Too bad you posted as an AC, or I would have modded you up. The real questions is why do these apparently successful young women feel the need to take these photos? It's okay for your boyfriend to beat off to your photo, but not somebody else's? That smacks of low self-esteem. The real question Vanity Fair and CNN and the like should be asking is why young women, particularly those that are apparently successful and wealthy, are succumbing to the pressure to take nude photos of themselves? Are they that insecure and starved for attention? If so, what does the culture do to contribute to that?

Actually, this is nothing new. In the days before digital cameras, the "thefts" occurred at the drug store or wherever the film was being processed. It was more difficult to disseminate the stolen pictures to millions of people, but they were stolen just the same.

As for being a victim, well, technically they are. In hind sight, was it foolish to store said photos on-line. Yes, it was, but that doesn't mean they weren't a victim. If your local bank gets robbed and you can't get accessed to your funds for a week, aren't you still a victim? Or are you proposing that people don't put money in banks?

Like a bank, these online storage services have a fiduciary responsibility to their customers. That responsibility was breached and the customers who had their photos stolen (nude or otherwise) were harmed by that failure. How are they not a victim?

Nobody equates looking upon a nude photo with sex. On the other hand, there are many people who look at a nude photo and the person in it as an object of sex. Whenever we objectify people, we devalue them. The old expression about "Why buy the cow when the milk is free" when used in relation to people living together is a prime example. Once people, usually women, are an object, they aren't a person anymore.

Yes, the people who stole the photos were wrong. However, I don't leave my tablet on the front seat of my car, either. Just because the doors are locked, it is far too easy to bust a window to get at it. The thief doesn't have the right to my property, but if I really value that property, then I will take steps to secure it.

I am sure the individuals in this scandal thought they had done exactly that. The reality is that until better security is in place for on-line services, it's a simple matter of breaking the glass to get at the valued contents.

It's not about victim blaming, but instead learning from their experience to keep it from happening to you. The discussion isn't about what kinds of pictures should I or should I not have the right to take of myself.

Coeds living in college dorms have the right to enjoy the fresh air by opening a window. But, if that same coed is on the ground floor, that probably isn't a wise thing to do. How do we know this -- because in the past, it has led to very negative consequences. Are they to blame, no. In an ideal world, nothing bad would happen if one lived on the ground floor and left the window open or saved nude pictures of yourself on an online service.

But we don't live in an ideal world. That's why we don't let children play in the playground without supervision. That's why our houses and cars have locks. It's why we use passwords and encryption on files. We are not in an ideal world and there are less than noble people who will take what they want and hurt others in the process.

As such, this isn't about blaming the victims whose pictures were hacked. It is a wake up call that the security needed to keep private things private isn't at a level to guarantee safety. As such, like the coed on the ground floor, it is better to voluntarily give up a small right to protect ones self from having somebody else harm you. For those who have already been harmed by this, maybe their story will keep somebody else from being harmed. It's not about blame -- it's about learning to protect yourself.

I don't disagree. I am simply pointing out that the more guests the more expensive. So they can't both be valid. For instance, if the reception with 200 guests is held at the church hall, thus keeping costs down, is the effect because of the number of guest, the lower cost, or they are church goers? The study, as presented, doesn't have enough granularity to differentiate.

Whether at the church hall or the country club, assuming you are feeding people, the more people, the greater the cost.

There seems to be a contradiction. The more guests you have, the less likely you are to divorce and the more you spend on the wedding the more likely you are to divorce. Usually, the cost is directly proportional to the number of guests, is it not?

Funny, if you tell the nurse you are a family member or spouse, they let you right in. It's not like they do a background check. Plus, assuming the patient isn't comatose, they can give instructions to allow whomever in. As for taxes, unless only one spouse works or the other has minimal income, there is no real tax savings from being married.

As for rude relatives, well, you can't choose your relatives, but you can choose whether or not to be around them.

Actually, putting one's assets in a trust pretty much settles the tax issue and probate court. (Whether one has enough assets to justify the cost, is a different issue)

He is not the first to control the entire production chain. Ford did it early on. And the Pennsylvania Railroad before that. That part of what Musk is doing is not innovative.

However doing it with an electric car is new and is why he is visionary versus innovative. He has a vision of how this all could work and is executing that vision.

Put differently, innovative is past tense, it is based on what you have already done. Visionary is future tense and is based on what you see as possibilities.

I'm not putting him down. Being visionary is a much more difficult task to accomplish and see to fruition.

To be fair to the original poster, he has a point. California had all electric cars in the 1970s. Even the all electric Chevy Volt was available before the Tesla. So, while the Tesla is an improvement, it's not innovative. Now, his idea for the tube railway thing, that could be innovative. His plan for Mars isn't innovative, colonizing Mars has been talked about for decades. However, there is no doubt that the technology that will be created to make it possible will be innovative. Of course, until that technology is actually produced and put into use, there won't be,by definition, anything innovative.

So technically, Musk isn't an innovator, but instead a visionary.

Most pit stains are actually caused by the antiperspirant. With deodorants, you will sweat more, but not have the yellowing stains caused by oxidized antiperspirants.

Except that admitting a crime to your military security clearance interviewer is different than admitting a crime to the FBI, they being law enforcement. I wouldn't volunteer that you smoked pot, either.

One could also ponder whether the decline in popularity was from the users or from Ubuntu's decision to drop it and go their own way?

They did exactly what you state. Previously Gnome version 2 was called Gnome, not Gnome 2. The new version is called Gnome 3. The source code for the previous version (v2) wasn't deleted. Distros could still package it and distribute it, but they chose not to do so.