1999 was the year of Linux on my Desktop. I could give a shit about everybody else desktops.
It's because the naysayers are the ones more actively working in the field and closest to the experimental and theoretical results and are trying to actually accomplish these kinds of tasks.
More actively than Ray Kurzweil, Director of Engineering at Google in charge of machine intelligence? Very few people in the world are more active in AI-related fields than he is.
The ACA (Obamacare) is legal on the basis that it's a tax. SCOTUS said so. That said; your liberty has been rooted under the auspice of saving tax dollars through the taxation of behavior. AKA, social engineering.
Examples include (but not limited to)...: Smoking, drinking, eating, exercise, calorie burning logging, who you hang with, how you vote, do you play video games, watch TV, movies, soft drinks, drugs...your genetic lineage...etc.
With ACA, you are the governments "bitch". YOU ARE A SLAVE! We all are.
They've even invented protocols for sharing information between themselves.
I'm not sure I agree with that primarily because in order to get such a picture, the person taking it must invade someone's privacy.
The problem lies in your comment on judges thinking it's OK as it's not nudity. It seems that you argue that (partial) nudity should be part of the equation - which if so, would make an upskirt totally legal if the victim would wear pantihose, in which case it's easy to argue there is no nudity at all.
I've always thought that judges have to implement the law as it's written. They're not supposed to interpret the law, other than maybe at points where the law is unclear, in which case judges may reserve judgement on that exact ground, and ask the politicians to write the law properly.
And in the end this is what happened here, as within hours a new law was written. Now the speed at which that happened is worrisome to me, as it means there has not been proper discussion on the actual content of the law. It may have many unintended consequences, that are a result of not thinking it through properly, or it may have been used by some radical politician to advance his/her agenda.
And yet, she did her job wonderfully. She sold News-magazines.
Quadrouple Bluff, he randomly picked a name out the phone book, which happened to be his own name
American Journalism sucks because rather than being unbiased, they have an agenda to promote. This is why nation wide targeting of certain groups by the IRS, or NSA spying on Americans is less important than a lane closure on a NJ bridge.
And why is Lois Learner talking to DOJ investigators (not taking the 5th) while taking the 5th in front of congress.
This is basically the same thing that we saw the other day, when the judge said that Upskirt videos were not against the law. The problem is, there is no shame left in the world, because that is harmful to little sensitive minds.
You should be very skeptical of any claim of someone having to take "evasive measures". We have seen time and time again government workers make stuff up which later proved to be false when the defendant produces video.
Never Underestimate the drive of any government agency to expand its sphere of influence and control. Whether its the FAA wanting to control a park full of kids and their radio control toys or the IRS making up laws out of whole cloth, they never miss an opportunity to take more control.
I won't be reading NewsWeek anymore.
Is anybody still reading it? I thought they stopped their print edition few years ago because their circulation tanked and even online they are nowhere in the top 100 news sites. Going tabloid, like CNN, may be a desperate attempt to pull out of the death spiral.
Sounds like they should have invoked the DMCA in the quoted case. As an added bonus, they probably could have gotten the perpetrator on the hook for millions in penalties, and a few life terms in prison or so.