I believe that protected classes in the US aren't identifying things such as, "You can't discriminate against a woman". Rather, what they say is, "You can't discriminate based on anything related to gender". There may be some exceptions, like veterans as mentioned above, but they would be the exception.
Have double-standards? We can, and we do. Does that make it right? Most would say no, including me.
It's actual quite hypocritical, if you think about it. Putting a double-standard in place to fix a previous double-standard. But, I suppose, with the "power" of the state, most people think they can play social-architect and fix all the world's ills...from their armchair. Standards being only one "weapon" in their arsenal.
I'm with you - But in the US I believe this depends on the state. The "To catch a predator" show was specifically done in areas where the law included "intent" as a crime, rather than the actual crime IIRC.
As a child I was diagnosed and took Ritalin for a while. My parents didn't like the way it altered my behavior. However, they then tried coffee twice a day - Breakfast and Lunch (I was in 2nd or 3rd grade).
The coffee worked well. Entering highschool I couldn't stand coffee and didn't do anything to address the ADD symptoms. In college I powered through on other caffeinated beverages. I now enjoy the occasional cup of coffee (1-2 cups a week) and can definitely tell the difference in my ability to focus when I've been drinking coffee and when I haven't.
I have a similair story, as I child I never liked taking meds or how it effected me, I refused to take a blood test one day and was removed from treatment, I'm now 26, recently I tried matcha (green tea powder) and found it to be much better then coffee as it's a stimulant & relaxant (no crash, very calming and alert). I also found as I got older it got easier to manage, it also left me with the ability to hyperfocus when I'm in the zone working.
I'm actually thinking this is either "Kinect" on a tablet and/or eye tracking. The application specifically talks about additional sensors. being used to build apps. I'm not sure head tracking is a strong use case for additional apps. But something with the depth of MS's Kinect or eye tracking could be really interesting.
Question on those 6 weeks. I've heard before that some countries include national holidays in there 5-6 week count. Is that the case here? Generally when Americans are listing their vacation days they are not including what they view as mandatory holidays (Memorial day, july 4th, thanksgiving, christmas, new years, etc).
FWIW, I'm in the US and we have ~5-6 weeks vacation.
I am currently in Germany, 6 weeks is basically a standard excluding holidays (which is up to 13 extra days depending on the state and weekend overlay as there are no bank holidays). So in the end you can end up with ~8 weeks. Minimum vacation days as specified by the law is 4 weeks.
Most of my friends in the US start with 2 weeks, after a few years they get 3 weeks, then these are reset if they change the job, and if they take a vacation, they are either frowned upon or they have to be available to work on a moments notice. I find this utterly crazy.
I have not, nor have I ever met anyone who has, been expected to work or even be available on a vacation. I've also never taken or been offered a job with less than 3 weeks vacation to start. Current job (been here for 2 months) is 25 paid days off plus ten or so holidays. This seems to be a common criticism of the US but I've been in the professional workforce for just about a decade and have never come across this. I've worked remotely, for small companies with ten employees and Fortune 500 companies. I just don't believe there are people taking jobs where they get 10 days off a year and are expected to answer a phone call from their boss on vacation, unless they are 1) interns; 2) non-professional jobs, service industry, etc; 3) at the very beginning of their career (I could see this happening with more predatory employers with the huge number of unemployed recent grads looking for works).
I think it depends on different factors. My wife has the same experience as you - never had less than 3 weeks of vacation time. She's a policy analyst in the non-profit sector. I've been in IT as a software developer for 20+ years and have been with 8 different employers across different industrial sectors and ranging from startup to Fortune 500. Most employer changes set me back to 2 weeks.
I know people who feel pressure to work on vacation. The pressure is very real and isn't always related to ambition on the part of those people. Usually they're being exploited by an ambitious manager who has a "hold" of some kind, e.g. exploited person has a child with 2 years left of college and can't afford to lose his/her job.
Well, 2 weeks were a starting offer from once the most valuable company on the planet for a senior SW engineer position in California, with automatic extension by 1 week after the first year, and another week after a promotion to a staff engineer.
One Seattle-based eCommerce company forced you to keep pager with you all the times, even on a vacation, if you were an unlucky part of operations.
This can't happen in most European countries, unless the company desperately wants to lose plenty of court cases.
One member of my US family in the midwest worked in an unionized menial job with 1 week of paid vacation including sick days. The rest was unpaid.
I was expected to work or be available on vacation the entire time I worked at a startup. Once the company was bought by a larger company, I received 5 weeks of vacation, that I still was required to be available and work.
Only after I left the unit I was in, was it respected that I was not to be contacted.
Edit: I'd also add I had to work all day on Christmas one year, and I know others in very similar situations.
Friends with a security engineer at a company everyone would know. He can't even get a normal work day right now, or a single day off in a week.
I feel like anything like that has to be predicated on not being able to find any book. Which is certainly possible, but I feel like $DISASTER will probably leave behind some libraries and books somewhere. The people would just have to be dedicated to learning the lost info from books + experimentation.
This doesn't show a full appreciation for gmail's timing.
Prior to gmail I had 4 (5?) different email addresses I moved through with different services. For lots of folks my age (~30) these email addresses we had predating gmail didn't mean anything. They weren't important, they were disposable. Gmail's release coincided with the time for many of us when email addresses starting becoming a thing that mattered. The release lined up with a general shift towards email as a first class communication mechanism.
Thanks to all of the things not covered in the email spec --- we are suffering from a bit of email lock in. We figured with phone numbers we needed to be able to take our phone numbers with us. They're a number people will use to communicate with us for the rest of our lives.
Email is similar, only it's not really practical to update everyone on your email address when you switch email providers. Some folks will argue that you can forward email from one address to another and reply from your new address - this isn't a real solution. You're still dependent on the intermediary solution. Not to mention that most people start typing in your name and just select the first auto complete address that shows up, so you'll have to always use the old service in case someone emails that address.
We really need innovation in email around some kind of portability. I have no idea how to design such a setup --- but right now it definitely feels like I can't leave gmail even if I want to. I have hundreds of people that know my email address as the only way to get in touch with me. I've signed up with my email address as my username at hundreds of sites at this point. Hell, half of those sites don't even let you change the email address of your account.
We're totally locked in.
I see comments about using your own domain. While this is obviously a choice (and you can even use google apps for domains to interact with the address if you want) it's not a great solution for the masses.
Email is similar, only it's not really practical to update everyone on your email address when you switch email providers.
Actually that's dead easy as long as you have ownership of the email-address used.
If you have an email-address ending in a domain you don't own, yes you are indeed fucked, because you were naive enough to associate your digital identity with an object you have no ownership rights to.
If you however use a email-provider to provide email for your own domain, you own the address and are free to move between providers at no cost what so ever. Like I did, when I got fed up with Google.
You're not locked in. You can have full freedom with a simple $10 domain. What are you waiting for?
I agree, but that's the very definition of non practical. It doesn't work for 90% of the population. I feel like we should be searching, driving, for solutions that solve everyone's issue not use our issue. We are, for lack of a better word, the "digital 1%". Solutions for us don't necessarily work for everyone.
Somebody has to own and manage the 'namespace'. If it's not you, it is always going to be someone else.
I think this was one of the motivations for pobox.com. By being primarily a mail forwarding service, you can switch e-mail provider by simply forwarding to another address. The same is true for domains, since most registrars have pretty simple interfaces to set up e-mail forwarding.
The hard parts are dealing with SPF/DKIM (since they don't work well with forwarding) and e-mail migration.
I'm lucky that the launch of Gmail happened when it did. I was a sophomore in college when I launched my first startup and I was tempted to use my .edu (my primary address at the time) or the @yahoo.com I had set up years before for random stuff. The pain of switching isn't something I've had to deal with fortunately.
Well, you locked yourself in. It's easy to buy your own domain name and use it with Google. Then you can switch to a different email system and take your address with you.
Even without giving up your Gmail address in the short term, you could move to Outlook.com, import all your Gmail, and use Outlook.com instead. You can also send Gmail from Outlook.com
Either way, you shouldn't have all your email in Gmail or any other service with no back-up. Set up email forwarding so copies of incoming emails are sent to a different address. Use Thurderbird (or whatever) so you have back-up copies on your hard drive.
That's easy for a moderately to highly technical person. The problem tseabrooks identified is exactly that it's not easy for everybody else--especially when that everyone else doesn't have a lens through which to view the potential problem.
Serious question. If you consent today to let me take pictures of you nude... Don't I own the copyright of those pictures? Now, presumably if you and I were dating your consent would be very casual... I'd say, "Hey, mind if I snap some photos" and you'd say, "Go right ahead"... Because I'm quite charming.
A year later I still have these photos and we're not dating any longer. Do I own copyright on photos as the photographer? How far does your casual consent go? Do I need formal consent saying I can reproduce them?
A photo journalist will take a photo of a couple in the park as a child plays in the fountain behind them and use it in the paper the next day. What consent do they need to get from those being photographed?
It just all feels very fuzzy. Presumably most of the nude pictures are taken by someone other than the subject of the photos... meaning the photographer owns the copyright.. I'd think.
Anyone have more info on how this actually plays out?
I believe that the photographer owns the copyright.
There might however be obligations owed by the photographer to the model in such a scenario. I imagine that it could be deemed a 'breach of confidence' and there may be specific privacy laws in some jurisdictions.
Also for this specific case of nude pictures I imagine you could quite quickly get into harassment/cyberstalking territory.
The law surrounding the intersection of copyright, photography, and the internet (with user generated content and Safe Harbour thrown in for good measure) is indeed fuzzy. Honestly, I don't know whether there exists any hard and fast rules per se. When you have so many laws together and sometimes in conflict with one another... I don't know. It's difficult.
I don't think it's that fuzzy, because even if you gave consent at one point to be photographed naked, that doesn't mean that the person having access to the photos can do anything they want with them. I mean it's one thing to send a nude pic in a sext and it's another to upload the pic to the internet with all your personal information.
But... Isn't this why it's legal for "Topless sunbathing photo of celebrity" to show up in the enquirer? They were topless in a public area (Sunbathing on a boat, for instance) and a photographer snapped a photo?
I'm just trying to play the other side of the coin here. It's really unclear to me if revenge porn sites are illegal or just a really asshole thing to do.
Also, In the example you're using... someone sent a sext and that means they were the original photographer, so they own the copyright. It sounds like there are two different types of photos here.
I took a photo of you because you said I could - I own the copyright and can reproduce.
You took a photo of yourself and sent it to me - You're the original photographer, I have no rights to the photo and can't share or reproduce.
According to the Jezebel article and wikipedia most revenge porn photos are selfies or photoshops of stolen non-nude pictures. In which case copyright law would apply.
However, to answer your question, you do own the copyright of a photo you take (unless it is a work for hire) even if you take it without permission. The requirement to get permission isn't related to copyright, it's related to the right to privacy. People have sued for damages over revenge porn violating their privacy rights.
If you think in terms of rights to privacy, then it becomes a lot less fuzzy. A child playing in a public place has no expectation of privacy regarding a photograph being taken and put in a newspaper. When someone lets a lover take photographs of them naked there is an implicit expectation that those photos will remain private between them. It would be hard for the photographer to argue that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy when the purpose of distributing these photographs is to get revenge.