You shouldn't take pictures if you are unsure of the legality of doing so.
If one can lawfully see the acts taking place, then one should be able to lawfully take a photograph. Or, is the logic such that "most people don't have a photographic memory, therefore it is not illegal to see as long as you'll have no permanent record of the events taking place"?
I, for one, have no issues with a programmer of either gender using "TINY_DICK_LOSER" as a constant name, aside from the old belief that capital "i" or "o" is generally bad form (ambiguous with "l" or "0" when using crappy fonts).
In fact, I might actually begin to socially respect said programmer for their sophomoric humor. I see have no animosity towards a joke here and there.
It's not like he created an obviously sexist constant such as "WOMEN_CANT_DRIVE" or "MAKE_ME_SAMMICH" or "GO_BACK2KITCHEN" or "DONT_BLEED_ON_MY_CODE".
While ruling out the possibility that some alien species created us may be a bit hasty... the lack of evidence of these aliens, and the evidence suggesting spontaneous creation of organic enzymes being much stronger, I find it difficult to put any faith into the alien "theory."
...unless you meant that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life. That's just, well, even less probable than aliens.
I guess I'm trying to say that for something to be seriously considered scientifically, there must be at least one plausible theory that correlates with the way we understand things currently, or abstract data — at the very least — to support further investigation. I do not see aliens or Santa Claus matching this description.
If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner