Slashdot Mirror
Hackers Publish Cheating Site's Stolen Data
pdclarry notes that many news outlets are reporting that 9.7 GB of data stolen from cheating website AshleyMadison.com has been published online. "The dump contains files with titles including 'aminno_member_dump.gz,' 'aminno_member_email.dump.gz,' 'CreditCardTransactions7z,' and 'member_details.dump.gz,' an indication that the download could contain highly personal details." Brian Krebs questioned the way this has been reported without confirmation, but added that he's been contacted by several people who found their own accurate details within the data dump. Many of the reports note this detail: "Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."
Usually all sites will send a confirmation email and only enable the account if a confirmation link or code from that email is used.
So i guess it's a bit hard to "create an account using the ... e-mail address of other individuals"
Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals.
...And supplying other people's credit card details as well, no doubt.
FWIW, I believe that people's sex lives are their own business, married or not. But I find it difficult to drum up any sympathy for marrieds who are foolish enough to go looking for something on the side via a big flashy commercial website dedicated to that purpose.
Internet privacy was over at least a decade ago. There's been plenty of time for you to figure this out.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Krebs' latest post discusses that it's highly likely that this upload is fake.
someone extracted only the .gov 's from the list and pastbined it ... its got like mrfakeyfake@irs.gov president@whitehouse... maybe it was honeypot data
"Information wants to be free".
The idea that AshleyMadison (or any other entity) would keep registration information private forever was laughable. My rule of thumb is that if I don't want what I do to be published all over the internet, then don't do it.
I just felt a strange disturbance in The Force, as if a million divorce lawyers suddenly yelled out "CHA-CHING!" and then... yelled out "CHA-CHING!" again!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
False:
Update, 11:52 p.m. ET: I’ve now spoken with three vouched sources who all have reported finding their information and last four digits of their credit card numbers in the leaked database. Also, it occurs to me that it’s been almost exactly 30 days since the original hack. Finally, all of the accounts created at Bugmenot.com for Ashleymadison.com prior to the original breach appear to be in the leaked data set as well. I’m sure there are millions of AshleyMadison users who wish it weren’t so, but there is every indication this dump is the real deal.
Ashley Madison rebrands itself as "Cheating Liar" dot com, reality show on the way.
Except AM specifically did NOT so as to help avoid leaving a trail.
One of my friends is on this list because I created his account for him as a prank.
Onion: http://yuc3i3hat65rpl7t.onion/stuff/impact-team-ashley-release.html
The point of the hackers is not to point out the moral decay of society, but to point out that AM are really scammer, with the number of real males on the website greatly outnumbering the number of real women.
It's not a prank, it's identity theft, either a felony or a misdemeanor.
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ? There is strictly no biological basis to it. At best, monogamy for a period of 5 to 10 years can be justified, in order to raises children. But lifelong ? You got to be kidding...
The whole business model of AM rely on a salted list of sexy women looking for affairs, to attract men.
Ashley Madison hack: hackers claim cheaters' details dumped online
I have an account on AM with a phony identity, though, I never gave them any CC information. Let me finish to download the leak and I'll check if I'm in the leak :-)
Forget the cows, where's the download link?
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?
Who said it does? Nobody says it has to be your norm. You don't have to get married, lots of people don't. You certainly don't have to stay married, again lost of people don't.
There is nothing particularly immoral about having multiple partners over your life. The immorality is the deception and betrayal of trust. If your going to bang strangers from the internet fine... tell your partner(s) that's what your going to be doing. If they're cool with that great. If they're not, you can leave each other and find a partner(s) that will accept it.
But sneaking around behind their back(s), lying to them, and violating their trust? What's your "moral" argument for doing that?
Anyone detect a massive case of projection here? "Freethinking people"? As in, people who think freely and disagree with Ashley Madison's position? Why is it always "freethinkers" are on the despicable side of things? You'd think that actual free thinking would mean that you were free to think whatever you wanted instead of being required to arrive at a pre-arranged conclusion - one that Ashley Madison arrived at. "Forcing their ideology"? WTF is that all about? Sounds to me like they can't handle the fact that the world is a big place and there might be people out there who disagree with them. Shocking, eh?
Sanctimonious: making a show of being morally superior to other people.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In what way is this a prank if your "friend" doesn't ever get notified he even has an account there?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.
well the second part of the prank was obviously to hack and publish the user database.
a pretty elaborate prank I must say, I salute!
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Now let me see the transactions of the other 2000 guys that use my credit card. Gonna be back in a while!
Not to mention the possibility of passing STDs to your current partner.
Prisioner's dilemma
I wonder how long it's going to take before polyamory and related "ethical non-monogamy" concepts become as accepted in society as, say, anal hetero sex or lesbian sex (neither of which are universally accepted, but at least they aren't seen as completely bizarre anymore). The ideas aren't new; swinging/wife-swapping (at least in semi-secret) goes back at least a hundred years, there have been multi-partner communes since decades ago, Heinlein wrote of multi-partner families as a social norm in a number of his books... but it's only relatively recently that social norms have come to accept the concept, and it's still viewed askance by many even in those parts of the west coast where it's most common.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Cheaters really should just suck it up. I mean, yeah it is their own stupid fault in cheating.
Next lets go for the bot boxers, their servers should get hacked next, bring down all forms of gaming cheating!
Wait, what do you mean this has nothing to do with computer games? Da fuq?
...
Looks like someone's started mod-bombing him, probably in retaliation for this post.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Given that the average American commits 3 felony a day, and probably lies exponentially as much... I fail to see your point. Lies are the foundation of social life, might it just be lie by omission. There is no such thing as immaculate honesty, and those who preach it are the first liars.
Wow...what a dick move. You're sure he's your friend?
That's a sociopathic action for sure. You need to have a brain scan to confirm it. Do you do this sort of thing often?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
However, lies to strangers and casual acquaintances are a different thing than lies to someone who is supposed to be able to have implicit trust in you. I'm not talking about small lies like "I'm on my way right now" when you'd totally forgotten something, but the big important ones like "I'm swear not fucking the babysitter." It's a sheer betrayal on a personal level - it causes emotional pain and suffering, and is of the type that such relationships almost never recover from.
Anal sex is old school ans was accepted in lesser civilisations long ago as a mean to get on with the business without having to worry abou babies since they did not have anything to wrap their dicks into. Also it could be performed to keep the girl as a virgin.
The average American of course commits 0 felonies a day, but by repeating that lie you're at least providing evidence for the lying part.
This space intentionally left blank
Well, if pious women in ghillie suits are your thing, it might be a wrong site indeed.
He's taking the fall for his buddy. Friends don't come much better than that.
I find a weird assumption of many of the polyamory folk that most everyone would be polyamorous if not for "societal mores keeping them repressed". Don't get me wrong, I think greater acceptance of polyamorous folk is a good thing, and there probably are some polyamorous people in the closet for some reason or another. But it's simply not true that most people would be polyamorous if "given the chance", as a lot of polyamorous people think, any more than most people would be gay if "given the chance" or whatnot.
Look at human societies throughout history, and not just Judeo-Christian ones. How common is polyamory? I'm not talking about cheating, or leaving one's spouse and finding another, or anything of that nature - I'm talking a group of people who live together, love each other, and all F* together as desired. The reality is, it's been extremely rare. Many societies have normalized "playing the field" - having sex for fun without feelings getting involved - while others frown upon it. But that's not the same as polyamory, which implies a love and bonding relationship between multiple partners.
When feelings get involved, poly situations can get very complicated. "Why is he favoring her???" "Is she no longer interested in me???" "He keeps wanting to spend time with this new girl but I can't stand her". Etc. Don't get me wrong, some people do pull it off - and kudos to them. But let's not pretend that it's for everyone, or even the majority.
I live in a country (Iceland) where there's very little judgement about people for having sex or who they sleep with, in comparison to the US. It's pretty much just expected that if you're an adult, you're F*ing someone, at least one person, possibly multiple, of whatever gender. When our previous prime minister's party was elected, the fact that she's a lesbian was such a big deal that when a call went out for rat's asses, nobody gave one. When she was in office, it only came up in the context of "X country is causing inconveniences for Iceland because they don't like the fact that our PM is gay". Same-sex marriage passed parliament without a single vote in opposition. Reykjavík Pride is one of our country's largest annual festivals, with as much as a third of the population attending. The concept of "dating" without having sex is pretty much an alien concept here. When a couple has been together for a long time, their families generally don't start asking "when are you two going to get married", rather "when are you two going to have kids?" The typical order is meet->sex->get to know each other while having more sex->start dating->kids->optional marriage if you feel like it.
But people from overseas hear this and they misinterpret it, applying their own stereotypes about "how the world would be without holdups about sex" to Iceland. So for example, we get tourists (mainly guys) who come over here and think that this means that any girl he starts talking to in a bar is going to want to F* him. It's really annoying - they don't get the connection that "not being ashamed of sex" doesn't mean "interested in F*ing anyone who says hi". Likewise, polyamory isn't particularly common here. People sleep around aplenty, but if they start getting feelings toward someone, it usually stays toward one person. If things change, the result is usually the same sort of "cheating and/or breakup" situation that you're used to in the states. And people cheating on their spouse - aka, deceiving them - is still very frowned upon, because deceiving a person is a scummy activity no matter what country you're from. There's no shame in divorce here, but cheaters are still rightly seen as scumbags.
Regardless of where you're from: Either be open and honest with the person you're with, or accept that you're a total douchebag.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Oh, I get it now. You're on a crusade to de-construct the virtues of humanity one by one.
Well, lots of luck to you.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Indeed, animal behavior covers the whole gamut, from sexual free-for-alls to lifelong monogamy without repartnering after death. There've been some interesting studies of cheating behavior in duck species that are mostly monogamous but still sometimes cheat on their partners. It makes for an interesting read because they approach it in a similar manner to humans - waiting for their partner(s) to leave, meeting up, checking around to make sure they don't think they're going to get caught, having the tryst (usually in less time than it would take with their spouse), then hurrying "home" - and if they get caught by their "spouse", it can end their "relationship". But even ducks alone, depending on species, run the gamut from sexual free-for-alls to loyal, lifelong monogamy.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
So was this site free? No CC info?
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
However legit accounts may have other identifying info. CC numbers, profile pics and text with personal info. I think for many there will be enough data points to ID if not in a court of law then in a court of spouse.
Silence is a state of mime.
Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.
Oh piss off. The average intelligence of the /. readers and posting community is not in doubt, especially in comparison to more mainstream discussion forums. Contrary to popular opinion, many nerds are the man or woman of their own family, usually one made with a completely normal game of hide-the-sausage.
In my experience - and despite the 'Aspie' stereotype - nerds are keenly aware of other people's feelings and I often find they hold their own behaviour to a higher standard than most.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
well the second part of the prank was obviously to hack and publish the user database.
a pretty elaborate prank I must say, I salute!
This hacker/prankster should be easy to find, he probably reads Slashdot uses an Android phone and had a girlfriend (that last fact should shorten the suspect list considerably). Oh, and he probably only got angry enough to hack AshleyMadison.com because she cheated on him with an Apple iPhone using hipster.
"...people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."
People should also remember it is very difficult to randomly generate a VALID credit card number.
Sites like this use credit card numbers to "confirm" the age of the individual signing up (I know, I know, having access to Daddies' CC isn't proof of age, etc.).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
go via TPB and search "Ashley Madison", it's the 9.69GB one. The 5.somethingGB one (marked "Repack") is fake.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
My gmail address gets used as a throwaway rather a lot, and you'd be surprised at the number of sites that don't bother at all.
This message was sent to you ($foo@gmail.com) because you are a valued NBA fan registered with us and we wanted to wish you a happy birthday!
Hi meleonaz,
www.skype.com
Registered email successfully updated
Your email address for the account meleonaz has been successfully updated to $foo@gmail.com
Hi @notme345,
We got a request to reset your Instagram password.
Thanks so much for joining Pandora! We're very happy to have you on board, and we look forward to providing you with endless hours of great music listening and discovery.
Many more sites will still create the account and let you use it without me validating the email, and many more provide no means of saying this *isn't* their email.
That part is not a lie. I think you're unaware of just how low the bar is for a felony these days. It's one of the major problems with our screwed up society.
Eh, I have no problem with polyamory.
I suspect I'm outside the norm in that regard, but not nearly as far as one might suspect.
I had a discussion with a divorced man in his 40's not too long ago. He said that life isn't much like it used to be, where people stuck it out in marriage because there really weren't any better options. Divorce was difficult, living independently was difficult, people were more judgmental of your life choices, people lived shorter lives and didn't change environments, whatever.
It's getting to where most people kind of shrug at the idea that it's okay not to be in "true love forever". You grow, you change, you find you're not the same person you used to be, nor is your partner. And hopefully, you're not hanging out with the same people forever and ever.
All that having been said: most people don't give the idea of polyamory a little more than a seconds' thought for the same reason I don't: Who has the fucking time?
Seriously, unless you have Dan Savage's podcast on continual stream, you get the idea that most people aren't that preoccupied with the idea of sex or relationships all the time, and have other things that they want to do. And most of the time, being predominantly occupied in romantic relationships aren't conducive to getting those other things done.
Nor do most people really want to go through the idea of "maintenance" (weight loss, working out, updating wardrobe, etc.) to actively seek out a new partner. Hell, I think a lot of unhappy people stay married because they don't want to do the amount of work it takes to not have to be single again.
Really, I think more people than you'd suspect would be at least okay with polyamory, outside of ideological puritans (and even then, ha ha).
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
I guess these Ph.Ds need to stop using the term then.
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
http://psychcentral.com/blog/a...
http://www.webmd.com/mental-he...
Oh, and they need to remove it from the DSM
http://dsm.psychiatryonline.or...
Just another day in Paradise
For what it's worth, more than 15,000 of the e-mail addresses are hosted by US government and military servers using the .gov and .mil top-level domains.
I wonder how many federal employees will be losing security clearances as a result of this?
It will require changes in the law, because the current system is set up for two person relationships. Adapting to homosexual relationships was relatively easy, and often included recognition of non-married couples as well. In most of Europe if you live with someone for a long time, have kids together and generally act like you are married then when you break up the courts will treat it more or less like a divorce.
Dealing with polygamy is more tricky. For example, infidelity is grounds for divorce, but without detailed documentation cheaters will be claiming that they were in a polygamous relationship and that their partner is now just looking for an excuse to take half their stuff. Currently courts are unlikely to recognize polygamous pre-nups and the like...
What I'm getting at is gay people could just live together as if married and the law had little to say about it, but it's going to be harder for polygamous groups because the law actually makes what they want to do difficult.
One thing is for sure, lawyers will be making plenty of money.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Exactly this. I get crap mail from Best Buy, Enterprise Rental Car, and several others, because they're too damn lazy to do their jobs.
Just another day in Paradise
This is a piss poor attempt to give the significant other a lame excuse...
"But darling... it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals.".
Yeah right :)
I find a weird assumption of many of the polyamory folk that most everyone would be polyamorous if not for "societal mores keeping them repressed".
I find the opposite assumption to be completely bizarre. That's how basically our whole society works. You get forced into a lifestyle because if you don't at least appear to live it then your whole life gets shit upon continually by jealous fucks in a position to make it harder.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That for starters depends on the laws of your locality.
Secondly, person registering the account can very well argue they used a pseudonym. Many a pseudonym is a realistic name, and as such can very well happen to match the name of someone else. People that happen to have identical names are a similar case.
It would definitely be identity theft if the person not only uses another person's name, but tries to completely impersonate another individual. Just registering using a name that's not your own is not identity theft, imho.
I clearly was raised in the wrong country. No wonder my wife doesn't want to go on that Iceland vacation I suggested.
Just another day in Paradise
Where you live, but not where I live. People here really don't care who you're F*ing. Honestly. Yet polyamory still isn't common.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
No, you just proved that you're an idiot. If you don't know what the DSM is, you shouldn't be commenting on this.
Just another day in Paradise
Where you live, but not where I live. People here really don't care who you're F*ing. Honestly. Yet polyamory still isn't common.
I don't believe you. People everywhere care who you're fucking. Sometimes, though, they're just politely interested or curious.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Using someone else's email for it pretty much shoots down the argument that it was a pseudonym.
This dump has already been called out as fake
http://krebsonsecurity.com/201...
I assume that ReykjavÃk Pride is the Gay Pride Parade where people celebrate that they like people of the same gender.
How much larger is it compare to the Hetero Pride Parade, where people celebrate their fondness of the opposite gender?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I know what the DSM is, it's that volume which claims that simply disagreeing with authority is a mental illness and that anger is something that can be drugged out.
Bring legitimate examples to the table and leave the ad hominems at the fucking door.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Yeah, me too. AT&T, some casual labour placement place in Phoenix, I even get alarm armed/disarmed/etc. notifications from some woman's house in the NE US. Not to mention the elementary school class parents' mailing list that sent me name, phone number, address, parents' names for all the kids, plus schedules for upcoming events.
People and companies should be more careful.
Agreed, if you would indeed (have to) use that other person's e-mail, and supposedly gained access to that person's inbox, it'd clearly be identity theft.
However in this case, that's not necessary to register an account.
If they are Civilian GS, SES, etc., probably few or none; if they are contractors, they are screwed. Whoever has the AM list and the stolen SF-86 list has a gold mine for extortion.
Hi, I'm just a random person on the internet, I was reading this and I couldn't help notice you we're being a massive douchebag, and I decided to just drop by and give you some notice of your inane fuckery. So that happened.
(and way to be an asshole "oh no legitimate way *get's pointed to a fuckton of legitimate uses* "oh no I mean 'legitimate' use" provides no idea what his idea of "legitimate" could possibly be"
P.S.:Also, those of us who took criminal psychology courses were still taught the term psychopath and sociopath and their very specific meanings you massive tool.
how many people are going to be on those lists who never signed up for the site
All of them.
So the authoritative text of a field is not legitimate? Are you next going to tell me the Oxford English Dictionary is not a legitimate source of definitions of words in the English language?
No legitimate climate scientist believes in climate change.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You don't have to have a problem with polyamory, and GP also doesn't seem to have any. It just doesn't happen much. People tend to life in couples. That may be a heterosexual or homosexual couple, but a couple it almost always is. It's extremely rare to see more than two people within a single relationship, even in homosexual relationships it's normally just two people. Sure, polygamy and polyandry happen but it's really rare, and then usually only in certain religious cults (no idea what they do with all those surplus men for whom there is no wife available) or when there's a shortage of men after some devastating war or so.
I would argue that polyamory is the domain of only those things, like you say.
There are dating sites for this sort of thing. Craigslist even makes the accommodations for this sort of thing.
Personally, I think people just want things that are simple, and are often too selfish for their own good ("You are mine and nobody else's forever and ever..."; and then we wonder why people cheat).
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
It seems quite possible that polyamory/monoamory are part of human biological sexual orientation as well as part of culture. If so, oxytocin would play a strong part, probably also with factors that drive extinction of a response to a stimulus, estrogen, testosterone, etc..
No, it's a prank. Now that this hack has happened it's also hilarious. Don't be an old stick in the mud.
people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals
See honey, even Slashdot acknowledges it! It was a hack. It could have been anyone using my email and credit card. They probably just got lucky on the penis length thing.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I created an account yesterday just to see what it was all about...
I literally smacked my hand off the keyboard to create a username and password (it never even asked me to confirm the password), and the username and domain of an email address. Randomly selected items from drop-downs (managed to set myself up as a 90lb Indian male - couldn't be much more wrong).
Once everything was filled in, the account was instantly created and it was asking me to upload a picture of myself (naturally, I tossed in a dickbutt picture) and added a fun mask to it (compliments of the site's software for "masking" your face).
Then it let me straight into the site, no more questions asked. No verification needed. Nothing.
"Assuming the download turns out to be authentic, people should remember that it was possible for anyone to create an account using the name and e-mail address of other individuals."
Yeah, honey, see some other guy with my name and email address made the account on AshleyMadison, it wasn't me!!
I'm sure that'll work, it sounds so plausible.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
The listings that I have seen are usually a couple that's looking for a playmate (or two) to have sex with, not looking for an extra person to have a lasting romantic relationship with.
And all I wanted to do was order some snack cakes. I thought it was odd that they asked for so much personal information. Then I realized I was on the Ashley Madison web site and not the Dolly Madison web site.
I love how your culture is so superior and open-minded and you can't even bring yourself to say the word "fuck".
It's not to save the feelings of everyone else on this site, either, because we fucking say fuck all the fucking time.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Funny how many guys there are named Ron Mexico.
"Contrarily the lookaside buffer might not be the panacea... "
But not all sites. And supposedly not this site.
Here you go:
https://thepiratebay.vg/torren...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Except for the rare super-cryptographic sites, nearly every sit is vulnerable.
This goes for activity in public too, with a billion smartphone video cams out there.
Why does lifelong monogamy has to be the moral norm ?
Probably because it's the easiest, emotionally and due to resources like time. Ever tried to balance two relationships at the same time? Even when everything is above board and they know about each other, there are a multitude of scheduling issues. Emergencies and times of need can happen at anytime and balancing everything makes for a lot of overhead if not stress. Then, if things are beyond the friends with benefits stage, then they are pretty much going to have to interact with together. If you're lucky, they're going to get along great and conspire against you all the time (usually in a good way), and if not, then you have to manage to people who are constantly at odds. Add another other people and it just increases the complexity that much more.
I've spent time on enough websites that get mad at people for writing the word fuck that it's just easier to abbreviate it.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
"Life long" was probably a lot more reasonable back when marriage was devised and most folks died by 40. And that's my gripe with their slogan. It should be "Life is LONG. Have an affair." Were life so short, it wouldn't be so much of an issue.
Usually all sites will send a confirmation email and only enable the account if a confirmation link or code from that email is used.
HA, No they don't. Someone started using my gmail address years ago (thinking it was theirs) to create accounts. I have access to so many accounts it's borderline wrong. This person even let their kid sign-up to EA's origin.com and bought a game. I did an account password reset seeing as the email address is mine and now the game belongs to me and they can't play it anymore.
Once I even got digital plane ticket's emailed to me from an Australian airline. I was able to do a password reset and get into the account and do whatever I wanted.
Companies seem to be relying on the "type your email 2 times" method and not the ending an email to verify. It's pretty sad.
Sociopath is not a disorder listed in the DSM. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia will inform you of this.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails." - Clarence Darrow
If she cheated and you're working on things, she has no right to be offended if you don't trust her. Check that shit.
I'll be looking to download it just on general principles.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I define my own ethic, other's morality doesn't apply to me.
I never said we need to have a 100% honest society. There is a difference between lying to preserve social harmony (i.e. "you look good", "No I never got you email", etc), and lying about an extramarital affair.
Of the countless different moral systems people have, I have never seen one that doesn't require some degree of honesty.
If you are advocating a moral system that has no requirement for honesty at all, I feel like you are just advocating that we shouldn't have any moral system at all.
That's fine. What is immoral in your ethical system?
"So the authoritative text of a field is not legitimate?"
Given how illegitimate and unreproducible most psychology 'experiments' are, they have zero scientific credibility and thus the entire field is illegitimate.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
So what? She is saying that 10% of life's problems can be best solved by setting fire to something. That sounds about right.
But they did allow you to verify and encouraged it. There's an account verification field with Y/N in it. Most of the accounts are verified. Nice try though!
Most of the accounts were verified. People are already going through the data. You didn't HAVE to verify the email, but most people did anyway.
You can say that about physics, medicine, or climate science as well.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
My apologies, you are technically correct, though the link I provided shows over 1700 relevant articles.
Just another day in Paradise
That is true too lol. There is no official diagnosis of sociopath, so the term is deprecated; though clearly psychologists still use it (and sometimes base their entire practice on it)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I brought legitimate examples, which you've summarily dismissed. But, then you're smarter than all of the actual Ph.Ds in the field.
Have a nice day jackass.
Just another day in Paradise
So, what indicates that it has "depreciated". If it's not decreasing in usage among professionals, that seems to indicate an incorrect usage to me.
Just another day in Paradise
Now now, yall have the right to judge cheaters just as much as cheaters have the right to cheat. But those 'vigilante' privacy-hating folks have the right to steal private information just as much as anarchists have the right to kill.
Medicine has plenty of verifiable experimental results. Climate science has verifiable geological records. Physics has plenty of proof that the Laws of Thermodynamics are inviolable.
Almost every psychology experiment with results simply cannot be reproduced at all.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Wife: Mr. Johnson, you have an account on Ashley Madison
Mr. Johnson: Ashley Madison? I'm not a cheater....
Wife: Sure you are not a cheater
Well, good. That should kill that little segment of 'reality tv' and clean up our airwaves a little bit.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
While the precise way the term "polyamory" is used varies from one person to another, it's frequently used as a shorthand for "ethical non-monogamy" or similar. Swinging or bringing in temporary outside partners are very much forms of ethical non-monogamy and involve a person being amorous with more than one person at a time. I'd say the term fits.
You seem to have a fairly narrow view of polyamory, where if it's not full inclusion of everybody with everybody it doesn't count. That's absolutely a type of polyamory, but it's by no means the only one. In fact, I think it's relatively rare; most people that I know in poly relationships (warning: anecdote; warning: sampling bias) are at least open to the idea of either themselves or their partner(s) having a fling, without some or any of the other partner(s), without it being expected to become a long-term thing. Often (though not always) there's an expectation that the partners will meet the newcomer before things go past a certain point, and there are of course rules in place for things like STI safety, but real-world poly relationships are often just like normal pairwise relationships, except you're allowed to be in more than one at a time.
Sometimes they even form chains of considerable length. I have never met my girlfriend's (other) boyfriend's best-friend-and-fuck-buddy's girlfriend... and while it would be fun to do so at some point, it's no big deal to me. I'm not interested in my girlfriend's boyfriend as anything other than a friend, either, and to even call him that is stretching things a bit at this point as we've only met a handful of times.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
my favourite reaction to this incident is:
"2 years of paying $19 a month... Now I'm finally getting f**ked"
"I'm talking a group of people who live together, love each other, and all F* together as desired."
That's an extremely narrow class of polyamory. The term, as the communities I'm a part of use it, encompasses pretty much all forms of non-exclusive or more-than-pairwise relationships. There's some discussion over whether it applies to people who, alone or along with their regular partners, engage in casual sex outside of their relationship(s), though most people seem to count that too. Any form of "polycule" certainly counts, even though there may not be a single cycle within the relationship graph and there might not be any subgroup larger than two who live together. A man (such as a king or other important/powerful person) who has a harem of voluntary, non-coerced and non-captive members (OK, that may be idealizing things a bit) would count as poly, even if none of the women have other lovers themselves.
With that said... I don't really know how common it's been. The powerful have often had it, including in decidedly non-Judeo-Christian societies, but the powerful have always operated outside of social norms - it's one of the appeals of power, after all - but the more interesting question is how often everyday people have had it.
One thing to bear in mind, though, is that hetero sex used to near-unavoidably mean children, and children of uncertain parentage were a cause of inheritance nightmares (and by "nightmares" I mean anything from simple resent and abuse to full-scale civil wars). The institution of marriage grew out of a need to formalize inheritance by stating that the children of this woman were the inheritors of this man (and if the woman was caught doing something that could lead to bearing another man's child, she was trying to defraud her husband and thus adultery was a crime). Modern advances - like paternity tests, child support, birth control, and women owning property independent of their father or husband - have made this ancient system irrelevant, but it was the way an awful lot of the world worked for a really long time. In such a society, polyamorous relationships of any form *other* than multiple women exclusively with one man is obviously not acceptable.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Oh, bullshit. I realize you're probably just a troll, but whatever. Marriage *is* a legal agreement specifically to handle things like division of property (originally, specifically to handle inheritance).
Religion co-opted it as one of many way to separate the righteous (those who held to their vows, assuming they make them with the right kind of people) from the sinners (those who would do such terrible things as tempt somebody to break a vow). After all, nothing unites a people like having an outsider who is terribly wrong and will destroy all that you hold dear. If you don't have an enemy, invent one. History, both religious and secular, is chock full of examples of this behavior.
Back to marriage: marriage ceremonies have borne religious trappings (and often been conducted by religious figures) since long before Christianity or even Judaism - one wishes to bless the couple with health and fertility, to grow the tribe and make it stronger - but its core was always a secular agreement even back to the days before law was a concept. It was a declaration that the child of this woman is that man's heir, and often enough also that the woman was essentially now his property; she would serve him (and bear his children) and he would provide for her (and his children as she bears them). The requirement that they be his children (not those of some other man) is where the exclusivity of marriage comes in. By the time Abrahamic religions came along, people had enough property (and social expectations of how it is distributed) that a fledgling religion that tried top upset the system would be shunned or even destroyed, but by co-opting the system and making its rules *religious* rules, it emplaced itself as the enforcer of good laws... and, coincidentally, the keeper of marriage.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Legally-recognized poly relationships would indeed be legally complicated, and I expect that this is coming within the next century or so, but legally-unrecognized poly relationships will become (relatively) commonplace well before that. If gay marriage is just now crossing from the third to the fourth states of "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", polyamory is mostly still at the first stage.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Me too. Worst yet, they're usually websites that are so shit that they ignore their own "unsubscribe" processes.
I had this problem just last week. This bunch of clowns ignored my request to unsubscribe. So I went in, reset the password, and logged in. No option to delete account or opt out, so I changed my email address to the website's own enquiries inbox. Made no difference, still got a daily spam. So clearly their email spam-me list is separate from their account list and don't sync. Sigh. Just another address to add to my spam filter for the next 50 years.
Too many morons designing email subscription services.
Yet psychology is a valuable field that underscores medicine, economics, business, stock prediction, poker, and so forth.
Reproducible results in psychology show that 4 months of cognitive therapy for the severely depressed produce results of 0 relapses in 24 months in 47% of cases, while continuous drug therapy for 24 months produces 0 relapses in 23% of patients, and a placebo for 24 months produces 8% success rate. The targeting of specific distorted thinking and the guided improvement of executive functions actually works twice as well as Xanax or Zoloft, which themselves only work about 3 times as well as simply suggesting to a patient that he has undergone treatment.
That indicates the psychological strategies have a large (5x) impact beyond the placebo effect--a conclusion we can reproduce simply enough by putting an experiment group on sugar pills and putting another on therapy, while keeping an untreated control group to monitor.
I'm sure you would argue that seeing the effect repeatedly, but not understanding the cause invoked by the specific experimental action, means no reproducible experimental results exist, since we can't say that each experimental action invokes the same physical responses and thus produces the same effect by the same cause. We can say that about chemistry by invoking quantum mechanics, too.
Support my political activism on Patreon.