The simple solution is to press extortion charges against websites that offer to take down pictures of the subjects for money.
Suppose I legally own private images of a former girlfriend, which I kept private as I should. Suppose she and her husband wish to take possession of those images, including any copies in my possession (I state no one else has copies, and this is true). Their lawyer submits a proposal to me, which includes monetary compensation for my time and for voluntarily giving up something which I legally own. If I accept, am I at risk of being charged with extortion?
This said, public release of unconvicted arrested people is barbaric. Having said also this, one must note that there's a strong lobby who defends criminals against their potential victims and their right to defend themselves. This includes the knowledge, for instance, that your new neighbor is a convicted sex offender.
Because the sperm needs a temperature a bit lower than body temp in order to be generated.
And isn't that a really dumbass design? Surely an intelligent designer would have made sperm nice and happy at body temperature. And here's the silly thing: there's a fair bit of body temperature variation in mammals, yet none seem to manage to have the testes inside.
Why don't male birds with even higher body temperatures fly around with a pair of danglies hanging below their feathers? Perhaps the designer decided that birds were to get better features like body temperature sperm and uniflow lungs.
You seem to underestimate the irresistible attractiveness of danglies, moreover, if you are unable to prevent a male competitor to bite yours off, you don't deserve reproduction.
Maybe the designer isn't that intelligent, but she's got a sense of humor.
eg. Why does food go down the same hole as the air? How many people choke to death on food every day?
Obviously not too many, otherwise evolution would have taken care of the flaw. Which, since so many species thrive with this kind of epiglottis, is more a trade-off than a major flaw.
People prefer a $1 McDouble over a $15 premium burger. The public chose VHS over Betamax. "Good enough" is good enough.
Not really, not always. Many people are willing to pay more for better tv sets, fancy cars, U2 concerts, great food. The problem in this case is technology helped low-level musicians much more than mid-range ones, not that people love crap.
Not just different. Wildly different. Here almost everyone sides with the self-defense (established) theory. The few exceptions are on the whole suspiciously grammar-impaired. In the general public it's the opposite, starting from Tricky Baracky who feels a strong sense of identity with the aggressor (did he often use the term "cracker" as a pot-smoking teenager?).
Since GZ would be dead now hadn't he carried a gun, I guess you'll advocate for NW to change their policies. Or, ask a 17 years old football player to bash your head on concrete, and you'll agree.
Out of joke, the point is there is much more pressure to protect the criminal's life than the victim's. This has to be changed.
We basically need another Caucasian (FTFY) as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.
Could you please clarify who "We" is? Because as far as I can understand Americans as a whole and American business everywhere got an enormous advantage by electing a President who is so hard to hate by lowlives and traditional enemies around the world. Not even his runner-ups dared to attack him harshly.
Moreover, a President who is so teleprompter-dependent (to put it mildly) is every lobbyist's dream. Very good for the economy.
I took the liberty to FTFY since I can't believe you really think Carter an Clinton were some kind of press darlings, so it must be an oversight on your part.
the only ignorance in that mentality is thinking that the citizens will be the ones who will ultimately "win" here.
I'm afraid you fail to see a much bigger ignorance in your mentality. You talk about citizens while you should rather say the tiny % of citizens who actually give a damn about internet freedom (or lack of control and regulation).
People make revolutions for things they care about; unsurprisingly, they let politicians do what the lobbies command on all the other issues. In my country I can't see thousands of protesters in the streets on this issue. Not even dozens. Not even one.
Politicians are evil, but on this matter they don't even need to be, to get what they want.
There is absolutely no chance that this results in changes in Finnish copyright laws. They'll have to vote on it, and they'll vote not to do anything just out of pure spinelessness.
Whoa, do lobbyists use violence in Finland? Because AFAIK they use cash everywhere else, so it's greed over spinelessness
How will the bot catch pedophiles if it pretends to be a 14 year old girls? Pedophiles won't be very interested, instead it might, in best/worst case, attract hebephiles. Or just normal teenage boys.
Or mature rock guitar players, in which case the bot's mother would likely have any charge dropped.
2- Behaving in a manner that is grossly incompatible with the office. The obvious example here is Bill Clinton.
You're already on the tricky one in point two. What's obvious for you might not be for others. Bill Clinton's cheating behavior was child's play compared to JFK's, to name one. But when the big dogs start barking the whole Land of Freedom barks. And when they don't, no Chihuahua does.
Coming to Tricky Baracky, do you really think that private sexual behavior is less compatible with the office than, say, keep on talking in an official occasion during the Queen's Anthem, being hushed by her in front of everyone and thus becoming the laughing stock of... well, anyone who cares to notice? Trained waiters know better. Is there a minimum competence level which is compatible with "the office"? Does this level include the oratorical ability not to talk folly in case of teleprompter malfunction? We all know this guy isn't smarter than Bush II, but "we give a breathalyzer to asthmatic children in the ER", for fuck's sake!?.
But I truly admire the US ruling class artfulness in choosing a guy who's so hard to hate or even criticize for any fool around the world (Benghazi and Snowdengate under Romney, go figure...).
Both racism and ethnocentrism can have negative effects, but ethnocentrism is not always coupled with hate.
Your implication is false. Albert Schweitzer didn't hate blacks and considered them inferior. Something similar could be said about Lincoln. You would be right only if science showed blacks are truly inferior.
ATMs, really? Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority? These are all things you puts your hands on that have been touched by thousands other people. So where do you stop then?
One meter? So that's just enough to stand in water up to your head
It's enough to survive a dunk in the toilet (and subsequent washing in the sink) or a drop into a puddle. In other words, it'd cover 95% of water damage a typical phone might be subjected to
, which would make insurance either unnecessary or very cheap.
Ironically any product forced on me using this bone conduction method will just piss me off so much that it will leave me deliberately avoiding that product.
I'm afraid you belong in a negligible minority of people who don't love ads. Reluctant people like you will require more aggressive techniques. Just be patient and enjoy your current freedom.
The USA is deploying a strategic anti-missile systems. Russians are freaking out on that. Provided anti-missile systems really work (you never know) the Russians' best counter-measure is having many warheads AND many fake ones (the enemy mustn't know which is which). So, why should the Russian not boycott a new START?
Actually, the only good news since the cold war is that Russian decision-makers (Putin's fat-cat friends) have much more to lose than the average American one. This is quite different from the cold war era, when the flower-bearing American dreamer was no match for the Soviet war-hungry Politburo member.
One more thing: I'm really bothered by the fact that the Administration is trying to sell a new START as a move towards peace and not a simple cost-cutting measure (is it,/.ters?). Sounds like Tricky Baracky will have to look elsewhere for his little publicity stunt.
you've still got the fact that it's $8 for a ticket and then $5 for a popcorn, $5 for a soda, $5 for a box of Junior Mints... It's simply too expensive for the 2 hours of (possible) enjoyment?
If you travel to Europe don't miss our theaters, where people are not forced to buy popcorn, soda and Junior Mints (whatever the latter are). 8$ is reasonable.
Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:
Are you seriously trying to imply that the stock market in the short term is an objective measure of, well, anything other than the emotions of the participants?
I partly agree, the analysis sounds a little too black and white. Many corporations are just too large to let everyone in the teams meet face to face with one another. There are periodical team meetings and more frequent subteam ones. The bottom line is, shared workspaces when you're in the office, a variable amount of telecommuting days for much of the workforce. As usual tailored solutions are the best.
If that were true. the companies selling those home warranties would be bankrupt. It is mathematically impossible for almost all customers to get more money out of their home warranties than they put.
Did you miss the second half of a 2-line post?
I assume most people with them [home warranties] forget they have them and call the plumber or electrician or HVAC guy or garage door guy themselves
And part of the first, too, since "almost" referred to the incidents occurred to a single customer and not to the general population of customers. BTW, that's consistent with my experience, too.
I think you're confusing encryption (a Good Thing) with DRM (a Bad Thing). If encrypted, only authorized doctors would have the decryption key. They can access the data when needed. If DRM'd , the moment the controlling body -- think online gaming server -- dies or is obsoleted, no doctor will ever again be able to access your records. Not an ideal situation.
I think you're confusing a situation in which the sender trusts the receiver blindly (encryption is OK) with another when the common goal is partial.
"Doc, if you want to sell my MRI to Evilpharm at least make an effort and rip my MKV"
... like Iosif Stalin until they realize they are even worse than the evil they are being used to fight against, so that there simply is no "right way" to handle the matter? What about starting to understand how history works, the factual relativity of good and evil or, if unable to do so, stopping to bother altogether?
Slashdot Mirror
The simple solution is to press extortion charges against websites that offer to take down pictures of the subjects for money.
Suppose I legally own private images of a former girlfriend, which I kept private as I should. Suppose she and her husband wish to take possession of those images, including any copies in my possession (I state no one else has copies, and this is true). Their lawyer submits a proposal to me, which includes monetary compensation for my time and for voluntarily giving up something which I legally own. If I accept, am I at risk of being charged with extortion?
This said, public release of unconvicted arrested people is barbaric. Having said also this, one must note that there's a strong lobby who defends criminals against their potential victims and their right to defend themselves. This includes the knowledge, for instance, that your new neighbor is a convicted sex offender.
Because the sperm needs a temperature a bit lower than body temp in order to be generated.
And isn't that a really dumbass design? Surely an intelligent designer would have made sperm nice and happy at body temperature. And here's the silly thing: there's a fair bit of body temperature variation in mammals, yet none seem to manage to have the testes inside.
Why don't male birds with even higher body temperatures fly around with a pair of danglies hanging below their feathers? Perhaps the designer decided that birds were to get better features like body temperature sperm and uniflow lungs.
You seem to underestimate the irresistible attractiveness of danglies, moreover, if you are unable to prevent a male competitor to bite yours off, you don't deserve reproduction.
Maybe the designer isn't that intelligent, but she's got a sense of humor.
the number of major design flaws is staggering.
eg. Why does food go down the same hole as the air? How many people choke to death on food every day?
Obviously not too many, otherwise evolution would have taken care of the flaw. Which, since so many species thrive with this kind of epiglottis, is more a trade-off than a major flaw.
You just proved /. needs a Score:6
People prefer a $1 McDouble over a $15 premium burger. The public chose VHS over Betamax. "Good enough" is good enough.
Not really, not always. Many people are willing to pay more for better tv sets, fancy cars, U2 concerts, great food.
The problem in this case is technology helped low-level musicians much more than mid-range ones, not that people love crap.
You may have guessed the "different from" sign disappeared from the subject of my post.
Not just different. Wildly different. Here almost everyone sides with the self-defense (established) theory. The few exceptions are on the whole suspiciously grammar-impaired.
In the general public it's the opposite, starting from Tricky Baracky who feels a strong sense of identity with the aggressor (did he often use the term "cracker" as a pot-smoking teenager?).
Since GZ would be dead now hadn't he carried a gun, I guess you'll advocate for NW to change their policies.
Or, ask a 17 years old football player to bash your head on concrete, and you'll agree.
Out of joke, the point is there is much more pressure to protect the criminal's life than the victim's. This has to be changed.
We basically need another Caucasian (FTFY) as president so that the press can go back to attacking the president instead of being his trained lapdog.
Could you please clarify who "We" is? Because as far as I can understand Americans as a whole and American business everywhere got an enormous advantage by electing a President who is so hard to hate by lowlives and traditional enemies around the world. Not even his runner-ups dared to attack him harshly.
Moreover, a President who is so teleprompter-dependent (to put it mildly) is every lobbyist's dream. Very good for the economy.
I took the liberty to FTFY since I can't believe you really think Carter an Clinton were some kind of press darlings, so it must be an oversight on your part.
the only ignorance in that mentality is thinking that the citizens will be the ones who will ultimately "win" here.
I'm afraid you fail to see a much bigger ignorance in your mentality. You talk about citizens while you should rather say the tiny % of citizens who actually give a damn about internet freedom (or lack of control and regulation).
People make revolutions for things they care about; unsurprisingly, they let politicians do what the lobbies command on all the other issues.
In my country I can't see thousands of protesters in the streets on this issue. Not even dozens. Not even one.
Politicians are evil, but on this matter they don't even need to be, to get what they want.
A Finn here.
There is absolutely no chance that this results in changes in Finnish copyright laws. They'll have to vote on it, and they'll vote not to do anything just out of pure spinelessness.
Whoa, do lobbyists use violence in Finland? Because AFAIK they use cash everywhere else, so it's greed over spinelessness
How will the bot catch pedophiles if it pretends to be a 14 year old girls? Pedophiles won't be very interested, instead it might, in best/worst case, attract hebephiles. Or just normal teenage boys.
Or mature rock guitar players, in which case the bot's mother would likely have any charge dropped.
2- Behaving in a manner that is grossly incompatible with the office. The obvious example here is Bill Clinton.
You're already on the tricky one in point two. What's obvious for you might not be for others. Bill Clinton's cheating behavior was child's play compared to JFK's, to name one. But when the big dogs start barking the whole Land of Freedom barks. And when they don't, no Chihuahua does.
Coming to Tricky Baracky, do you really think that private sexual behavior is less compatible with the office than, say, keep on talking in an official occasion during the Queen's Anthem, being hushed by her in front of everyone and thus becoming the laughing stock of ... well, anyone who cares to notice? Trained waiters know better. Is there a minimum competence level which is compatible with "the office"? Does this level include the oratorical ability not to talk folly in case of teleprompter malfunction? We all know this guy isn't smarter than Bush II, but "we give a breathalyzer to asthmatic children in the ER", for fuck's sake!?.
But I truly admire the US ruling class artfulness in choosing a guy who's so hard to hate or even criticize for any fool around the world (Benghazi and Snowdengate under Romney, go figure ...).
Both racism and ethnocentrism can have negative effects, but ethnocentrism is not always coupled with hate.
Your implication is false. Albert Schweitzer didn't hate blacks and considered them inferior. Something similar could be said about Lincoln. You would be right only if science showed blacks are truly inferior.
ATMs, really? Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority? These are all things you puts your hands on that have been touched by thousands other people. So where do you stop then?
1) Yes. 2) No. 3) At the ATM, to get some cash.
It's enough to survive a dunk in the toilet (and subsequent washing in the sink) or a drop into a puddle. In other words, it'd cover 95% of water damage a typical phone might be subjected to
, which would make insurance either unnecessary or very cheap.
Ironically any product forced on me using this bone conduction method will just piss me off so much that it will leave me deliberately avoiding that product.
I'm afraid you belong in a negligible minority of people who don't love ads. Reluctant people like you will require more aggressive techniques. Just be patient and enjoy your current freedom.
The USA is deploying a strategic anti-missile systems. Russians are freaking out on that. Provided anti-missile systems really work (you never know) the Russians' best counter-measure is having many warheads AND many fake ones (the enemy mustn't know which is which).
So, why should the Russian not boycott a new START?
Actually, the only good news since the cold war is that Russian decision-makers (Putin's fat-cat friends) have much more to lose than the average American one.
This is quite different from the cold war era, when the flower-bearing American dreamer was no match for the Soviet war-hungry Politburo member.
One more thing: I'm really bothered by the fact that the Administration is trying to sell a new START as a move towards peace and not a simple cost-cutting measure (is it, /.ters?). Sounds like Tricky Baracky will have to look elsewhere for his little publicity stunt.
you've still got the fact that it's $8 for a ticket and then $5 for a popcorn, $5 for a soda, $5 for a box of Junior Mints... It's simply too expensive for the 2 hours of (possible) enjoyment?
If you travel to Europe don't miss our theaters, where people are not forced to buy popcorn, soda and Junior Mints (whatever the latter are). 8$ is reasonable.
Samsung's stock took a 6% hit, or $10B in market cap lost, when it was RUMORED they were losing Apple chip contract last year:
Are you seriously trying to imply that the stock market in the short term is an objective measure of, well, anything other than the emotions of the participants?
Yes.
I partly agree, the analysis sounds a little too black and white. Many corporations are just too large to let everyone in the teams meet face to face with one another. There are periodical team meetings and more frequent subteam ones. The bottom line is, shared workspaces when you're in the office, a variable amount of telecommuting days for much of the workforce. As usual tailored solutions are the best.
If that were true. the companies selling those home warranties would be bankrupt. It is mathematically impossible for almost all customers to get more money out of their home warranties than they put.
Did you miss the second half of a 2-line post?
I assume most people with them [home warranties] forget they have them and call the plumber or electrician or HVAC guy or garage door guy themselves
And part of the first, too, since "almost" referred to the incidents occurred to a single customer and not to the general population of customers.
BTW, that's consistent with my experience, too.
I think you're confusing encryption (a Good Thing) with DRM (a Bad Thing). If encrypted, only authorized doctors would have the decryption key. They can access the data when needed. If DRM'd , the moment the controlling body -- think online gaming server -- dies or is obsoleted, no doctor will ever again be able to access your records. Not an ideal situation.
I think you're confusing a situation in which the sender trusts the receiver blindly (encryption is OK) with another when the common goal is partial.
"Doc, if you want to sell my MRI to Evilpharm at least make an effort and rip my MKV"
we find the children that need the LEAST amount of help, and give them the most help.
What we actually do is investing education money in a way that maximizes the return for society. And we should do that even more.
What about the US government supporting dictators
... like Iosif Stalin until they realize they are even worse than the evil they are being used to fight against, so that there simply is no "right way" to handle the matter?
What about starting to understand how history works, the factual relativity of good and evil or, if unable to do so, stopping to bother altogether?