I'm not a fan of Facebook by any stretch of the imagination. (I still refuse to open an account despite many people I know being on there.) However, if your entire nation can be "destroyed" by Facebook, then perhaps your nation isn't as stable as you think it is and maybe there are deeper issues than people sharing selfies so their friends can "like" them.
And they'll continue to proliferate until they saturate the market and some other version takes off. Just like, at one time, the "punch the monkey" style of banner ad was all the rage and could be found virtually everywhere.
When people talk about evolution, they're not just talking about species adapting and changing over time. I think most people believe that.
Most? Perhaps, but just barely. "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx
I don't purposefully take photos of other people, but if someone happens to be in the background of a shot I take of my children I'm not going to delete the photo. I also wouldn't expect someone else to delete a photo of their kid just because my kid happens to be in the background.
Thanks. Now I can't take a photo of my kid in public (for example, playing in a neighborhood playground) because I might get someone else in the background and I don't have their consent. One photo with my cell camera to show my wife and I'll be a criminal. Forget it if I try sharing the photo on social media. I might as well just turn myself over to the local authorities right now and save time.
I think you've found the one definition of DRM that I'm in favor of. If you're wearing clothing, it's a definite sign that you don't want people to see you naked at this moment. So someone finding an odd angle that happens to reveal more of you (your underwear which most of us at least attempt to hide from view) is circumventing this "protection."
However, while I would be in favor of circumventing DRM of a piece of media/software that you own for your own personal use, circumventing the "clothing DRM" of someone else for your own purposes is completely different. You have no right to just decide that you have the right to circumvent this person's "clothing DRM" because you say so. Unless that person consents to it, of course, in which case find a private place and circumvent each other's DRM all night long.
I'd take exception to B.
Suppose I take a photograph of a busy street corner. Do I need to get the permission of every person in that photo before I publish it? If a photo is of a specific person, then it is always best to get a model release. However, if the person is in the middle of a public area, they have no expectation of privacy and can't regulate what I do and do not take photos of.
That being said, I try not to take photos of people I don't know. Especially since I'm usually taking photos of my kids and "guy with a camera taking photos of kids" too often becomes "guy questioned by police because someone reported him as being a sicko taking pics of kids."
Wait. This actually makes sense. Only instead of coding perfectly legible code, legislators are the kind of coders that craft spaghetti code which has tons of bugs, unforeseen glitches, hidden functions to give their friends back doors through the system, and which can't be read by another human being without them going cross-eyed.
The problem is that we need someone to decide what is Constitutional. Say it isn't the courts. It is Congress? If so then I know plenty of politicians (on both sides) who would decide that the First Amendment actually means you have the right to say anything you want - so long as you agree with them. i.e. Dissent is illegal.
Maybe it's the Executive Branch? All it would take then is one President to decide that signing an executive order suspending elections indefinitely is Constitutional.
The people? Good luck getting them to vote out Congressfolk or a President based on bad laws being passed. Not when they've got the difficult choice of watching Boy Band X on America's Got Talent or seeing who gets voted out on Survivor. And too many of the people who pay attention and actually are involved seem to think that a theocracy would be perfectly Constitutional.
So we need someone who will decide what is Constitutional and what isn't. The courts' purpose is to judge things so they seemed like the right choice. Is it perfect? Of course not. You could easily point to a dozen Supreme Court rulings that, given today's sensibilities, sound horribly unconstitutional. However, it's still better than letting Congress or the President decide.
Some here seem to think that the only types of skirts around are the ones that are so short that barely anything is hidden. Skirts come in different lengths. Perhaps the woman thought she was covered up and the skirt hiked itself up in just the right way so that something was visible. Perhaps the pervert just used shoe cameras, pretended to be stooping on the ground to tie his shoes, or some other ploy to take photos up women's skirts. The women obviously didn't consent to this so he shouldn't be allowed to do this.
Don't get me wrong. I understand that you don't get to walk around outside and then claim people taking your photograph are invading your privacy. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are walking outside, but there are limits to that. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy under their clothes. A woman wearing a skirt is not an invitation to take a photo up the skirt any more than a man wearing shorts is an invitation to take a photo up the shorts leg.
RIAA's Response: These people *claim* not to like music? Why that's unamerican! If this catches on, the entire music industry will collapse!!!!! We must pass immediate legislation declaring "not liking music" to be illegal. To prove consumers like music, they will be required to purchase at least three albums from RIAA-approved labels every year. Failure to do so will be considered proof that the consumer is actually an Internet pirate stealing our works and will be sued into oblivion.
Or better yet, don't take images from Getty without paying for them. Need an image for free? There are plenty of sites you can use such as OpenClipArt.org, Morgue File, or Wikimedia Commons. You can also search Flickr for images with Creative Commons licenses that allow for the type of use you need. If you really, really, REALLY need an image on a stock photo site like Getty Images and no other free alternative will do, then why not actually pay for it?
The problem is that this "hurts for one minute" is happening right now. The "sick for days" is in some theoretical future that may not happen. Immediate trumps the nebulous future with kids many times. I've told my boys this over and over and yet we still have issues when it comes time for the shot. Were they to have a choice in the matter, I'm sure they'd say they'd get the shot... right up to the moment when the doctor took out the needle. Then they'd change their mind and refuse it. (It doesn't help that my oldest has anxiety issues and needles are one of his triggers.) Thankfully, they don't really have a say in the matter since they are children and my wife and I are their parents.
I let them have a say in other matters within reason. They might get to choose which shirt and pants they wear, but they won't get to choose the shorts and thin T-Shirt when it's 6 degrees out. This can help them learn to make decisions while recognizing that they aren't ready to make the really important ones just yet. As they get older, they'll get to make more decisions of greater and greater importance. If I do my job right (and I certainly hope I do), they'll be able to make informed decisions when they are an adult. Then, if/when they have kids, the cycle will repeat itself.
I'm buying a new laptop soon and will get a Windows 8 one (mainly because that's almost all there is on the market right now). The first thing I plan on doing is installing one of the many programs available to remove Metro and replace it with the classic Windows desktop/start menu.
My son is doing math like that in school. Only he doesn't fill in the box. He's being taught to draw five circles. Then circle three of them. Then count the remaining circles and that's his answer. This is in first grade. They do subtraction like this also. They're not being taught to actually work with the numbers. Everything is "draw a picture." Sadly, the teachers are being forced to use this curriculum (EngageNY) and can't change it to help kids who learn at different rates or in different ways.