It is purest sophistry to suggest that laws against theft exist to protect one against the consequences of his decision to put himself in a situation where theft from him would be possible. One might take every conceivable precaution against theft and still find himself a victim of theft. Even were everyone to be so prudent, laws against theft would still be necessary in order to dissuade potential thieves from deciding to take up the profession. Conversely, the revenge-porn law, insofar as it covers incidents in which the victim willingly took and sent the relevant pictures, protects people from their own choices, and is thus different in kind.
I really don't see what the benefit is
That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal. Hence the argument that "no one needs an assault weapon" or "no one needs to buy liquor on Sunday" are in themselves insufficient to justify associated restrictions. Likewise, that one can conceive of benefits for a law is not grounds for enacting it. One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.
If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter. As it stands, it should raise the hackles of feminists everywhere.
Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.
What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.
Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.
The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also have laws against taking advantage of the poor decision-making capabilities of the feeble-minded. It is another thing entirely to afford such protection to a group of people one would suppose to comprise rational adults. It is worth considering whether any benefits of the law are worth the cost of placing women as a whole (and these sites appear to focus near exclusively on pictures of women) amongst the rest of those we presume not to hold wholly responsible for their actions, especially given that women already have a difficult time getting taken seriously.
It's been more than fifteen years since Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Certainly humans don't stand a chance against modern chess software and hardware.
Nonsense. As Kurt Russell demonstrated in The Thing, it is possible for even a very bad player to absolutely destroy a seemingly unbeatable chess computer, as long as you're drunk enough to quell any tendency toward impulse control.
HELLO! GLADYS? I'M ON THE PLANE! I CAN SEE CLOUDS! ONE LOOKS LIKE A RUTABAGA! DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS ANYTHING? SO HOW WAS YOUR DAY? WAIT SOMEONE NEXT TO ME IS TRYING TO GET MY ATTENTION. EXCUSE ME CAN'T YOU SEE I'M ON THE PHONE? HOW RUDE!
People are really bad at understanding statistics.
The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.
This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.
I understand statistics perfectly well. Three out of three stories I've read about car explosions have involved Teslas. That's a 100% detonation rate! Who runs this company, Al Qaeda?
As any Prius owner will be happy to inform you, Priuses don't catch fire unless the owner has purchased a sufficient number of carbon credits to compensate for the fire's environmental impact.
"One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next, boom, your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your Bentley." - Louis Winthorpe III
My kid's so dumb, even when I owned Bentley, they still didn't admit him.
There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.
Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world. 100% of the earth's population would be related to him, rather than 10% of Asia or whatever it is. You couldn't ask a girl out without then discovering she's some distant relative. Earth would become Planet Redneck.
This memory (dance competition) will be lost now, because it was not recorded.
You think you have it bad, consider all those camera-less sad sacks who existed before the 19th century, who could never record any memories at all. I mean, I assume they couldn't. I guess nobody will ever know for sure.
I suppose a lot of people deal with tragedy through humor, but I sure wouldn't want to be a surviving family member and read some of the comments posted so far.
Seriously, it amazes me how people can fail to understand the gravity of this kind of situation.
I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.
What stopped hijackings is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers crashed their planes.
The danger is in who gets to define what constitutes reckless driving
That's another issue from what makes car insurance different from health insurance. I would agree that one problem with this scheme is that someone might be an aggressive but safe driver, whereas someone else might drive passively but still get into a lot of accidents. As for basing insurance rates on what kind of car you drive, they already do that. Some cars get into more accidents than others because of the kind of people who buy them (eg, corvette drivers are more likely go out in a fiery blaze of glory than drivers of chrysler pacificas). I'd be surprised if they don't also use your credit score, assuming that's legal.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
Presumably the insurance industry will argue that you can decide not to drag race through a school zone whilst huffing shoe polish, but you can't decide not to get cancer, unless you can (by not smoking), in which case your insurance does go down (relative to smokers).
When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?
Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?
Is this the same federal govt that developed movies and campaigns saying that smoking pot would cause you to go insane, kill and rape people?
From the perspective of reducing your eventual jail sentence, doing the killing before the raping actually seems relatively sane, insofar as at that point, presumably all you're guilty of is desecrating a corpse.
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
It'll be even more interesting when they're able to simulate the rest of the 10-year and mass produce the results. Would that be an unspeakable abomination or a means of preserving real 10-year-olds from predators?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. It's refreshing to see someone accept such criticism gracefully.
I really don't see what the benefit is
That one cannot conceive of a benefit for some kind of behavior is not grounds for making it illegal. Hence the argument that "no one needs an assault weapon" or "no one needs to buy liquor on Sunday" are in themselves insufficient to justify associated restrictions. Likewise, that one can conceive of benefits for a law is not grounds for enacting it. One must weigh as well the detriments, in this case the consequences of proclaiming women to be in need of protections generally reserved for those judged mentally incompetent.
If the law were to protect women from the posting of photos stolen from them, or taken without their consent, this would be another matter. As it stands, it should raise the hackles of feminists everywhere.
Mod me down as a troll, but I'm going to call your stupid and asinine statement out. I _want_ to live in a world where my girlfriend, or certain adventurous female friends of mine, feel safe in sending me nudie pics on my phone, and do so because they feel they can without fear of reprisal, revenge, blackmail, or hacking. Because a world like that means that YOU, and every other man out there can also reap that kind of benefit.
What's stupid, is asshats like Kevin Bollaert and others like him slut-shaming women for the lulz, and then profiting via blackmail. When that shit happens, then women don't feel safe in sending nudie pics to men they trust, and we don't get to see them. So I damn well hope they throw the book at him, and I damn well hope we can reverse this trend, because I'd personally like to receive more nudie pics from happy, well-adjusted women with roaring sex drives and a desire for a little exhibitionistic titillation.
Self-righteous blustering on behalf of sexual freedom aside, there are arguments to be made firstly that a law criminalizing posting revenge porn is a paternalistic abomination, and secondly that the fact the law happens to benefit you personally is irrelevant to whether the law is justified.
The state does make laws that protect people from the consequences of their own actions. Thus we have laws against children buying alcohol and cigarettes, and we treat juvenile offenders differently from adults. We also have laws against taking advantage of the poor decision-making capabilities of the feeble-minded. It is another thing entirely to afford such protection to a group of people one would suppose to comprise rational adults. It is worth considering whether any benefits of the law are worth the cost of placing women as a whole (and these sites appear to focus near exclusively on pictures of women) amongst the rest of those we presume not to hold wholly responsible for their actions, especially given that women already have a difficult time getting taken seriously.
While journals are not perfect, they do (usually) maintain some minimum bars and filters for the material that goes into them.
"Journals published by Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage all accepted my bogus paper."
More importantly, the Russians who had ample reason to do so... have never challenged the Apollo accomplishment.
What are you talking about? A Russian demolished Apollo and we had to go there and get revenge.
DO NOT buy one of these for your wife or girlfriend. In fact, don't ever acknowledge that you're aware of its existence.
-jcr
I don't recommend this approach. That's what I did, and ultimately it divorced me and took half my stuff.
all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
that's what I said, but they still kicked me out of my daughter's piano recital for wearing a gimp suit.
The product/s in question may have infringed on the human rights of others.
I'll be impressed when they build a product capable of infringing on its own human rights.
show me an electric car I can slap my truck nuts on without it looks like I'm doing it ironically, and you got yourself a sale
I realize that they have to make money, but I find the sponsor logos on their jackets rather tacky.
I guess you won't like Carlsen's new television advertisement for adult incontinence diapers: "For an impenetrable defense."
It's been more than fifteen years since Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Certainly humans don't stand a chance against modern chess software and hardware.
Nonsense. As Kurt Russell demonstrated in The Thing, it is possible for even a very bad player to absolutely destroy a seemingly unbeatable chess computer, as long as you're drunk enough to quell any tendency toward impulse control.
HELLO! GLADYS? I'M ON THE PLANE! I CAN SEE CLOUDS! ONE LOOKS LIKE A RUTABAGA! DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS ANYTHING? SO HOW WAS YOUR DAY? WAIT SOMEONE NEXT TO ME IS TRYING TO GET MY ATTENTION. EXCUSE ME CAN'T YOU SEE I'M ON THE PHONE? HOW RUDE!
great, now I have to bypass the yelling filter... sdlfjals;kdfjakl; sklsfdlkas; lsdksdk lsk dslk sdl ksdlk; dsl;sd ldslklsd klds;l dsl;k ksdkl;sdlkdskl; sd;klsdk l; sdkllks;d skdl; skldkl;ds k;ldskldsklsfjlskdfk sdl lks dklds lks;dlk ds ;klsdlk dsdkls slkldkslk;d;klsdkl dsl;skd l;kds ksdl; sdkldslk sldk;l kdsk;lsd lkkl;ds ds ;klsd kl;kdsl; k;ldsksd kl k;sdkl;sl;kd klsd;lkds l;kdslk sd;lkk; lsd;lkds l;ksd;klds ;klsdkldsl;k sd ;lksd ;klsd l;ksdl;k sd lk;dsl ;ksdl ;kds l;kds l;kdskl ;sdklsd k;l;sdkl;klsd;klsd kl;ds k;lds; lksdkl; ds;kl sdkl ;sdl ksd klsd; lkdsk ldsklsd;lkds ;lkds ;lkds ;klds; lksd;kl
People are really bad at understanding statistics.
The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.
This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.
I understand statistics perfectly well. Three out of three stories I've read about car explosions have involved Teslas. That's a 100% detonation rate! Who runs this company, Al Qaeda?
how many Priuses catch fire in wrecks
As any Prius owner will be happy to inform you, Priuses don't catch fire unless the owner has purchased a sufficient number of carbon credits to compensate for the fire's environmental impact.
"One minute you're up half a million in soybeans and the next, boom, your kids don't go to college and they've repossessed your Bentley." - Louis Winthorpe III
My kid's so dumb, even when I owned Bentley, they still didn't admit him.
Genghis Khan existed. Jesus not.
There is strong evidence that Jesus existed. He may not have been divine, but he was almost certainly a real person.
Imagine if Jesus had hooked Genghis up with his breakthrough water-walking technology. Khan could have taken over the entire world. 100% of the earth's population would be related to him, rather than 10% of Asia or whatever it is. You couldn't ask a girl out without then discovering she's some distant relative. Earth would become Planet Redneck.
This memory (dance competition) will be lost now, because it was not recorded.
You think you have it bad, consider all those camera-less sad sacks who existed before the 19th century, who could never record any memories at all. I mean, I assume they couldn't. I guess nobody will ever know for sure.
I suppose a lot of people deal with tragedy through humor, but I sure wouldn't want to be a surviving family member and read some of the comments posted so far.
Seriously, it amazes me how people can fail to understand the gravity of this kind of situation.
I think the singular rule that stopped hijackings of substantial significance was enacted far later than the other provisions that represent a significant step backwards for freedom.
What stopped hijackings is the fact that the 9/11 hijackers crashed their planes.
The danger is in who gets to define what constitutes reckless driving
That's another issue from what makes car insurance different from health insurance. I would agree that one problem with this scheme is that someone might be an aggressive but safe driver, whereas someone else might drive passively but still get into a lot of accidents. As for basing insurance rates on what kind of car you drive, they already do that. Some cars get into more accidents than others because of the kind of people who buy them (eg, corvette drivers are more likely go out in a fiery blaze of glory than drivers of chrysler pacificas). I'd be surprised if they don't also use your credit score, assuming that's legal.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
Presumably the insurance industry will argue that you can decide not to drag race through a school zone whilst huffing shoe polish, but you can't decide not to get cancer, unless you can (by not smoking), in which case your insurance does go down (relative to smokers).
When was the last time you actually counted as high as 507? I'm not talking about counting to 100 five times and then another seven, but actually counting each number from 1 to 507?
Seems like it would take a while. How many numbers is that, exactly?
Once they have these minor inconveniences ironed out I look forward to printing my own hand grenades
Apparently, you can already make a hand grenade. It's called a Liberator.
Is this the same federal govt that developed movies and campaigns saying that smoking pot would cause you to go insane, kill and rape people?
From the perspective of reducing your eventual jail sentence, doing the killing before the raping actually seems relatively sane, insofar as at that point, presumably all you're guilty of is desecrating a corpse.
What are they charged with? "Molesting under age pixels"?
It'll be even more interesting when they're able to simulate the rest of the 10-year and mass produce the results. Would that be an unspeakable abomination or a means of preserving real 10-year-olds from predators?