You mean photocopied or something having to do with a registered trademark? Why not simply "Copied".

Actually this is probably the best answer. I like this better than my own answer of using a serial link.

I even have such an adapter, and didn't think of it.

The Laplink idea was copied by Microsoft. If it has one of the more recent versions of XP, you can use a serial link.

You did not say how recent the destination machine is. If it has a serial port and XP or 98, you can just use a null modem cable. If it's a newer machine, you will have to use a null modem cable AND a serial-to-usb cable or adapter on the newer end. Further, if you are on Windows 7 or later, you will have to install Virtual PC and then XP mode (both free from Microsoft), so you can run a virtual XP window.

Then start up serial networking and transfer your data. One machine is 'host' and the other is 'client'.

And that's when you re-negotiate, or quit.

From my experience, it's easy to make bad estimates because bad estimates are easy to make. If it's a big project, take your worst possible guess, and multiply by 1.5.

One of the biggest reasons bad estimates are so easy to make, is that the stakeholders "forget" to include too many of the details. And even, sometimes, some of the big essential features. It's debatable how many of these things are really "forgotten", versus not known or just intentionally left out to lower the estimate.

Therefore, I go about it this way:

I write out clearly what the specs are. Often this is just a repeat of the stakeholder's own specs. I estimate each major "feature" in the specs.

My standard contract states that this is only an estimate, based on the written scope of work just described. If at any point it looks like the work will take more than 10% over the estimate, it is time to examine why and the terms must be re-negotiated.

If any significant changes or additions are made to the scope of work, the terms must be re-negotiated.

These stipulations make sure everybody is talking, and if anything goes over estimate, everybody knows why. It also makes sure that if they add more work, I get more money.

I have a third stipulation I put in every contract: single point of contact. The stakeholder(s) must appoint one person, and one person only, who is to give me instructions and discuss the specifications. Nobody else, even the CEO, is allowed to do that.

I insist on these. So far, I have not had anybody turn me down because they thought the terms were unreasonable. That last clause keeps me from getting caught between conflicting instructions from different people. Other than that one, these are SOP for many engineering contracts. I just borrowed from those.

Smith actually wrote that it was necessary for the government to intervene when monopoly or oligopoly loomed. He said that was necessary to keep everybody working within the bounds of free market.

It worked pretty well with telephones for 40-50 years. Granted, significant corruption was leaking in toward the end, but for a very long time the ill effects of monolithic monopoly were kept at bay, while we kept the advantages (i.e., world's best interoperability, reasonable rates for their day).

During that time, in some countries in Europe which allowed competition in the market, you couldn't call the neighbor on one side because he was using a different phone company, and even the respective voltages were not compatible. And you couldn't call the other neighbor on the other side, because she was on yet a different company. And there were 3 times as many wires on the poles.

Just as with regulation, I am tempted to agree. But on the other hand, those State laws are pretty definitely protectionist and anti-competitive in nature. Considering that they also very definitely involve interstate commerce (the internet), I would -- very reluctantly -- have to side with the FCC on this one too.

The vast majority of the time I would be in favor of States' rights to see to their own business. But again I think this is really a necessary thing. I am just as much in favor of the cities which took a stand against monopoly pressure.

In other words, in both cases, I feel it is a case of "necessary evil". There are antitrust issues at both levels.

This has zero to do specifically with "the consent of the model". It has to do with who owns copyright to the picture.

That is no small thing. Generally speaking, if you allow someone to take pictures in exchange for money, you have waived any further right to those pictures. The photographer owns them.

That can change by prior agreement (a signed contract or waiver being the classic examples). But without that, it is generally as I stated. As someone who formerly photographed models, I researched the law and I know it well.

The point being: a model very seldom has any legal rights to the pictures or videos. A photographed subject might, if not taken under commercial circumstances. But that's a different matter.

What Reddit did is in fact censorship: in response to a few people abusively posting pictures they did not own, they have effectively banned the practice, because very few if any people are going to "prove" copyright ownership before posting.

So, as I said elsewhere: they are restricting everybody over the abuses of a few. That's classic censorship. Do they have a right to do that? Maybe. Who cares?

I have no opinion about that at this time, since that is neither what they did or what I wrote about.

No.

That is, they may own the picture, but they don't necessarily own rights to the picture.

It all hinges on "reasonable expectation of privacy". If somebody took a nude picture of you in your home, you probably have good cause to assert "reasonable expectation of privacy", and prevent (or sue somebody for) distributing that photo without your permission.

That is the primary difference between "anywhere" and "public" in this context. In many -- but not "all" -- public situations, if someone takes a picture of you, that's just too bad.

No. I can see "returning property to its rightful owner" if an owner complains. But what they did is more like "prior restraint": you must prove yourself innocent before you can post anything.

I think the former is a reasonable response. I don't agree that the latter is. You punish everybody for the doings of a relative few bad actors. I don't think that's reasonable at all. There is already far too much of that today. It's like somebody is trying to make the whole world safe for children.

Well, I've got news: the only world that is 100% child-safe is also a world that is suitable only for children.

Exactly. Thank you.

As a Libertarian, I am often dismayed by other Libertarians saying "all regulation is bad". But that's not the actual Libertarian philosophy. Which is "the minimum regulation that works". Too many have seemed to forget those all-important last 2 words.

Clear back to Adam Smith, it was clear that free market forces could lead to monopoly or oligopoly. And that's where the government's role comes in: antitrust laws keep people playing within the rules of an open, free market.

But Congress has abdicated its responsibility in recent years, in regard to antitrust. It, and its regulators, have allowed mergers that would have been laughed at 20 years ago.

As a result: giant net providers like Comcast and Verizon. They have formed an oligopoly, not a free market. As such regulation is absolutely necessary. All these people shouting "no regulation of free markets" are off their nuts. There hasn't been one.

From what I can tell, machines have enough trouble getting the Three Laws correct; I'm not sure I want to throw the Ten Commandments in there too... Let me re-watch Futurama to see how robots and religion work out.

Should we be happy that these organizations have chosen censorship as a response to abuse?

After all, they're not liable. They really shouldn't much care.

Laws did not "get smoking under control". Except maybe tax laws helped. Otherwise, not really.

It took social change to make it happen.

However, this is a very different issues, as this has nothing to do with personal vice. Only corporate vice, in the form of greed and corruption.