies because they're viewing my ads, maybe a few more pennies if my ads interest them; and if they buy something from me, then I'm making some dollars.
It seems like a symbiotic relationship to me; Google is using my images to make money, but in return, they are giving me high-traffic, targeted advertisements, which I don't have to pay for, and which is very easy to convert into profit (as the person was likely interested). Why is this bad? Why would I waste my time suing rather than creating?
Exclusively? I more believe that she did something wrong, than that something that has been seen to work time and time again failed. And since she was having sex less than 5 weeks postpartum, I'm thinking odds are high she did something else wrong.
He has to find people that like what he creates so much that they are willing to pay so that he can put food on the table, and therefore live to create more.
Limiting the amount of people exposed to his creations with copyright law actually works against that.
Why, exactly, do we need pictures of fire #242351598 that happened in the middle of the night? It really only matters when something major or historical is burning; and in those cases, there are SURE to be people that take pictures. (Though really, yes, in Chicago I do see random people taking pictures of fires that happen in the middle of the night.)
If you want to encourage talented artists to make more art, hand them some money and ask them to make more art. There's no laws needed for that transaction.
YOU would, perhaps. But I personally find new music either from word-of-mouth, or from the personal websites or twitter accounts of music artists that I liked before Google was even founded. If any "label" was being oppressive, people would create a new place (if they were free to take their music elsewhere instead of being forced to sign exclusive contracts).
I see no reason to believe that the number of people that create books, songs, pictures etc. for a living will go down if copyright is done away with. It's easy to get any book, song, or picture for free; but people still pay, and I believe that most of them do it because they want to support the creator, or because it is faster/more convenient to them to pay; and only a few do so because they truly want the item but believe violating copyright is wrong.
I really believe MORE people will be able to make a living creating books, songs and pictures when the public gets to decide what sells (rather than publishers) and the creators are getting a bigger cut of what customers are paying. Only the people that create crap no one wants will have to get day jobs.
How would you pay the authors, musicians and photographers?
Uh, you'd had them money, or send them payment via paypal, or via Amazon, or some other payment processor? And they'd get a much bigger chunk of that money, because there would no longer be a publisher taking a cut.
But charging for access doesn't work anymore in today's world, since books, music, and software can easily be copied by anyone (with no expense to the copier). Once one person has it, you have actually lost control of who can copy it - not legal control, but control in reality. Fighting against this fact just ensures fewer people will access your work.
Even free things are copyrighted, by the way.
Yeah, this is why the majority of the outgoing mailboxes were removed in the city where I grew up... the few left are in parking lots with cameras, which most people have to drive to anyway. I don't know why they were removed in my current neighborhood (where I'm not afraid to leave packages out on my porch for pickup), but I'm guessing that having people schedule pickups is more efficient than checking the outgoing boxes every day. However, if I just put something in my mailbox (or on the porch) without scheduling a pickup, the mailman will simply not take it. And you have to schedule it the previous day, so if I've got something that has to be in the mail today and I forgot to schedule a pickup yesterday, I have to make a trip to the post office.
So, schedule a pickup at USPS's site, or schedule a pickup at UPS's site... go to the post office, or go to the UPS store... it makes little difference to me. And I've found UPS and FedEx to be MUCH more reliable, I have never had a package lost or damaged by them, never had them lie about attempted delivery (I know other people have, but I haven't), etc. but I have had countless problems with the USPS...
You can do that as often as you want, as long as you don't create any more copies than you are licensed to have at any one time.
Nope, that's not how copyright law works. Netflix would not be able to switch their current licensing system over to this new idea; a whole new licence would have to be created. And movie companies would have to agree to it, despite the fact that there is no way to ensure a copy is destroyed before a new copy is made. Due to that hangup, I'm sure this new licence would be very costly.
No, it's based on the scientific fact that women use to exclusively breastfeed.