Only copy the positive parts from apple!
Only copy the positive parts from apple!
> It would be nice if women were entitled to privacy on the internet but that isn't available. The problem isn't one-on-one communication, it's the image being uploaded to the public domain.
The laws are not against uploading the images into public domain (i.e. to facebook services like whatsapp, which reserve the right to use it in any way they like), but against making and distributing them, if you WANT to.
> That is copyright piracy
So, it's privacy, if i upload an image of me?
> Like the age of consent laws themselves, their purpose is preventing schoolgirls being abused by adults.
Which isn't quite reasonable to have two different limits
- Sending a nude image in a sexual pose
- Having your first time
Fuck the image. Okay, there is some nude image and possible some aroused sexual organs. And the worst case is, it ends up on some internet site. And does anyone care? The internet is full of nude people's images. You mentioned the fappening. And, does somebody still care? Some nude celebrities
> Europe also doesn't have the attitude that horny schoolgirls are automatically victims
Indeed, but it's still not justified to allow people to fuck and disallow them to take pictures of it.
> That means, unless the man owed a duty of care (eg. teacher, coach, priest), the courts aren't going to automatically convict on this crime
It's a bit more complicated. The point is, that the duty of care means an even higher age, possibly not at all, if you don't want to risk it. For teachers it's a good advise, to stay off the students, even the 18+ ones. And the lower age limit of 14 (germany) still prohibits incentives as money, but other goods and non-material incentives are disallowed as well. This means, that some situations may be dangerous, just because it could be seen as arranged to be an incentive.
The laws here are sometimes weird, but in sex cases they are usually interpreted in a reasonable way. For pornographic pictures (and since some time: sexual pose images) there are some court cases which are very strict.
> Accounts originating from the same IP address would be kept in the same verse.
If it's that easy, then just ban.
Its not like i cannot just have my "am i shadowbanned" account on my phone
> it's to delay them as long as possible.
Which is bullshit. You* do not ban people, you do not ban opinions, you ban behaviour. People trolling, people flaming and people posting hate (that are three different things!) may be unwelcome (and this should be stated before) and that's a behaviour. Banning an account won't stop the next. No matter how clever your special kind of ban seems to be.
> The immediate response is that they will create a new account.
Of course. As for every other ban type. You may stop some idiots, but idiots are no problem, everybody knows them when he sees them. The clever ones may be the annoying ones.
> The point is to keep them busy trolling in an environment that doesn't harm others and possibly frustrate them enough times that they don't want continue.
Which you try to solve technically, but where you won't succeed.
* reasonable people.
Silly as it is, different european countries have such laws.
Technology never solved social problems.
And here the workaround to your idea: Troll with two accounts. Do you still see the second one? Oh, it must be "versebanned".
Ideas like shadow banning seem clever to their inventors, but actually they are a silly game. Just convery your message and say "You're banned. That's it". Controlling if somebody returns needs to be done anyway, and hoping nobody notices your fancy new type of ban is just hopeless. Like the forums with the "crash browser of banned users" option in the good ol' times.
I am with you at the thing, why sex or in this case even just nudy (maybe sexy) pictures should be a problem.
But ridiculing the age limit with "... and X seconds" isn't that useful. If you decide to set some limit somewhere, you will always have some time span around the limit, where you can say "hey, she was just one day younger / she was just one day older" and ridicule it. Still you set the limit somewhere and if you set it lower, you have such a time span again. So get over it, a limit involves a certain uncertainity time around it, where it seems silly.
Your alternatives would be creepy stuff like a maturity test before sex or similiar. Then better a hard age limit and then its fine from one second to the next.
Last time we had it because of terrorism, this time it's because of the children. Next time terrorism again, but then censorship instead of surveilance.
What is a modified Ubuntu (possibly broken), when it's no derivative (of the original ubuntu)?
Mozilla does the same and gets the same criticism. Debian doesn't prevent people from make "debian derivatives".
I would question it, if it wasn't so plausible.
It's a nice product to demonstrate, that you should trust no hardware. But its a Proof of Concept. There is no reasonable use to mass produce it. Even securty professionals won't kill one notebook per customer, but just play a video of the thing in action.
Mass producing it just calls for stupid pranks costing a lot of money and killing a lot of data, which isn't backed up. And possibly getting people in jail, which think its just a prank.
Ask 8 companies a suggestive question with the intend to either dissect their answer to find anything speaking against them or pointing at the answer later trying to accuse them of not fully staying to it. Companies either have no time to put up with your bullshit or do not want to have an answer people may mistake as binding in the media and do not answer. Then post "7 our of 8 companies do to refuse to do it". Nope. 7 out of 8 companies refused to contribute to your shitty article.
The spirit of opensource (not the trademark laws) says, you're allowed to do so. If you do too much nonsense, i may post on my homepage, that your project isn't mine. If you just add a few (broken) scripts, i will try to work with you to fix them first. Because i am happy, when you add scripts, i did not need but which are useful for people using my product.
And i guess there is no intend to break it, its just inability to make good installer images. See hanlon's law.
The problem is, when you make a opensource distribution with a name, you should not use trademarks to prevent people from making derivatives. And a "ubuntu plus our installer" is still an ubuntu after installation. If the installer fails miserably
How broken they might be, but keep loyal to the spirit of open source. People have the right to use and modify your stuff. So let them do it and STFU.
Statistics are no substitute for judgement. -- Henry Clay