6oz of liquid? That's even worse than having a bomb!
5oz of liquid is ok. But only in a terrorist-proof plastic bag. 2 gallons of liquid is also OK. But only if you drink it. I don't know much about toxicity and explosives, but I'm pretty sure there must be at least some liquid explosives that will not kill you until airborne.
Just like my double-ROT13 encryption on this message!
Typing in all caps is considered shouting, please refrain from it. Also, ROT13 is traditionally capitalised.
OK, you seem pretty well versed in copyright law, so I've got another curve ball for you: Say a 16 year old kid signs up for Instagram, and takes pictures of nothing but his own junk; since the pictures are stored on Instagram's servers, and they automatically license all user content to themselves, could there be a situation in which Instagram is considered legally culpable for possession/transmission of child pornography? If anyone's looking for a motive in my asking of these odd questions, I personally think this (the licensing requirement and monetization of user content without due compensation) is a stupid idea, and am thus treading the murky legal waters to try and find a way we can screw them over for it.
First off: the uploader would be in breach of the TOS: "You may not post nude, partially nude, or sexually suggestive photos." If it's uploaded to their servers, they would be in possession, but that would not necessarily be sanctionable: the MegaUpload case for example explicitly indicated that the takedown procedure for child pornography was fine, but for copyright violations it wasn't (this was taken as evidence that there was a malicious business model). I know safe harbor provisions exist for copyright. I'm not sure if they exist for child pornography as well, but I would assume so.
So... if I take a picture of a copyrighted photo, then upload that picture to Instagram, Instagram subsequently owns the copyright? I find that dubious, at best.
No, you keep owenership of the picture you took, in the license agreement you agreed to with instagram, you "grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service", but you don't transfer copyright to them.
The picture you took however, also has a different creative work (the copyrighted photo you took a photo) in it. This - separate - copyright is not yours to license, and does not become licensed to Instagram in any form.
If this picture comprises almost all of your picture, it is unlikely that your picture (of the picture) meets the threshold of originality required to be eligible in the first place. If the copyrighted picture is a minor part of your picture, (for example, a picture of a room where the copyrighted picture is somewhere on a table), the use of the original work would be considered De Minimis, and would not have any influence on the copyright.
final question then: is instagram able to sell that picture? No, not in any normal shape or form, at least not while the copyrighted picture is the main part of your picture. If they would carefully remove that picture from your picture however, they would. So basically, it comes down to common sense. Well, apart from the part where you agreed to that license with Instagram. That's not common sense at all.
Sure, but that is quite different than doing the searching for him. Which is what the GP described.
It was a hypothetical. Surely it doesn't take too many of your brain cycles to figure out a hundred ways that scenario could arise.
Lets say they're looking for information about Steve Jobs on your computer and ask you what kind of cancer he had. You say 'prostate' and they fire that into Google images. Without filtering that could easily through up a host of images.
I just tried that one. The images it turned up are fine for a kid who wants to find out more about prostates. Why one would use image search in this scenario is quite beyond me, but that's another matter ("I want an image of a prostate in my paper on Steve Jobs"?)
Let's say they're researching a celebrity who happens to have had paparazzi shots of them stark naked leaked to the world, or some former partner sold a video. Again pictures might appear.
These too rarely appear on the first pages, assuming it's an A-list artist, and not a very recent very large scandal.
All stuff that yes, you could easily explain to your kids, but is also stuff which could easily and quickly be misconstrued, especially when it's being retold to other parents or school officials who may be mandated by law to tell authorities.
As for the suggesting there's nothing lower than moderate, that's to portray the change in such a way as to fundamentally distort it. The images are still available, but you need to be use keywords that make it clear that's what you're looking for. Search for a photo of someone famous, you get face pics, or publicity shots. Search for them 'naked' and if google has it, google lets you see it.
I really don't see why you think this is censorship or a big deal.
Why is Slashdot carrying a piece about an alleged murder case?
It has nothing to do with technology and the murder weapon ain't high tech either.
Can't Slashdot make up its mind what it wants to be?
Just because it's McAfee it must be "newsworthy" for Slashdot?
I dunno.
The Slashdot I used to visit wasn't like this.
"Lo' how the mighty can fall!" McAffee is/was an important tech person, and he seems to be going batshit. That's popcorn-worthy.
I don't like the idea of DNA dragnets.
Just because I'm a male within 5km of a rape does not mean I should be required to give up my DNA.
First, who owns it? Does it get destroyed? Do I trust government to do that competently? No: it will be sold to the highest bidder.
I suspect the police of gross incompetence, but not this level of organised malice. Besides, I doubt there are many high bidders on the black DNA market.
Second, am I coerced into doing this? Will they shame me publicly for not giving up my DNA?
No, but you could be under closer scrutiny in the investigation. Which IMO is not a good thing, but it is debatable.
Finally, who else knows about it? Is my health insurance going up because they've found I'm susceptible to lung cancer or AIDS? What if there's a way to tell if I'm gay or prone to alcoholism (hic)?
No
There's got to be a better way to solve these rapes than asking all of us to give up private information at the threat of arrest.
One would think so. So far, in this case, they have been unable to come to a breakthrough through other means.
"As it turned out, the man now in custody turned in his own DNA, resulting in a 100% match."
If he was really the guy who did it: Was he wondering whether the DNA-research would work? Why not just turn himself in?
It was a cold case. Maybe he forgot he was involved in a murder in the first place.
"Oh, that murder case! I forgot all about that one...
As for Newton, odds are good that he wasn't that special either. He had the founder advantage. There was a lot of new data to explain and not much in the way of competition for doing the explaining.
I don't think that the fact calculus hadn't been invented, and he was there to invent it - or, if you're take the extreme view he stole it from Leibniz, that he had the opportunity to use a new kind of math, at the time completely unfamiliar to the scientific world - when he was 24 has been an advantage in developing a theory of motion and developing a theory of gravity. If you do think so your argument is quite valid, I - and a whole lot of other people - just disagree with the premise.
A successful [software] tool is one that was used to do something undreamed of by its author. -- S. C. Johnson
