Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION. Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images exists when: (1) a person has threatened to disseminate an image or has intentionally disseminated an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image; (2) the image is of an individual engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed in whole or in part; and (3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private. (b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for a person who has disseminated the image without consent.
You've obviously never heard of jurt nullification. If the majority of people believe a law is unjust then they do not need to write to anyone to overturn it, that's the myth you've been fed. They have the power to overturn that law at any time as long as it's not common or constitutional and even then they can nullify any prosecution in court.
That doesn't overturn shit, even in the rare case where it happens.
This might shock you, but outlawing prostitution actually makes a lot of sense. A non-trivial portion of prostitutes are not willing. They're sex trafficked peoples forced into it often at gun point
Are there really people out there who still don't understand how prohibition _creates_ organized crime?
No. If they were being intellectually honest, they'd be raving mad that prostitution is illegal... because a non-trivial portion of the prostitutes are already not willing, and being criminally punished anyways! They'd be pushing to legalize the prostitution, and increase penalties on pimping and pandering.
1.
being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
Notice the lack of available degrees?
Whereas "wrong" has degrees because you can be partially wrong, or wrong in a way that is farther away from the truth. You can't be more or less unique.
since you don't admit to saying anything definite, only way to answer and assume you have a brain, is to articulate statements and then reply. you are free to say you did not say what is in those statements.
If you didn't understand what I said, the thing to do is to ask questions in good faith. Not to go all narcissistic and shit.
However brilliant you think you are, you do need to presume that people "have a brain" if you want to have any chance of saying something intelligent next time.
I read about half what you wrote, and the answers were right there in what I already said; there is an obvious good answer to each question, and it is even the most obvious perspective of somebody who said the things I already said. You should try to use "theory of mind" to understand what thought process is consistent with the positions I gave.
You really go off the rails with the nonsense about not knowing when open warfare would cease. That was actually a main point I already articulated.
If you don't understand my articulated positions, you're not in a position to disagree in the first place. If you understood and disagreed, then dialogue is possible. Even if you just wanted to slag my positions, you'd at least know what to point at.
You're adding in words I didn't say, trying to turn it into an absolute statement. But it wasn't. I didn't say "destroy all the [stuff]," I just said to "destroy the [stuff]." The implication is that I'm talking about the main part of it. Would there be a little left? Who cares?
You get all hand-wavy about needing to invade, based on imagined words, where the easiest solution is just to understand that isn't what is implied by my statement. Just, start out assuming I might be saying something intelligent. That way, if you disagree, you'll give your own opinions and try to support them, instead of just waving your hands and asserting opinions as facts.
If a war breaks out, the only "missiles, artillery, and armor" that we need to worry about are the ones that are fielded. If they hide some crap in a cave, who cares? The important thing is the endgame, and that works out best if we let Korea deal with the details of that. If peacekeepers are needed later, we'd know that when the provisional unification government asked for it. And the UN would probably be encouraging China to provide a significant portion of those troops. But that would all be after the open warfare had ceased.
Regarding Syria and Iraq, it may be simply that the US military has different goals than you presume. Also, the middle east isn't Korea.
BSD strives to exist, not to be popular. It also actively restricts participation, even to the point of refusing patches and re-implementing the same idea in a similar way. This reduces distractions, and helps maintain a static culture.
Linux has wide open participation, and prefers to accept existing (potentially imperfect) patches rather than re-invent a wheel. The culture is fairly open, and evolves over time.
They both have equal success, if you measure each based on achieving their own goals.
It is really simple to uninstall. Fedora server installs have had it for a long, long time. Generally it is just: remove package, write the old-style scripts with the correct names, done.
The reason I run it on a laptop is that I don't want to spend 10 minutes writing (or an hour searching for and evaluating options) a tray app to quickly bounce the connection. If I was only ever connecting to APs that are running on real servers, I wouldn't need that. But the consumer APs that are installed in most locations often get laggy after too many people connect more recently than you.
For wireless connections, Network Manager seems to work fairly well.
But in my experience, it's nothing but trouble for wired connections.
Same. I run it on systems that use client wifi, but I disable it everywhere else, such as servers... including servers that are also wifi hotspots!:)
When a server has a networking problem, I just want to get in and fix it. Having the interface bouncing on me while I try to fix it is not helpful. But if the laptop needs to bounce the wifi somewhere, just go ahead and try it. It might actually help in that situation. But if it is a dedicated workstation on ethernet, no, don't touch that interface.
Well, if you were to switch to a distro that uses it, you'd only find one major difference:
Your command that runs the init.d script for you would output a line telling you what other command it was running instead.
Of course, if you're not using that and you're running the init.d script directly, then you wouldn't notice any difference.
You can always still also install the SysV init.d scripts, when you run them directly the init system isn't even involved, so there is no harm in having both ways of doing a thing installed; the ones run by the init system aren't even seen by the user other than through a log, after all.
Slashdot Mirror
This is for cases where you have some evidence.
The same as all the other laws.
Strange rabbit-hole to fall down, considering that.
If it is a private, partially nude picture that was intended for personal use only then you have no legit right to post it anywhere.
Get consent.
I've always gotten consent. It is always the same conditions too... "you can show your friends but if you post it on the internet I'll kill you."
Sec. 2. [604.31] CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL
DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A
cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual
images exists when:
(1) a person has threatened to disseminate an image or has intentionally disseminated
an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image;
(2) the image is of an individual engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are
exposed in whole or in part; and
(3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which a reasonable
person would know or understand that the image was to remain private.
(b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the
image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for
a person who has disseminated the image without consent.
Or not.
He's not going to find one, he probably doesn't even know about Phoenix Jones.
You've obviously never heard of jurt nullification. If the majority of people believe a law is unjust then they do not need to write to anyone to overturn it, that's the myth you've been fed. They have the power to overturn that law at any time as long as it's not common or constitutional and even then they can nullify any prosecution in court.
That doesn't overturn shit, even in the rare case where it happens.
This might shock you, but outlawing prostitution actually makes a lot of sense. A non-trivial portion of prostitutes are not willing. They're sex trafficked peoples forced into it often at gun point
Are there really people out there who still don't understand how prohibition _creates_ organized crime?
No. If they were being intellectually honest, they'd be raving mad that prostitution is illegal... because a non-trivial portion of the prostitutes are already not willing, and being criminally punished anyways! They'd be pushing to legalize the prostitution, and increase penalties on pimping and pandering.
adjective: unique
1.
being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
Notice the lack of available degrees?
Whereas "wrong" has degrees because you can be partially wrong, or wrong in a way that is farther away from the truth. You can't be more or less unique.
since you don't admit to saying anything definite, only way to answer and assume you have a brain, is to articulate statements and then reply.
you are free to say you did not say what is in those statements.
If you didn't understand what I said, the thing to do is to ask questions in good faith. Not to go all narcissistic and shit.
However brilliant you think you are, you do need to presume that people "have a brain" if you want to have any chance of saying something intelligent next time.
I read about half what you wrote, and the answers were right there in what I already said; there is an obvious good answer to each question, and it is even the most obvious perspective of somebody who said the things I already said. You should try to use "theory of mind" to understand what thought process is consistent with the positions I gave.
You really go off the rails with the nonsense about not knowing when open warfare would cease. That was actually a main point I already articulated.
If you don't understand my articulated positions, you're not in a position to disagree in the first place. If you understood and disagreed, then dialogue is possible. Even if you just wanted to slag my positions, you'd at least know what to point at.
If they're living in the DMZ, they should not be in any way alarmed to see military action just outside the DMZ. That is every day of the year.
That is the only way it would be in front of their house.
yeah but you are talking apeshit as if it had anything to do with semantics. and i know what ive had enough of and nobody else does
The meaning of the words always has something to do with the semantics, which is all about meaning. ;)
It is from the Greek semantikos, "having meaning."
See, that is just nonsense magical thinking.
You're adding in words I didn't say, trying to turn it into an absolute statement. But it wasn't. I didn't say "destroy all the [stuff]," I just said to "destroy the [stuff]." The implication is that I'm talking about the main part of it. Would there be a little left? Who cares?
You get all hand-wavy about needing to invade, based on imagined words, where the easiest solution is just to understand that isn't what is implied by my statement. Just, start out assuming I might be saying something intelligent. That way, if you disagree, you'll give your own opinions and try to support them, instead of just waving your hands and asserting opinions as facts.
If a war breaks out, the only "missiles, artillery, and armor" that we need to worry about are the ones that are fielded. If they hide some crap in a cave, who cares? The important thing is the endgame, and that works out best if we let Korea deal with the details of that. If peacekeepers are needed later, we'd know that when the provisional unification government asked for it. And the UN would probably be encouraging China to provide a significant portion of those troops. But that would all be after the open warfare had ceased.
Regarding Syria and Iraq, it may be simply that the US military has different goals than you presume. Also, the middle east isn't Korea.
It only says "trie[d]"
I wonder what is there to be gained by provoking them with militarily exercises?
Eat a little too much propaganda for breakfast?
The purpose of military training exercises is not to "provoke" somebody, that is childish and silly.
The purpose is to practice fighting in the conditions that a war might take place in. In case it happens.
If we wanted to "provoke" them, we would just fire artillery across the border, and watch them be provoked.
gorillas and monkeys aren't even the same genus.
No need to invade, just destroy the missiles, artillery, and armor and call it done.
On a day where idiots are expected to out themselves, slashdot has a lot of celebration going on.
They get one day a year to turn the world stupid. It sucks, but we can't kill them, so deal.
"Foxfire"
Try this: "It's called Firefox, like the Clint Eastwood movie."
Baby steps.
BSD strives to exist, not to be popular. It also actively restricts participation, even to the point of refusing patches and re-implementing the same idea in a similar way. This reduces distractions, and helps maintain a static culture.
Linux has wide open participation, and prefers to accept existing (potentially imperfect) patches rather than re-invent a wheel. The culture is fairly open, and evolves over time.
They both have equal success, if you measure each based on achieving their own goals.
It is really simple to uninstall. Fedora server installs have had it for a long, long time. Generally it is just: remove package, write the old-style scripts with the correct names, done.
The reason I run it on a laptop is that I don't want to spend 10 minutes writing (or an hour searching for and evaluating options) a tray app to quickly bounce the connection. If I was only ever connecting to APs that are running on real servers, I wouldn't need that. But the consumer APs that are installed in most locations often get laggy after too many people connect more recently than you.
For wireless connections, Network Manager seems to work fairly well.
But in my experience, it's nothing but trouble for wired connections.
Same. I run it on systems that use client wifi, but I disable it everywhere else, such as servers... including servers that are also wifi hotspots! :)
When a server has a networking problem, I just want to get in and fix it. Having the interface bouncing on me while I try to fix it is not helpful. But if the laptop needs to bounce the wifi somewhere, just go ahead and try it. It might actually help in that situation. But if it is a dedicated workstation on ethernet, no, don't touch that interface.
Yeah see PulseAudio... and find out if it is being use successfully by most distros, and if the early bugs have been worked out, or not.
Or did they all switch to something else because it is "messed up?"
Well, if you were to switch to a distro that uses it, you'd only find one major difference:
Your command that runs the init.d script for you would output a line telling you what other command it was running instead.
Of course, if you're not using that and you're running the init.d script directly, then you wouldn't notice any difference.
You can always still also install the SysV init.d scripts, when you run them directly the init system isn't even involved, so there is no harm in having both ways of doing a thing installed; the ones run by the init system aren't even seen by the user other than through a log, after all.
Computer won't work
So, exactly the same as if systemd is allowed to fuck things up?
You can test this for yourself, just install a distro like Fedora that uses systemd and see if the computer still works. ;)
"Horrible code"? Care to elaborate?
Yes.
Oggly-boogley! Ugga ugga ugga ugga PEJORATIVE ugga wugga wugga.
PulseAudio!
GOTO 10
Wow! That's very interesting.
I'm at a Fedora keyboard, and it boots every time too!
systemd seems to be launching the SysV init scripts I wrote at the right times, too.
#livinginfear