Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
If it was unsolicited, actually, it does.
It's a widely recognized pricinple that unsolicited merchandise may be considered a gift.
In point of fact, sending email or sexts should be prosecuted every time because in practical terms they are quite clearly "unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer or other disposition of any realty, goods, or services" without being designated as such.
Copyright belongs to the person who pressed the button to take the picture, which then poses even trickier questions if that person is not the subject. If it is the subject, then consent is clear, and sending the picture does in fact give them the picture for personal use but clearly not for commercial use. Implied consent is at play as well - if a person you're being intimate with takes your smiling picture, it's pretty clear you implied consent for the picture to be taken (which says nothing about any further usage).
Whether the subject is publicly recognizable matters as well (ie if it's just a close up of your cooter, you're going to have a hard time arguing that is 'publicly recognizable' except for the attention you yourself called to it).
Further, you're simply mistaken dragging moral 'rights' into the question at all. I agree with you that taking a nudie pic, and then later using it for revenge porn is shitty and immoral. But we're not arguing how the world SHOULD BE, we're discussing it as it IS.
And you misread me completely. Of course do whatever you want in private.
I just think that anyone RECORDING what they do in private - particularly with someone that they don't know extremely well - is a moron if they're surprised to find it on Reddit tomorrow.
My desktop system is about 5-6 years old and it's got a built-in IDE controller, I just never used it. My suggestion would be to look on his current system (or find someone with a previous-gen desktop ), I bet there's an IDE controller there. Just turn off, plug in the IDE cabling, and fire it back up, copy over.
Or am I the only one with a drawerful of IDE cables?
And the whole "IDE has tricky settings" is a canard: if you have a single IDE (like, I suspect, this one) leave the pins on 'master'.
Anyone else see the irony of a CONGRESSMAN complaining about 'undisclosed financial contributions'?
Seriously, I don't care which party he's from; they're all idiot scum.
"A supermajority of voters favor deficit spending, so that's the policy we currently have."
So why cry about "outrageous" spending in the first place?
"Amortize the deficit across everyone, and you'll find that all households cost "the taxpayer" many thousands of dollars per year."
You apparently missed the 'net' part of my comment. If you'd RTFA, you'd see that Heritage was talking net results, meaning total contribution vs cost; And yes, that means that a giant pile of American citizens are leeches, you're saying it's ok we add more?
Personally, I'd love it if such a calculus determined your vote: if you are a net 'taker' = no vote. (Including corporate welfare for corporate officers, of course.)
If the picture was taken without consent - ie an upskirt or whatever - then I agree with you.
If the picture was taken WITH consent, then fuck you.
Free speech cannot survive if people can retract what they said, and later decide "I didn't mean to say that - you can't tell anyone I said that."
Same with pictures. If you take a picture of your junk and then send it to someone, you're GIVING them the picture, to do with as they wish. By my view, it's exactly the same as if a company sends you something unsolicited in the mail: it's yours.
Don't want pictures of your junk floating around the internet? There's a really good way to prevent that: don't take them.
Hardly; even a cheap-ass robot would do a better job catching dupes than these rubes.
In any case, if the editors are robots, with whom is Bennet Haselton sleeping to get his personal maunderings hyped as news?
Usually I've found in my 47 years on this planet that people complaining about the expense of something are perfectly willing to spend that money on some other absurdity when it suits their particular bias.
In this context, for example, people are shocked that it costs $28,000 per arrest to use drones to catch illegals. Likely, the people crying about the outrageous cost are perfectly willing to spend $28000 in legal services, assistance, aid, return transport, etc for those same illegals. Heritage.org (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer) claims that the net cost per immigrant household to the US taxpayer is about $14k/year alone.
Personally, I think immigrants are the soul of this country and always have been. It would be nice if we could simplify our immigration system to allow as many people to come here without the absurd multi-year waiting list that they have today, but it seems unfair to allow the lawbreakers - the ones coming illegally - to get a free pass.
Kanye = the best artist in the world
How did you not get rated +5 funny for that?
Kanye's a great example; if that no-talent douche can make millions, then really, that proves the bar's not really set very high.
...I'd just be happy if our local news stations would share with us such basic facts as the skin color of the bloody suspect.
They seem to avoid it unless the criminals are white or asian, for reasons that likely depend on your political bias; they are failing to describe brown-skinned criminals
a) because they're conservative, and assume that you assume 'criminals are brown anyway', or
b) because they're liberal, and they don't want to confirm the stereotype that criminals are mostly brown