This law would never have survived First Amendment scrutiny anyway. It not only prohibited taking the videos, but also prohibited displaying them on the news.
And yet, child pronography laws somehow manage to survive that same First Amendment scrutiniy.
No disrespect intended towards rape victims, but why is a company responsible for one of its employees raping another employee? The scum-sucking shitbag who committed the rape is responsible for his actions, not his employer. Is it because it happens overseas?
Exactly. If it happened overseas, the perp may be out of reach of justice. His employer is not. This is meant as a way to make sure that the perp is at least punished internally (... because he harmed the company through his act). If the company does not suffer from it, it has no incentive to remove these bad apples.
I'm not aware of any other crime which I'm allowed to sue my employer for if a coworker victimizes me with.
Mobbing, discrimination and other kinds of harassment...
The trouble is that these "animal protection" outfits (themselves large multinational corporations) aren't filming actual incidents, but rather, are *staging* incidents for the purpose of filming them. So yes, the "protectionists" are actually abusing animals to demonstrate abuse.
If that was indeed the case, then why do we need new laws? Why don't we use the existing animal protection laws to sue the "protectionists", and make sure that the outcome was made known to the public?
Have all you flash haters not seen any javascript html exploits?
I've got news for you: many have disabled javascript as well, just for that reason. And thanks to the Flashblock and NoScript extension, you can easily re-enable the offending elements on a case-by-case basis for the rare sites which can't be convinced to be respectful of their customers privacy and security.
And, what's more, there's the Flashblock Add-on, which lets you re-enable flash on a case-by-case basis for the rare occasion where you need it, and where the culprit won't listen to its customers.
Too bad that pushing 90% of the web these days uses it including for full site design.
But honestly, who needs those 90% of crap sites? And if some needed site slips in along with all the trash, there's e-mail, there's phone, and there's competitors.
If more people did the civic thing, and actually call the relevant companies when there is a problem, it wouldn't be such a huge issue.
So she was shining it directly in the eyes of other patrons?
Usually, the entrances to a theater are at the back, and you walk towards the screen. When using a flashlight you shine into the direction you walk (i.e. towards the screen, but to the floor). Other patrons are also looking towards the screen (they want to follow the movie, after all...).
So, unless she was very clumsy, or unless the theater was layed out in a very strange way, or unless one of the patrons was looking backwards (rather than at the movie), there's no way she should have shone her flashlight directly into the eyes of other patrons.
Case in point, in the olden days, theaters actually had ushers who showed late coming patrons the way to their seats using a small flashlight...
But then, as others have pointed out, she probably was actually texting, and only using the flashlight bit as a bullshit excuse.
A couple of years ago, I tried to penetrate Lustrust, but I didn't manage. Indeed, the security hole that I was aiming for was protected by 2 big phat lunar firewalls. However I still managed to deface it, and the defacement stayed for a couple of days...
What's more, the bank account was compromised because of the account holder's lousy security that ended up with them getting keyloggers on their computers. Why should the bank be liable for that?
Some banks actually specify that the customer's computer should be vulnerable to keyloggers. So, if this was the case here, it would make perfect sense to make the bank liable for it.
Naked man walks out of shower, sees pretty maid, and can't help having an immediate erection.
Maid interprets this involuntary biological reaction as an attack, and rushes down to the lobby to complain about it to her manager... who makes her feel stupid by pointing out that this is a natural reaction of a naked male.
So, she adds the other details in order to not seem stupid.
For example, if a male guest calls for service, the housekeeping department will send up a male attendant.
“Oftentimes, male guests will order the pay-per-view adult movies, and then call for towels, perhaps hoping that a woman will be sent to bring them up,” said Peter M. Krauss, chief sales and marketing officer for Plasticard Locktech International of Asheville, N.C., which provides card keys to hotels. “So whenever they can, the hotels will send up a male if the call comes from a male guest.”
Pssht! There are three kinds of adult movies.... And for one kind, it might be safer to send a female attendant, especially if the guest ordered extra soap...
Slashdot Mirror
This law would never have survived First Amendment scrutiny anyway. It not only prohibited taking the videos, but also prohibited displaying them on the news.
And yet, child pronography laws somehow manage to survive that same First Amendment scrutiniy.
No disrespect intended towards rape victims, but why is a company responsible for one of its employees raping another employee? The scum-sucking shitbag who committed the rape is responsible for his actions, not his employer. Is it because it happens overseas?
Exactly. If it happened overseas, the perp may be out of reach of justice. His employer is not. This is meant as a way to make sure that the perp is at least punished internally (... because he harmed the company through his act). If the company does not suffer from it, it has no incentive to remove these bad apples.
I'm not aware of any other crime which I'm allowed to sue my employer for if a coworker victimizes me with.
Mobbing, discrimination and other kinds of harassment...
The odds that a random bit of radioactive material creates a neutrino that just so happens to hit your detector are very small.
You might have missed the following bit from grand-parent:
Not to mention that the source is "Ibaraki Prefecture, east of Tokyo" (TFA), not exactly too far away from Fukushima
The trouble is that these "animal protection" outfits (themselves large multinational corporations) aren't filming actual incidents, but rather, are *staging* incidents for the purpose of filming them. So yes, the "protectionists" are actually abusing animals to demonstrate abuse.
If that was indeed the case, then why do we need new laws? Why don't we use the existing animal protection laws to sue the "protectionists", and make sure that the outcome was made known to the public?
Have all you flash haters not seen any javascript html exploits?
I've got news for you: many have disabled javascript as well, just for that reason. And thanks to the Flashblock and NoScript extension, you can easily re-enable the offending elements on a case-by-case basis for the rare sites which can't be convinced to be respectful of their customers privacy and security.
And, what's more, there's the Flashblock Add-on, which lets you re-enable flash on a case-by-case basis for the rare occasion where you need it, and where the culprit won't listen to its customers.
Too bad that pushing 90% of the web these days uses it including for full site design.
But honestly, who needs those 90% of crap sites? And if some needed site slips in along with all the trash, there's e-mail, there's phone, and there's competitors.
If more people did the civic thing, and actually call the relevant companies when there is a problem, it wouldn't be such a huge issue.
Something for the masses who don't know any better to swallow.
Really, the masses should remember that there are teeth in a mouth...
Wordpress introduces subtle syntax errors in HTTP headers quoted in your blog posts... And people still use that shitware?
What about the increasing numbers of patrons that are behind her, and thus looking at her and her cell phone, as she makes her way forward?
What sense would it make to shine her light backwards when she walks forwards?
So she was shining it directly in the eyes of other patrons?
Usually, the entrances to a theater are at the back, and you walk towards the screen. When using a flashlight you shine into the direction you walk (i.e. towards the screen, but to the floor). Other patrons are also looking towards the screen (they want to follow the movie, after all...).
So, unless she was very clumsy, or unless the theater was layed out in a very strange way, or unless one of the patrons was looking backwards (rather than at the movie), there's no way she should have shone her flashlight directly into the eyes of other patrons.
Case in point, in the olden days, theaters actually had ushers who showed late coming patrons the way to their seats using a small flashlight...
But then, as others have pointed out, she probably was actually texting, and only using the flashlight bit as a bullshit excuse.
What does this law proscribe that was not already covered by existing laws?
goatse
A couple of years ago, I tried to penetrate Lustrust, but I didn't manage. Indeed, the security hole that I was aiming for was protected by 2 big phat lunar firewalls. However I still managed to deface it, and the defacement stayed for a couple of days...
... then why do the terrorists spend so much effort trying to smuggle bottles of shampoo and other toiletries past the TSA perverts?
So, if you are looking for work in such a country, you better aim for brewer or bartender rather than for miner...
Kino.to goes down, welcome kino.so ! In any case, that domain would be more fitting for pirates.
Set it up so it can only connect to your bank's web site and to Windows Update.
Or better: switch to a bank who doesn't force you to use Windows.
What's more, the bank account was compromised because of the account holder's lousy security that ended up with them getting keyloggers on their computers. Why should the bank be liable for that?
Some banks actually specify that the customer's computer should be vulnerable to keyloggers. So, if this was the case here, it would make perfect sense to make the bank liable for it.
But then, don't turn around and later claim that it was non-consensual!
Maid interprets this involuntary biological reaction as an attack, and rushes down to the lobby to complain about it to her manager... who makes her feel stupid by pointing out that this is a natural reaction of a naked male.
So, she adds the other details in order to not seem stupid.
trying to force her out of the room by locking her in?judging by his career, the guy is smarter than that.
How can you lock somebody into a hotel room? Don't these door always open from the inside even if locked, for fire security reasons?
Remove the door before attempting rape.
Only if you are an exhibitionist (... or want another maid or guest to join in on the fun...)
For example, if a male guest calls for service, the housekeeping department will send up a male attendant.
“Oftentimes, male guests will order the pay-per-view adult movies, and then call for towels, perhaps hoping that a woman will be sent to bring them up,” said Peter M. Krauss, chief sales and marketing officer for Plasticard Locktech International of Asheville, N.C., which provides card keys to hotels. “So whenever they can, the hotels will send up a male if the call comes from a male guest.”
Pssht! There are three kinds of adult movies.... And for one kind, it might be safer to send a female attendant, especially if the guest ordered extra soap...
If I've just been driving her, I have to wait for the exhaut pipe to cool down...
Ouch!
it has come out now the the women were completely oblivious to his activities. He kept that completely separate from them.
A, so it was that kind of porn!