I'm now in my 30s and have been in the industry for awhile.
Ha. Hahahahahahaha. Get off my damn industry, you kid! Hell, when I was a kid and we wanted to play with turtles in a maze, we went down to the fetid, stinking, polluted sewers and caught them ourselves! And built our own mazes out of barrels of toxic waste! None of this turtles-in-computer shit.
This seems so prophetic now:
Anyone can claim any action (or inaction) is a form of abuse
Yes, anyone can claim such. Proving such is an entirely different matter.
The whole concept is patently stupid
You can't patent stupid. Congress provides too much prior art...
What you are looking for here is a model release, which lays out exactly what can and cannot be done with a picture taken in private. From the wiki article above:
No release is required for publication, as news, of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public place. In general, no release is required for publication of a photo taken of an identifiable person when the person is in a public space unless the use is for trade or direct commercial use, which is defined as promoting a product, service, or idea. Publication of a photo of an identifiable person, even if taken when the person is in a public place, for commercial use, without a model release signed by that person, can result in civil liability for whoever publishes the photograph.
Note that no model release is needed for the act of taking the photograph. Rather, if needed, the model release applies to the publication of the photograph. Liability rests solely with the publisher, except under special conditions. The photographer is typically not the publisher of the photograph, but usually licenses the photograph to someone else to publish. It is typical for the photographer to obtain the model release because he is merely present at the time and can get it, but also because it gives him more opportunity to license the photograph later to a party who wishes to publish it. Nevertheless, unless a photo is actually published, no model release is required.
Note that the issue of model release forms and liability waivers is a legal area related to privacy and is separate from copyright. Also, the need for model releases pertains to public use of the photos: i.e., publishing them, commercially or not. The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or non-commercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States.
Who needs to get a life? The guy that studies astronomy and wants to correct what he thinks is an error by some of his peers or they guy that reads a blurb on Slashdot and then makes a snide comment?
Then again, I am taking you to task for said snide comment, so... I think I'll go outside for a walk and see if I can find a life.
What was sarcastic about his remark? Linus IS Finnish and Estonia IS, well, Estonia. Where's your issue?
BTW - sarcasm.
Push it real good.
But unlike other super-luminous events that span multiple wavelengths—gamma ray bursts or supernovae, for example—blitzars emit all that energy in a tiny band of the radio light spectrum.
Why is this a mystery? 5.5 Billion years ago, did anyone have anything other than a radio? It wasn't like they could use a satellite dish or something...
It's not the OS updates that are the issue. It's the entire ecosystem of OS, third party apps and in-house development that has to be updated. Some of our systems are running XP purely because a vendor went out of business and we have yet to find modern software that can run our automated machinery reliably. Replacing the machinery is an option too, but a damned expensive one.
It's not just updating the OS but all the things that sit on top of it that makes "a constant upgrade / update process" hard to stick to.
I am convinced that Exchange 2013 is nothing more than a marketing device trying to push users into Microsoft's Exchange online services.