Through her window she is in a private place. This is just taking a picture of what someone is wearing in public.

The ethical difference? The woman is choosing to wear the skirt knowing full well that people can see up them, not every moment but certainly many many times through the course of a day. So she's choosing to make what is under the skirt visible in public. Anything someone wears, displays, or does in public is fair game for photographing or making a video of under the law.

Not as long as police can freely invade your privacy and record you and photograph you when you are in public. It has been well established, by police, that you do not have an expectation of privacy in public.

These clothes are chosen because they are sexy. They are sexy BECAUSE in certain moments and with certain movements you can see down the blouse and up the skirt and everyone knows it so choosing to wear these clothes is choosing to let random strangers catch a glimpse. People are allowed to photograph you in public, wearing whatever you've chosen to wear and doing whatever you've chosen to do in public.

If you don't want someone to see down your blouse, don't wear a blouse people can see down. If you don't want someone to see up your skirt, wear a long skirt or don't wear a skirt. Granted people seeing this in person is something you can change tomorrow by not wearing these things and the photos you can't change your mind on. But we shouldn't be passing laws for no other purpose than to allow people to have fewer consequences when they make immodest wardrobe choices.

A law that blanket prevented photographing and recording people in public without explicit consent. That would be something I could get behind. Copyright being jointly shared on all images and video between the person making the photo/video and the people in them. That would be something I could get behind. Another law trying to define when you are and aren't entitled to privacy, spelling out certain circumstances and conditions. No thanks. The laws protecting individuals and preserving their personal rights should be broad, strongly worded, and strongly protected in our courts. It's the exceptions that should be narrow and specific.

A thick layer of ordinary charcoal and sand followed by a boil works just fine for purifying water even if it's not space efficient. It's a survival 101 tactic.

But it works all the same. Which begs the question, are places that already have trees really in need of clean water and if so is the problem that there isn't already existing tech (such as charcoal+sand) vs the population knowing about existing tech.

This won't do any good where there is little rainfall and therefore no trees and it doesn't seem to be needed where there are trees and the ability to make charcoal if the population knew how to do that.

I am happy to add "use a living branch" to my bag of water purification tricks but I have to admit I see it as having limited utility since if I have living branches I can just make charcoal.

Does this remain true when said trees no longer have leaves and photosynthesis happening? As far as I know beyond a brief river transport to a mill harvested trees generally are not constantly in water. Living trees are not USUALLY in constant contact with water. And dead trees that are in constant contact with water... well the ones I've seen are rotted.

In any case. I wonder how this compares to the same wood, rendered to charcoal, and used as a filter. I thought the problem with areas with water shortage is they lack trees not that some charcoal and sand was unobtanium where trees are in fact already present.

Welcome pedant, thank you for joining the party. Note how you had to pretend you didn't know the intention of the writer, that's the part where you can tell you've added no value to conversation.

Charcoal is well known for it's use in purification. I'm curious if this works better than using charcoal and if the decay of the living tissue actually ends up making this less safe than just rendering that wood to charcoal.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that nobody has discovered this. The utility is likely somewhat reduced when you consider that A. places with trees everywhere generally have water about and B. tree branches rot.

"Those groups begin with women and gays, and continue with Muslims, atheists, and ends God knows where."

That capital G really tells me all I need to know. The special interests of Christians have no business in our military or our government.

"The internal structure is being eroded. We no longer have the military that we had thirty or forty years ago."

Really? The Navy has had women in service since WWII. Despite all the cracks about men alone cooped on a ship for months it really was never the case, there are and have not been any shortage of women in uniform. There are sexual assaults everywhere, every day. 1 in 6 women in the general population have been raped. The military does a better job of catching and punishing offenders.

As for the religious requirements of Muslims. Every man and woman in uniform swears an oath to defend and support the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. Christians, Jews, Church of Satanists, and every other federally recognized religion are granted flexibility to freely practice their religion in the military because the Constitution says so. Examples of people who aren't allowed are not justification for denying Muslims their Constitutional rights, they are additional things that need fixed.

The anti-gay agenda stems from people who want military policy to be based on their religious beliefs and want to keep military policy that stems from days when policy was improperly and unconstitutionally written on the foundation of religious beliefs. In some cases the opposition stems from simple homophobia. This indicates a lack of self discipline and moral character. Having homosexuals around isn't going to turn anyone gay, it will potentially provide opportunities and some with tendencies and curiosity who might have been afraid to explore them might take advantage of them of their own free will but there is nothing wrong with that and frankly it's nobodies damned business or concern. Similarly, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have the expectation to expect men and women in uniform to suck it up and get over silly and sad personal emotional hangup's over whether or not someone might (or more likely might not) be enjoying the sight of them in a shower room. This has the same actual impact as being seen by someone who could care less or finds the sight of your disgusting and far less than the "mean and rough" way your drill sergeant or petty officer speaks to you in boot camp. Man up pussy, the girls are tough enough to get over it.

And yes, I served my time in the military.

Other governments spend dramatically less per citizen with total government provided healthcare than the US government spends on healthcare per citizen with no national healthcare at all.

If they told the entrenched medical system and insurance system to take a hike and copied a successful system from people who have already solved the problem it would work fine. Unfortunately, they won't, they'll pull an Obamacare half assed solution that really just lines the pockets of insurance companies and it will be the fault of the people who say the government can't manage healthcare because they will push against any attempt at it and try to keep as much private as possible. Whether you support national healthcare or not, if there is going to be national healthcare you need to recognize that it is all or none, a half measure is a really expensive waste of time.

I consider amount of time that evolution has been doing it's job to be the only significant factor. There is nothing to say that having short lifespans and changing more rapidly is a superior result. Nor is having a larger gene pool. These things are simply the products of different branches that evolution is working down in it's massively parallel processing alongside natural selection.

Simple organisms like bacteria evolve genetically in a rapid fashion due to short lifespan whereas very complex organisms like humans have evolved complex mechanisms to allow them to dynamically respond to and overcome most selection pressures during their lifetime. The two are marrying quickly as complex organisms like humans are gaining the capability to use their dynamic response capabilities (sentience, intelligence, tool usage) to augment their own genetic code and steal from the genetic code of other organisms.

True, but we share a lot more than 20% our DNA with OTHER primates.

That we now nothing about? Obviously I don't know. But we share 96% of our DNA with chimps. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

The amount of change caused by evolution is most meaningfully measured in generations, the rate at which generations occur is itself the product of evolution. More is simply more, not necessarily better.

Not that I disagree but it's worth pointing out that the summary is a bit misleading. Europeans share these genes but africans do not and it's 20% of the .15% of the neaderthal genome that is distinct, obviously humans share a lot more than 20% of their DNA with neaderthals, we share a lot more than that with primates!