The Guardian is taking advantage of the availability of somebody else's hack
I don't see much difference in this distinction. Had News Corp "merely" relied on the likes of Guccifer — would it have been Ok then? Legally it, probably, would've been, but ethically? Hiring a guccifer is the next step down, of course, but I don't think, it is a major step...
unlike News Corp, they didn't pay somebody to do
People do this sort of thing for "fame and glory". By providing them with both, Guardian is, effectively, paying them... And making its own profit from the publication — not entirely unlike the resellers of stolen good, who have not done the theft themselves...
all hacks are illegal and therefore wrong
No, in my opinion, most hacks are wrong and therefore illegal (malum in se). Admittedly, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a clear definition. For now I'd say, when a hack uncovers actual malfeasance, it may be acceptable. But this one has not...
Every time there is a discussion of information obtained through criminal means like this, I'm uneasy and feel sort of like a voyeur. My unhealthy inner sense of ethics becomes confused... If/when the actual perpetrators of the hack are identified and caught, they will be prosecuted — so why is it acceptable for Guardian to profit from their crime without even a condemnation? Their competitors (and ideological foes) News Corp got into serious trouble over phone-hacking — how is this different?
Some secrets — most, in fact — are legitimately secret. Maybe, if there was evidence of actual crimes in there — but the mere fact, that police are interested in surveillance tech? Please... There is just no "there" there.
Point is, this hardware has nothing to do with graphics — it is put into servers to aid specialized computations using chips originally developed for graphics. But they aren't used for graphics — not in this application. Thus "GPU" is a misnomer.
Nobody knows, whether the campaign caused any perceptible dent in Firefox' userbase — as I said, I doubt, there was much of an effect. This simply is not a reason to consider a software program. Especially, a free one — where none of your money would benefit the subject of your hatred either way.
Are you making a serious argument in comparing people getting shot and the NYSE shutdown?
Any serious economic loss can be compared to lost life(ves). The link I gave you explains, how the value of life is computed — it is done based on our own attitudes.
For example, if you aren't willing to spend $5000 on an airbag, that would improve your chances of survival by %0.1, then you value your own life at less than $5 mln.
For another, closer to home example, consider the horrendous losses of Ukrainian fighters resisting Russia for the last year: a whopping 1/3rd of those wounded in battle have died (NATO's acceptable average is about 3% — 10 times!).
Most of the deaths were due to blood loss. A single doze of Celox would've saved one such wounded man — $10-20 delivered to Kyiv, but many either could not afford it or chose to spend money on something else instead.
Am I allowed to oppose dumping raw mercury into rivers & streams, if I support freedom to travel by airplane?
You are allowed to dislike anything you want. What you do about it, however, needs to be consistent. If you want government to fight pollution, for example, you should support governmental efforts to fight all of it. If, instead, you prefer the problem be solved by boycotts and lawsuits by the people actually suffering from the ill-effects, then that too view should, also apply to all kinds of pollution.
That said, could you not have come up with a less contrived example? Raw mercury is too valuable for anybody to just dump it into a river...
There's a world of difference between an adobe flash exploit and the availability of a gun that can mow down a large number of people in a matter of seconds.
Regulation's backers say that "this is an industry that has failed to police itself," ACLU's Christopher Soghoian argued, but many including the EFF warn that overly broad legislation would harm more than help.
The usual Statism vs. Libertarianism argument. Whichever side you are on, dear reader, you must be consistent: you can not oppose "regulation" of security researchers while, at the same time, supporting "common sense limits" on gun-ownership, for example.
No, I doubt, many users have left or came because of it. But he was a major developer himself. Purging him caused very strong harm to the company, its design and development teams. Input of such a person is invaluable...
Doctors used to prescribe bloodletting for centuries, until the it was declared "unscientific". And back again...
But it has never been mandatory... Even today Red Cross and others beg and encourage would-be donors to give blood — wouldn't it be nice for the government to compel citizens to do it? A "common-sense measure to help restore the health of our great nation", uhm?
if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian
What? Is this another thing, where the bigoted and parochial society unfairly targets the less successful?
Is the responsibility for maintaining one's own body no longer with the individual? I guess, if one can blame "the system" for being poor, one can also blame it for being sick — "the Man" made me drink beer and smoke all sorts of plants since age 14!
I can see the new Statist argument in the making — that the government should take yet another heavy burden upon its tired shoulders and redistribute health — in addition to wealth! That it is grossly unfair, for example, that Michael Phelps' body won him 10 gold medals for swimming... Just wait for some way to be found to tax one's health to help "the less fortunate". The voluntary blood-donations of today will be ridiculed by Statists in the same manner, they already ridicule the idea of private charities...
Troll my tail — just what is it, that we, supposedly, "didn't know"? We've known for thousands of years, that some people remain much healthier and more capable with age than others — that we've now gotten around to quantifying it does not really change anything...
It is hard to believe, Brendan Eich was the last one to be purged over a thoughtcrime. Will there be more, or have people learned to hold their tongues and hide their identities better?
"Regurgitate?" I'm the author of it, you fool. It is a parody of this wingnut idiocy — and, I dare say, a far classier than the original for it uses no namecalling to get its point across.
As so often happens, an Illiberal fails to recognize his own... Yep, somebody here is "mentally handicapped".
Rural economies cannot support the nice houses, cars, jobs, shopping malls, and priviledge they see, and they feel left behind.
These same people also feel very intimidated by things they don't understand, and they don't understand much.
Thank you very much for this example of condescension. The way you dismiss over half the country — without, as is usual your kind, any attempts at citations — is really telling. Telling about you... At least, your erzats-deity managed to get some compassion into his condescension — you lack even that.
Me? I would take a country pumpkin over your kind of snobbish "I know, what's better for everybody else" asshole any day of the week. And twice on Shabbat.
It's a symbol of the red state/blue state divide. That's why you're sticking up for it, after all.
Oh, yes, a Ukrainian immigrant living in New Jersey is sticking for Confederate flag, because "he is left behind in a rural State". I've seen people making worse guesses than you just made — with all the aplomb customary to the above-mentioned snobbish assholes — but they are very rare indeed.
But, at least, even you admit, the flag is not "about slavery". I suppose, that's progress.
Re:Is that all it is for Independence Day?
on
When Nerds Do BBQ
·
· Score: 1
There are no such people in America too. Zero... Even the deranged killer of Charleston never said anything about restoring slavery.
The flag is dear to some people's hearts because it is a battle flag of their ancestors... I do not share the sentiment for this particular flag, but I understand it. And you better understand it too — for the healing to begin.
Yes, even if people hold a wrong opinion about you, you still can not force them to change it.
The reason it might be a good idea to allow these to expire from search engines
There is no difference in principle between forcing a search engine to remove a record, and forcing a human being to undergo a memory-erasing procedure. Any and all arguments for the latter will also apply for the former.
Previously, this sort of offense would only be known to you if you personally knew someone who knew the individual.
It does not matter. One does not — or, rather, should not — have a right to forcibly alter other people's memories or perception of himself. If the courts can force Google to erase the records, will they not be able to force the victim erase her memories as soon as the procedures are perfected? For the Greater Good[TM]?
Slashdot Mirror
By this logic, it is Ok to kill soldiers (even if you aren't at war with their country) — and profit from discussing, what the killings revealed.
I don't see much difference in this distinction. Had News Corp "merely" relied on the likes of Guccifer — would it have been Ok then? Legally it, probably, would've been, but ethically? Hiring a guccifer is the next step down, of course, but I don't think, it is a major step...
People do this sort of thing for "fame and glory". By providing them with both, Guardian is, effectively, paying them... And making its own profit from the publication — not entirely unlike the resellers of stolen good, who have not done the theft themselves...
No, in my opinion, most hacks are wrong and therefore illegal (malum in se). Admittedly, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a clear definition. For now I'd say, when a hack uncovers actual malfeasance, it may be acceptable. But this one has not...
Every time there is a discussion of information obtained through criminal means like this, I'm uneasy and feel sort of like a voyeur. My unhealthy inner sense of ethics becomes confused... If/when the actual perpetrators of the hack are identified and caught, they will be prosecuted — so why is it acceptable for Guardian to profit from their crime without even a condemnation? Their competitors (and ideological foes) News Corp got into serious trouble over phone-hacking — how is this different?
Some secrets — most, in fact — are legitimately secret. Maybe, if there was evidence of actual crimes in there — but the mere fact, that police are interested in surveillance tech? Please... There is just no "there" there.
Point is, this hardware has nothing to do with graphics — it is put into servers to aid specialized computations using chips originally developed for graphics. But they aren't used for graphics — not in this application. Thus "GPU" is a misnomer.
Is it still a "Graphics Processing Unit", if it does not even offer any way to connect a display to it?
Well, maybe, it just means "Ginormous" now...
Calls for boycotts are rarely successful in general and on the subject of "gay marriage" in particular.
Nobody knows, whether the campaign caused any perceptible dent in Firefox' userbase — as I said, I doubt, there was much of an effect. This simply is not a reason to consider a software program. Especially, a free one — where none of your money would benefit the subject of your hatred either way.
You forgot to include the usual Illiberal imploration to Please, don't hate.
Any serious economic loss can be compared to lost life(ves). The link I gave you explains, how the value of life is computed — it is done based on our own attitudes.
For example, if you aren't willing to spend $5000 on an airbag, that would improve your chances of survival by %0.1, then you value your own life at less than $5 mln.
For another, closer to home example, consider the horrendous losses of Ukrainian fighters resisting Russia for the last year: a whopping 1/3rd of those wounded in battle have died (NATO's acceptable average is about 3% — 10 times!).
Most of the deaths were due to blood loss. A single doze of Celox would've saved one such wounded man — $10-20 delivered to Kyiv, but many either could not afford it or chose to spend money on something else instead.
You are allowed to dislike anything you want. What you do about it, however, needs to be consistent. If you want government to fight pollution, for example, you should support governmental efforts to fight all of it. If, instead, you prefer the problem be solved by boycotts and lawsuits by the people actually suffering from the ill-effects, then that too view should, also apply to all kinds of pollution.
That said, could you not have come up with a less contrived example? Raw mercury is too valuable for anybody to just dump it into a river...
There is not. Shutting down NYSE, for example, cost billions of dollars. At $10 mln per life, that's hundreds of lives right there...
The usual Statism vs. Libertarianism argument. Whichever side you are on, dear reader, you must be consistent: you can not oppose "regulation" of security researchers while, at the same time, supporting "common sense limits" on gun-ownership, for example.
Shutting the exchange down for a few hours — they've resumed trading already — is not going to move the needle for Chinese interests. China herself has just banned "major stockholders" from selling for six months .
If I were in your shoes, I would've gotten tired of being wrong all the time by now — your stamina is, indeed, quite astounding.
The military rule for mishaps, that I read somewhere, goes like this:
Are we sure, there are only two major problems today?
No, I doubt, many users have left or came because of it. But he was a major developer himself. Purging him caused very strong harm to the company, its design and development teams. Input of such a person is invaluable...
Doctors used to prescribe bloodletting for centuries, until the it was declared "unscientific". And back again...
But it has never been mandatory... Even today Red Cross and others beg and encourage would-be donors to give blood — wouldn't it be nice for the government to compel citizens to do it? A "common-sense measure to help restore the health of our great nation", uhm?
What? Is this another thing, where the bigoted and parochial society unfairly targets the less successful?
Is the responsibility for maintaining one's own body no longer with the individual? I guess, if one can blame "the system" for being poor, one can also blame it for being sick — "the Man" made me drink beer and smoke all sorts of plants since age 14!
I can see the new Statist argument in the making — that the government should take yet another heavy burden upon its tired shoulders and redistribute health — in addition to wealth! That it is grossly unfair, for example, that Michael Phelps' body won him 10 gold medals for swimming... Just wait for some way to be found to tax one's health to help "the less fortunate". The voluntary blood-donations of today will be ridiculed by Statists in the same manner, they already ridicule the idea of private charities...
Troll my tail — just what is it, that we, supposedly, "didn't know"? We've known for thousands of years, that some people remain much healthier and more capable with age than others — that we've now gotten around to quantifying it does not really change anything...
It is hard to believe, Brendan Eich was the last one to be purged over a thoughtcrime. Will there be more, or have people learned to hold their tongues and hide their identities better?
"Regurgitate?" I'm the author of it, you fool. It is a parody of this wingnut idiocy — and, I dare say, a far classier than the original for it uses no namecalling to get its point across.
As so often happens, an Illiberal fails to recognize his own... Yep, somebody here is "mentally handicapped".
Thank you very much for this example of condescension. The way you dismiss over half the country — without, as is usual your kind, any attempts at citations — is really telling. Telling about you... At least, your erzats-deity managed to get some compassion into his condescension — you lack even that.
Me? I would take a country pumpkin over your kind of snobbish "I know, what's better for everybody else" asshole any day of the week. And twice on Shabbat.
Oh, yes, a Ukrainian immigrant living in New Jersey is sticking for Confederate flag, because "he is left behind in a rural State". I've seen people making worse guesses than you just made — with all the aplomb customary to the above-mentioned snobbish assholes — but they are very rare indeed.
But, at least, even you admit, the flag is not "about slavery". I suppose, that's progress.
Please, don't hate.
There are no such people in America too. Zero... Even the deranged killer of Charleston never said anything about restoring slavery.
The flag is dear to some people's hearts because it is a battle flag of their ancestors... I do not share the sentiment for this particular flag, but I understand it. And you better understand it too — for the healing to begin.
Yes, even if people hold a wrong opinion about you, you still can not force them to change it.
There is no difference in principle between forcing a search engine to remove a record, and forcing a human being to undergo a memory-erasing procedure. Any and all arguments for the latter will also apply for the former.
Or if you paid somebody to dig up dirt on whoever. What used to be available to the rich, is now more egalitarian. Congratulations...
That's it? Seriously? Rather depressing...
It does not matter. One does not — or, rather, should not — have a right to forcibly alter other people's memories or perception of himself. If the courts can force Google to erase the records, will they not be able to force the victim erase her memories as soon as the procedures are perfected? For the Greater Good[TM]?