There's a difference between trying to get people to protect themselves and blaming the victim. Telling users "you need to run an anti-virus" is giving advice. Telling users "you were hacked because you're an idiot that runs Microsoft software" is victim blaming. To take this away from the computer world, telling women "you could take a self-defense class or carry Mace with you" is advice. Telling a woman "you were raped because of the way you were dressed - that's just asking for it!" is victim blaming.
There's an important distinction between the two. Even if the incident in question could have been avoided if the victim had taken protective measures, don't try to assign blame to a victim who is hurting from the incident. That's just going to cause ill will and won't lead to the person listening to you in the future. It is possibly to blame the perpetrator for the crime committed while still offering to help make sure incidents like these don't happen in the future,
These aren't fees that the government says "You must charge each user $X." These are taxes that the government charges to the company. The company then passes it on to the customer. This is to be expected, of course, but such taxes and fees are costs of doing business. If they want to break it out, fine. Include a portion of the bill showing just why the base monthly fee is a certain amount - including all of the costs imposed by government taxes. However, advertising a $30 service and then charging $50 because of below the time "taxes/fees" is deceptive at best.
Exactly. Here in NY, the tax rate is 8.25%. If a cell phone carrier was advertising $100 a month for their plans, I could easily add in taxes and come up with a $108.25 real cost. I'd have no problem if this was the only "below the line" fee that they added in. However, they add in a ton of other things that are basically costs of doing business. By the time I need to multiply in the 8.25% tax, we're talking $130 instead of $100. Somehow, Amazon and other major retailers are able to sell items nationwide without saying "This doodad will cost $25 plus $1.25 server maintenance fee plus $3.27 web app programming fee plus $2 executive hot tub installation fee...." Why can't the phone companies? (Besides the obvious answer of "Hiding these extra 'fees' makes them money.")
Bypass button? Real hackers don't need a bypass button. They guess the real password in three attempts. (Of course, the first two are just for show.)
Watch, I'll hack Slashdot right now. *types "12345" as the Password* And to prove I'm in, I'll make a dupe story appear sometime in the next month.
First class example is that evolutionary criticism is completely forbidden in US schools
Or maybe Evolution is just supported by so much overwhelming evidence that 99%+ of scientists accept it as the best theory. Most of the scientific discussions around Evolution are centered around how we dot the i's and cross the t's, not whether Evolution is a better theory than "last Tuesday God said 'abracadabra' and the Universe was formed as is with its 'history' as an illusion."
In a school's science class, students should learn what the prevailing scientific theories are. They should learn why those theories are the prevailing ones. However, school is not the place for students - who are just learning the material and who will have a highly incomplete knowledge of the subject - to make a determination of which theory is the "right" one.
Whenever someone says "we need to teach the weaknesses of Evolution", what they really mean is "I would like schools to teach Creationism, but that was struck down by the Supreme Court... as was Intelligent Design... so maybe if we sow enough doubt about Evolution in the students, they'll grow up believing that God created it all 10,000 years ago."
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.