Asking for an ID won't save you either. I remember a case, I believe it was in England, where a girl under legal age had lied to a guy and showed him a fake ID to prove she was the age she claimed. He still ended up charged and convicted over it.
And yes, some preteens/teens who mature early do look like adults. Some look like a cross between a child and an adult (usually the face looks more childish, but body is mature). Sometimes you really can't tell by looking at them.
I looked at the article to see if it mentions that, and it had this:
It would take a two-thirds vote in the Legislature to override Mead's veto. The bill cleared both houses by margins far above that level in this legislative session. The bill had been sponsored by the Joint Interim Judiciary Committee, which held hearings on it last year.
So the odds are good it will get passed over his veto.
I really don't get why police/prosecutors haven't jumped at the chance to press criminal child porn charges against the various revenge porn sites. They're happy to press said charges against teens who took nude photos of themselves, but here we have a pretty clear example of actual child porn distribution and not a peep.
It wouldn't even be a problematic charge. If you aren't verifying ages and refuse to take pictures down, you damn well deserve to be charged with distribution of child pornography!
That's just insane, I can't see anything remotely similar. Old Ox uses blue, yes, but it's nowhere near Red Bull's blue. Maybe Red Bull thinks the X mimics their diagonal on the can, but... the angle's not even close to the same. (Also, it's a fucking letter X.)
I guess Red Bull's just full of bullshit and needs to let it out.
The article mentioned both grants from the German government, and that the last one ran out in 2010. It further mentions he continued to pay the programmer he'd hired for two more years in hopes more funding would come in. That should account for all the German grant funds.
And as for Stripe/Facebook/Linux Foundation tweets, you really need to look at timestamps, it's not hard. All those tweets are from 2015/02/05, aka, TODAY. In fact, the times on both are after the time of this post. Meaning they happened after the fact. This post got attention and now he's got funding he didn't have yesterday.
I've thought about this for a while now, but I think one thing we really need is a new organization, one called something like "Citizens for the Public Domain" or maybe "Public Domain Defenders". The beauty of this organization will be its ability to throw the copyright maximalists' rhetoric right back at them, but now framed as defending the public domain.
Instead of talk of pirates "stealing" digital copies of stuff, this organization can talk about how copyright maximalists really are stealing the public domain from us, year by year, and wanting to take even more of it. And you know, maybe all those pirates are just reacting to that and taking the public domain back with their own hands. Sure you can argue against this, but it's harder, and it comes off as an attack on the public, not "protecting starving artists" any longer.
There are other examples too, but I'm having a bad day with my health (lots of pain) and can't remember all I had come up with. I'll reply with more if I can remember them. I do think this would help, even if it couldn't get the public's attention (since mainstream media is unlikely to report on anything that's not in copyright maximalists' favor), it could get congress' attention. It might be the difference between yet another copyright extension and/or more draconian copyright laws getting passed and them not. And it would put copyright maximalists on the defensive, which is always good. And like I mentioned above, it helps to reframe all of the maximalists attacks as the attack on the public they really are, making it harder for them to gain ground.
It's pretty sad that they don't seem to understand that the reason people don't respect them is because they do little to nothing to earn that respect nowadays. Instead it's all "we're above the law" and "respect my authority!"
And then we get things like locking the DA out for daring to do their job and charge some cops with murder. That's just being childish and petulant. In a sane world they'd be fired for refusing to do part of their job.
I respect this DA though for being willing to do their job even though they had to know the cops would react like spoiled toddlers.
Even if we accept that logic, this doesn't explain the model rental fee going up at both Time Warner and Comcast. Cable modems haven't gotten a lot more expensive (if at all, I think they've gotten cheaper, especially when buying in the kind of bulk the cablecos do). Funny how they didn't explain that, ehh?
It's actually more than just the modem rental fee, here's what they did to my bill (Internet and cable TV, no phone):
* Modem rental fee went from $8 -> $10 * Broadcast TV fee went from $1.50 -> $3.25 * Additional digital adapters (required for every TV) went from $1.99 -> $2.99 * Regional sports fee added of $1
All told, since I have two extra adapters, my bill's gone up $6.75 a month in nothing but bogus fees. The digital adapter fees are really a kick in the face. Since Comcast encrypts the signal now, you have to have those to watch the cable TV you pay for on any set. The only provide one for free (a full cable box, which I have YET to get to work despite swapping it three times last year alone). For any additional TVs you get to pay nearly $36 a year to watch cable TV on them. This is complete and total bullshit.
My hope is that they're becoming so unpopular that a couple of Attorneys General in various states will decide investigating Comcast to grandstand is more valuable than Comcast's campaign donations. They'd make a great target, the public would love any AG that took them to task!
The Kindle will never receive an update, given what I read here it was a wise decision to terminate it's internet abilities.
If it's a 1st gen Kindle Fire you don't have to worry, Amazon stopped updating it after they released the 2nd gen models. Their treatment of their devices customers is largely appalling. (Which is really strange given their normal customer service is excellent.)
I'd be seriously surprised if there's anyone using Usenet for porn (especially images). All the porn groups got totally overrun by spambots sometime in the 1990s, and are totally worthless for anyone actually seeking porn.
The guy is a scumbag, no doubt there, but before you go off on your misguided vigilante justice assault, better check your definitions. Pedophilia is defined as sexual attraction to prepubescent children. His victim was 17, it's highly unlikely they were prepubescent.
So handing out fliers branding him a pedophile would land you some handy defamation charges, and since you're probably not a cop, you'd end up in jail far, far longer than he'll spend over them.
Also, that crazy EU judgement (not a law!) would not protect Beavers either. Criminal convictions of this nature would remain in the public interest. Hell, some EU countries have sex registry requirements themselves (The UK does, not sure about others.)
I ran into this myself last year. I have a server that my route to it from Comcast went through Cogent. And during peak hours it was dial-up speeds. In the graph below I was doing backups continuously for nearly 24 hours straight (there's a gap in there where one finished and I hadn't started the new one yet). The graph matches the stuff MLab found:
And not only the privacy implications, have you looked at how CurrentC works? The terminal will display a QR code, then you have to run the CurrentC app on your smartphone, and let it use the camera to scan the QR code to pay. WTF? This is going to be so inconvenient I doubt it'll get very much usage at all. I know I wouldn't even consider trying it.
They probably should, even if they're inclined not to. Facebook could escalate this easily by applying an IP block to all .gov addresses, or just figure out the DEA's IP ranges and block those. Sure they could still get through using VPNs and such, but it would make life much, much harder for the DEA.
Not to mention Facebook could also add a warning to profiles created from .gov address ranges: "This profile was created from a US government computer and may not be who it claims to be." Since very few government IPs should be used for creating Facebook accounts, this could work well. And yes, the DEA could get around this too, but it would again make things harder for them.
At some point the benefits to the DEA wouldn't be worth continuing to fight it.