I've heard it dates back to the days when a woman would shave/lose the hair down there as a treatment for syphilis. The women didn't always want those who had privilege to access those areas to always be aware they had needed to go hairless.
Shaving down under wasn't always culturally acceptable, and a merkin would cover up any visable sores.
Many of the passwords shown in the postings I've skimmed past haven't looked like dictionary words. I've actually gone back to an earlier post, and Google'd a few of the higher-security looking ones, and the only result is a single out of order page.
That makes me fairly certain someone screwed up this one.
No, broadcasting the footage does not require consent. Broadcasting footage filmed inside a house does, but not in public. How else could the news show generic footage of a Saturday Market or such?
It also prevents them from being loaded, as the articles explain. If needed for API's that require them, or if you turn them back on, they're available, but otherwise don't get loaded.
I have to wonder if either circumstance has been taken to court and appealed? I've had a TSA employee point out a restroom at MSP and took a picture of it in front of him. He had no issues with me photographing the Sen. Larry Craig Wide Stance Memorial Restroom.
Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
You also may want to review this USA Todayarticle, which goes into a bit more detail.
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose â" using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
That's the part I think you thought you were talking about. You can sell make a profit from pictures with someone in them, you can't make it appear (as I learned in journalism classes in college) they're endorsing a product, or put them in a false light, or take pictures when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Legally speaking, walking down the road while someone takes a picture of a tourist destination (for example) gives you absolutely no recourse. They can make as much money from selling that image as they want, so long as they don't try to imply something that did not happen did.
The whole purpose of news is to get eyes to look at the ads they show for about 8 to 10 minutes per half hour. Why should newsworthiness make a difference if any for-profit photography was banned? Are news agencies non-profits now?
I've gotten a first class fare for a round trip flight for about $100 more than business class before. It's not a common thing, but if you're flexible you can find it.
How is money to Amtrak going to produce jobs? Sure, it helps out the people working for Amtrak, but every passenger on Amtrak is NON-passenger on Greyhound or Delta.
Interesting theory, but from Portland to Seattle (for an example) for me is a choice between Amtrak and driving. I'm not going to pay the premium to fly, needing to get out to PDX and then from SEATAC to downtown when I can take Amtrak much easier, and in about the same amount of time.
Greyhound? No thanks, I'll just drive instead. If we're going to help Delta or any airline (as we've done many, many times) why not help Amtrak which is more appropriate for shorter trips?
The very existence of Free Software, Open Source and even Apple undermines the notion that Microsoft wants to plant in everybodies head : that software is so complex that you need a company as big as them for research, development, production and support of software.
Paranoid much?
Microsoft is simply a corporation, trying to make as much money as it can. They want as much market share as possible, obviously, but you seem to be taking it out on an emotional limb there.
Perhaps they should turn off the TV and either work on their resume and start networking, or go learn a new trade. I've yet to be convinced how watching network TV will re-employ several million jobseekers.
It's not just young people who are effected by this change. How about my 68 year old neighbor who lives on a fixed income? Why should he have to spend $40-$50 out of pocket to keep watching his television that works just fine?
You want hard mnemonics? Try the bones. Erg. Makes me cringe whenever I hear that there are that many bones in a body and doctors have to memorize them all. Course they won't make sense to me at all, but they don't need to make it make sense to me do they?
It's easier than you'd think, since the bones of the fingers and toes are all named the same. The ribs and spinal column are essentially numbered as well.
It's been 8 years since I took Anatomy and Physiology and I still can name nearly every uniquely-named bone in the body. There are a few I'd need a reminder on, but most of them are fairly standardized.
I guess that ties it back to the article enough...
That's (in my opinion) part of why the Super Bowl kicks the living hell out of the World Series in the Nielsen ratings, as well as international interest. If I haven't given a shit about baseball all year, I'm not going to start liking it enough to watch seven games. One, sure. Not seven.
Almost all people have to show a profit at their job. What makes a CEO or Chairman of the Board any different? Showing a profit doesn't have to mean throwing away your morals, it just might.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you heard of PrinterOn or PrintMe? I bet they can do educational sites as well.
Good simile.
I've heard it dates back to the days when a woman would shave/lose the hair down there as a treatment for syphilis. The women didn't always want those who had privilege to access those areas to always be aware they had needed to go hairless.
Shaving down under wasn't always culturally acceptable, and a merkin would cover up any visable sores.
The more you know...
It's probably just viral marketing for the new Terminator movie coming out this summer.
They've sold me a few hundred printers by now.
Many of the passwords shown in the postings I've skimmed past haven't looked like dictionary words. I've actually gone back to an earlier post, and Google'd a few of the higher-security looking ones, and the only result is a single out of order page.
That makes me fairly certain someone screwed up this one.
Yeah, they better stop flying in techs from overseas to fix my printers.
Er, wait. They use local techs.
We know it's mammals, at least. Or we can hope...
No, broadcasting the footage does not require consent. Broadcasting footage filmed inside a house does, but not in public. How else could the news show generic footage of a Saturday Market or such?
It also prevents them from being loaded, as the articles explain. If needed for API's that require them, or if you turn them back on, they're available, but otherwise don't get loaded.
One of the articles mentions Windows Update, which requires IE's API's to work properly. I'm sure other cases would come up as well.
I found my stolen car on there, and had the local Fox affiliate cover it, so I shouldn't complaining.
No BS, check the link from my homepage if you don't want to believe it.
Go CraigsList!
I have to wonder if either circumstance has been taken to court and appealed? I've had a TSA employee point out a restroom at MSP and took a picture of it in front of him. He had no issues with me photographing the Sen. Larry Craig Wide Stance Memorial Restroom.
So I take it you don't stream a lot of porno through that connection?
Seriously, what's the cost of data transfer from a satellite phone from there?
You should really read what you linked to.
Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
You also may want to review this USA Todayarticle, which goes into a bit more detail.
Finally, you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose â" using a photo of someone in an ad, for example. That isn't to say you can't publish a photo in a commercial environment, such as a newspaper or a blog that accepts ads. If the photo is being used in a news or artistic sense as opposed to a commercial one you're OK.
That's the part I think you thought you were talking about. You can sell make a profit from pictures with someone in them, you can't make it appear (as I learned in journalism classes in college) they're endorsing a product, or put them in a false light, or take pictures when there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Legally speaking, walking down the road while someone takes a picture of a tourist destination (for example) gives you absolutely no recourse. They can make as much money from selling that image as they want, so long as they don't try to imply something that did not happen did.
The whole purpose of news is to get eyes to look at the ads they show for about 8 to 10 minutes per half hour. Why should newsworthiness make a difference if any for-profit photography was banned? Are news agencies non-profits now?
I've gotten a first class fare for a round trip flight for about $100 more than business class before. It's not a common thing, but if you're flexible you can find it.
How is money to Amtrak going to produce jobs? Sure, it helps out the people working for Amtrak, but every passenger on Amtrak is NON-passenger on Greyhound or Delta.
Interesting theory, but from Portland to Seattle (for an example) for me is a choice between Amtrak and driving. I'm not going to pay the premium to fly, needing to get out to PDX and then from SEATAC to downtown when I can take Amtrak much easier, and in about the same amount of time.
Greyhound? No thanks, I'll just drive instead. If we're going to help Delta or any airline (as we've done many, many times) why not help Amtrak which is more appropriate for shorter trips?
I have a feeling a lot of politicians just think that it's not that important. They just don't get it that we can add tubes, and it's worth it.
Apparently this happens a bit up there, eh?
The very existence of Free Software, Open Source and even Apple undermines the notion that Microsoft wants to plant in everybodies head : that software is so complex that you need a company as big as them for research, development, production and support of software.
Paranoid much?
Microsoft is simply a corporation, trying to make as much money as it can. They want as much market share as possible, obviously, but you seem to be taking it out on an emotional limb there.
Perhaps they should turn off the TV and either work on their resume and start networking, or go learn a new trade. I've yet to be convinced how watching network TV will re-employ several million jobseekers.
It's not just young people who are effected by this change. How about my 68 year old neighbor who lives on a fixed income? Why should he have to spend $40-$50 out of pocket to keep watching his television that works just fine?
All this so a few people can enjoy HDTV without cable or satellite (and net $18 Billion).
You meant to say DTV. The coupon eligible boxes can't output at HDTV resolutions.
You want hard mnemonics? Try the bones. Erg. Makes me cringe whenever I hear that there are that many bones in a body and doctors have to memorize them all. Course they won't make sense to me at all, but they don't need to make it make sense to me do they?
It's easier than you'd think, since the bones of the fingers and toes are all named the same. The ribs and spinal column are essentially numbered as well.
It's been 8 years since I took Anatomy and Physiology and I still can name nearly every uniquely-named bone in the body. There are a few I'd need a reminder on, but most of them are fairly standardized.
I guess that ties it back to the article enough...
That's (in my opinion) part of why the Super Bowl kicks the living hell out of the World Series in the Nielsen ratings, as well as international interest. If I haven't given a shit about baseball all year, I'm not going to start liking it enough to watch seven games. One, sure. Not seven.
Almost all people have to show a profit at their job. What makes a CEO or Chairman of the Board any different? Showing a profit doesn't have to mean throwing away your morals, it just might.