What are you talking about? The IRA didn't bomb London to "shock people into liking" them. It bombed London because it wanted to make people listen and/or to deliver what it perceived as retribution.
Although "WE'LL BOMB THEM UNTIL THEY LIKE US!" seems to have been ostensible US military philosophy since the '70s. Perhaps it's rubbed off on you?
Happy men would have no interest in signing up to the Taliban, and the Taliban would never reach the critical mass required to strongly encourage[tm] other men to join.
So, yes, the problem is that once reasonable men were not listened to - and they're still not being listened to. So they find a group which is willing to give them some form of power.
Also, you ought to leave whatever backwater swamp you're floating in and visit Europe once in a while. Macho countries like Spain have spent the last couple of decades going through a very heavy period of acknowledging just how widespread domestic violence is against women even in the West. Anglo-Saxon countries haven't reached this epiphany that unhappy people can be right bastards to those even weaker. And it's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the same reason rape tends to happen: the unsatisfied seeking some flavour of power.
So no actual experience or academic study of the IRA or the Middle East crisis?
Obviously there was more going on than
Obviously. For example, Adams probably had a cold at some point in the past decade and that also may have affected his performance.
since you haven't been personally inconvenienced by having your own family blow up
True, when my dad was working as a civil servant in central London a couple of decades ago it was never worse than a very near miss. Yet neither he nor I felt either anger or cowardice. Hell, my father was born in the middle of a civil war which tore families apart (and killed quite a few of them!) and he can still speak in a balanced manner about the grievances of both sides.
And a friend of my ex who worked at that funny shaped building in NOVA... turns out he didn't go in until later that day so he had a lucky miss too! Not really sure how he felt, but my ex's response was to castigate US policy in the Middle East and to campaign even harder for peace.
America is full of children. Wide-eyed, enthusiastic, often bright and sometimes hard-working. But children.
9/11 caused the IRA to "realize they were behaving like asshats"? Yours is the most sophomoric, US-centric explanation of the end of the Troubles I have ever heard.
And I'd rather the freedom of 15 years ago plus the hassle of an occasional bomb warning than the hell the US government has pushed the West into over the last decade. How old are you?
Right, because until Thatcher said otherwise, the IRA were actually well liked for burning civilians alive, killing mothers for teaching their daughters to interpret an old book a particular way or for working to feed their families since their husbands were shot for walking down the wrong road or visiting the wrong priest. And when they go cap in hand to clueless ex-pats in the US to collect money to fund their operations, that was really quite OK and euphoric and whatnot until Thatcher started calling it bad.
Yep, I was joking: what worked in the UK wasn't Thatcher's propaganda (for either side), but Labour's willingness to listen and to negotiate (for both). Extremism is what happens when desperate people fail by moderate means.
I had always imagined that the most euphoric way to die would be fulfilling some religious or quasi-religious mission. So if you hype yourself up to, say, mass killing for your cause and the prospect of a glorious afterlife, the seconds before you hit the detonator must feel wonderful.
Fortunately, I'm not a thrill-seeker, I don't like killing people, and - most importantly of all - I don't think random attacks on civilians for political causes are likely to be effective. Especially not since the IRA has moved on and the US propaganda machine tells the world to dislike the current crop of boogeymen.
He just thinks Competition and cooperation are to different thing; which they are not.
What?
Privileged person disenfranchised with the way things are done, that makes the logically fallacious jump that what they perceive is wrong, there for the exact opposite is right and there is no in between.
Lots of other people have posted about what is right. I think I've only posted here about not supporting what is wrong.
I doubt they have never been hungry. Being hungry and trying to figure out hot to eat for a week is an eye opening experience in the practicalities of balanced thinking.
Everyone is hungry from time to time and figuring out how to eat for a week. It's just that for some people it's much easier to find a solution than it is for others. You might already have capital somewhere which you just need to take a few moments to access. You might have the support of family to fall back on. Or you might be sufficiently healthy and able that you can say to anyone you know "I'll be happy to do whatever you want all day" - whether that's helping them with their work or doing stuff around the house - and in return they're happy to give you a meal and let you sleep on the couch or in the spare room.
Whenever I've been in a third world[tm] country, I admit that I've never decided to deny myself access to money for an extended period of time and somehow disable my ability and health just to experience what it really means to be deprived. I'm not sure it's actually possible to do this without whacking myself over the head until I'm slow, alienating everyone I know, giving away everything I have and renouncing my citizenship - otherwise I always know I have something to fall back on, giving me the very security and hope that truly destitute people don't have. I've not eaten for a week out of choice, to see what it was like - I am in for those kind of extreme experiences - and it wasn't difficult. But it wasn't difficult because I knew it was my choice. I knew that I had access to resources to start eating again, and even if I was denied access to everything I had built up so far, I had my intelligence to enable me to find work and start again. If even that failed, I'd have the fallback of state support.
So, how would you like me to punish myself so that I can experience this state of helplessness? And you seem to be implying that experiencing helplessness would make me less charitable - why? Because whenever I go through something difficult, it makes me think "how could this have been even worse?" and I'm more motivated to help those worse off than me.
Surely Javascript sent from the server with which the SSL session has been made has the opportunity to read what's being transmitted to/from the server anyway? And third party Javascript doesn't get access to random SSL connections with other domains?
What are these guys claiming? That known plaintext at the start of an SSL session plus access to all packets passing between client and server means further characters can eventually be worked out?
You sound like a sad little hippie who still has a chip on his shoulder because some jocks picked on him a decade or two prior.
Where I went to school, "jocks" wouldn't have passed the entrance exam. I dislike my elite past, but I'm not going to deny it.
What is wrong with competition?
What is right with competition? There are times when it seems to work but there is nothing inherently good about it.
And you propose a losers-distribute-winnings-equally environment?
You're paying no attention. I propose that the intelligent act out of a desire to achieve good things in their discipline rather than to profit. There are 7 billion people in the world - more than enough who are both clever and benevolent. We simply have no need of the "gr8 people like me need $$$ incentive to support you!" mantra any more - it's a more outdated idea than RIAA, which is why certain groups are trying so hard to cling on to it.
For people who (i) are sufficiently intelligent to enter MIT (or similar); but (ii) are interested in application of technology to benevolent causes rather than application of technology to their bank account to refuse an acceptance or to leave the university and instead do what they believe is right on their own?
If you want to force any organisation to change its behaviour, as any fule kno, you withold labour. Top universities exist on the reputation of a tiny minority of dedicated academics, but their business is processing journeymen who either stop at graduation or do a small amount of research work to launch them into a high-paying commercial job.
To take an example, the director of my MSc programme resigned in angry disgust at the increasing commercialisation of higher education but most academics are too scared to leave the security of their tenure (or quasi-tenure). His action encouraged me as a student to take a look at politics in the university and higher education in general, and I aborted my research plans out of principle. Interestingly, my cousin at the LSE did the same as a final year PhD student.
No, you got up to 56 days' interest free credit, another liable party to guarantee seller performance, extended warranty, cashback, and the opportunity to make an otherwise unaffordable payment in an emergency at a not-insane rate of interest.
This is worth way more than $10. And credit cards are absolutely not a cash replacement - cash is still available if you want a degree of anonymity.
But what's most important is that Visa/Mastercard/Amex/banks' primary business isn't targeted advertising. They will have a lot of data spread across departments and competitors but they won't group together and trip over themselves to mine and track every last tiny thing out of you. Putting anything more in the Google basket is not wise.
MIT epitomises the competitive, winner-takes-it-all, might-makes-right environment which is keeping half the world in poverty. Every dominant man starts forming his network at one of the elite universities, supporting research in collusion with exploitative business. When you've accepted that offer, you've already asked to be part of the system - to pretend to do something against it is ineffective hypocrisy.
Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown "Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun
Don't say that he's hypocritical Say rather that he's apolitical "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Some have harsh words for this man of renown But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun
You too may be a big hero Once you've learned to count backwards to zero "In German oder English I know how to count down Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun.
Everyone deserves empathy. That's how empathy works. If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.
I offer to do it for $100/year. I shall use the money to print out a sign at each major airport saying:
Welcome to another great American city. Sorry we slipped up earlier. We'll leave you to go about your peaceful business now.
If anyone anywhere wants to kill hundreds of people, they have their pick of any busy street. But they don't because they don't. Security at airports is irrelevant.
On the contrary, the Israelis do it quite badly. They think that protecting one avenue for attack is going to help, but it just means other places will be targeted.
There are sixty million people in the UK and each day on average close to 0 of them wish to kill a selection of strangers within the country. Is it because we have wonderful security? No. It's because the UK is a bearable place to live.
"Terror" doesn't happen because certain groups are inherently evil. It happens because certain groups of people identifying what is to them a grave injustice lack the means to form a regular military. The solution needs to be the same as it was when we stopped having to bomb-dodge in central London 13 years ago: a willingness to reduce one's ego and bring everyone to the negotiating table.
(1) What does that mean? An MBR partition table is in a well-defined place, and the only thing that it could write over with is another partition table. Windows simply doesn't repartition your drive during regular usage, nor during setup unless you ask it to - perhaps you were running an OEM-provided restore utility?
Likely problem: OEM.
(2) Could you give detail about what you're doing? Windows search by default isn't set up to search the name and content of all files throughout the drive - that'd be a waste of time and indexing storage. Perhaps you're thinking in Unix, thinking it's reasonable to put files anywhere rather than following system convention, then assuming that search is just a dumb 'find' run with full filesystem privileges.
Likely problem: BCAK.
(3) The root-can-do-everything philosophy is one of the most sucky things about Unix. WNT adopted a simplified VMS security model, which means that privileges are more fine-grained. Do something as the local system account if you absolutely must, but only after you've checked you've understood why the file's been denied even to Administrators.
Likely problem: Unix. Well, Unix bias.
(4) How?
(5) Rename a file in search so it no longer fits the filter and it gets removed from the list of results;
Likely problem: BCAK.
(6) What?
(7) Yes, the file copy interface isn't ideal - and it's very annoying when things pop up while you're working on something else. It's good that third party solutions can be developed and integrated with Explorer (i.e. not OS X).
Likely problem: Microsoft.
At least W7 now has a proper firewall built in. Pity about it constantly asking about 'connecting to a network' and 'make a local network'
You have some badly written third party software which keeps creating new interfaces.
Likely problem: third party software.
Also a pity that my legit laptop OS is constantly accusing me of having 'non-genuine' software (is this even possible?) on a *laptop*.
Is it genuine? Have you made any significant hardware changes? What did Microsoft do when you asked them?
Likely problem: BCAK or Microsoft.
Oh, and where are my OS install disks? Right. Non-existent. So, how do I do a clean install? Right.
There is an official Microsoft distributor download which requires no login. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine...
Likely problem: BCAK.
Searching for 'windows 7 problem' brings back lots of hits for other Windows OS.
...ok, maybe you don't. But the fact that Google tries to be clever and guess what you meant is, well...
No. There is this misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward / punishment. In fact, given the opportunity, we're also really good at responding to reason.
(1) If you're severely impaired to the extent that you have no capability to assess the situation, simply don't do what you're planning to do until you've received advice;
(2) If you are not severely impaired (and most people playing the Internet Asperger card come under this category), assess it yourself;
(3) If you're proceeding and you receive negative feedback, go back to (1);
(4) Carry on.
There is no grey area to lots of people who you know telling you that you are being mean.
Anyway, basing morality purely on whether something "feels" right is a very primitive and potentially dangerous way to go about things: any thinker, autistic or otherwise, can apply reason to premises. If he is having trouble reasoning, he can study the reasoning of others.
Are you sure it's not just that he knows now that his actions might lead to negative consequences from your daughter? IOW is it that he can't think or that he previously saw no reason to think?
The Internet Asperger defence often comes down to "I didn't think". Well, think. Learn what it means to be a dick. If you're not sure, try to find out. If you're still not sure, just don't do it. If you decide to do something anyway, without researching the consequences, whose fault is that?
Ask self, "But we have such a culture of smahtness surely it must be someone else's fault and not just that we got lucky with a good idea and excellent backing back in 1997?"
Rinse.
Re-buy.
Repeat.
Please use Google+ please please please. More control and information please.
Slashdot Mirror
oh...
What are you talking about? The IRA didn't bomb London to "shock people into liking" them. It bombed London because it wanted to make people listen and/or to deliver what it perceived as retribution.
Although "WE'LL BOMB THEM UNTIL THEY LIKE US!" seems to have been ostensible US military philosophy since the '70s. Perhaps it's rubbed off on you?
(Dammit, have I been (out-)trolled?)
Happy men would have no interest in signing up to the Taliban, and the Taliban would never reach the critical mass required to strongly encourage[tm] other men to join.
So, yes, the problem is that once reasonable men were not listened to - and they're still not being listened to. So they find a group which is willing to give them some form of power.
Also, you ought to leave whatever backwater swamp you're floating in and visit Europe once in a while. Macho countries like Spain have spent the last couple of decades going through a very heavy period of acknowledging just how widespread domestic violence is against women even in the West. Anglo-Saxon countries haven't reached this epiphany that unhappy people can be right bastards to those even weaker. And it's nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the same reason rape tends to happen: the unsatisfied seeking some flavour of power.
You forgot Poland.
Old enough to recall watching lots of BBC news
So no actual experience or academic study of the IRA or the Middle East crisis?
Obviously there was more going on than
Obviously. For example, Adams probably had a cold at some point in the past decade and that also may have affected his performance.
since you haven't been personally inconvenienced by having your own family blow up
True, when my dad was working as a civil servant in central London a couple of decades ago it was never worse than a very near miss. Yet neither he nor I felt either anger or cowardice. Hell, my father was born in the middle of a civil war which tore families apart (and killed quite a few of them!) and he can still speak in a balanced manner about the grievances of both sides.
And a friend of my ex who worked at that funny shaped building in NOVA... turns out he didn't go in until later that day so he had a lucky miss too! Not really sure how he felt, but my ex's response was to castigate US policy in the Middle East and to campaign even harder for peace.
America is full of children. Wide-eyed, enthusiastic, often bright and sometimes hard-working. But children.
9/11 caused the IRA to "realize they were behaving like asshats"? Yours is the most sophomoric, US-centric explanation of the end of the Troubles I have ever heard.
And I'd rather the freedom of 15 years ago plus the hassle of an occasional bomb warning than the hell the US government has pushed the West into over the last decade. How old are you?
Right, because until Thatcher said otherwise, the IRA were actually well liked for burning civilians alive, killing mothers for teaching their daughters to interpret an old book a particular way or for working to feed their families since their husbands were shot for walking down the wrong road or visiting the wrong priest. And when they go cap in hand to clueless ex-pats in the US to collect money to fund their operations, that was really quite OK and euphoric and whatnot until Thatcher started calling it bad.
Yep, I was joking: what worked in the UK wasn't Thatcher's propaganda (for either side), but Labour's willingness to listen and to negotiate (for both). Extremism is what happens when desperate people fail by moderate means.
I had always imagined that the most euphoric way to die would be fulfilling some religious or quasi-religious mission. So if you hype yourself up to, say, mass killing for your cause and the prospect of a glorious afterlife, the seconds before you hit the detonator must feel wonderful.
Fortunately, I'm not a thrill-seeker, I don't like killing people, and - most importantly of all - I don't think random attacks on civilians for political causes are likely to be effective. Especially not since the IRA has moved on and the US propaganda machine tells the world to dislike the current crop of boogeymen.
He just thinks Competition and cooperation are to different thing; which they are not.
What?
Privileged person disenfranchised with the way things are done, that makes the logically fallacious jump that what they perceive is wrong, there for the exact opposite is right and there is no in between.
Lots of other people have posted about what is right. I think I've only posted here about not supporting what is wrong.
I doubt they have never been hungry. Being hungry and trying to figure out hot to eat for a week is an eye opening experience in the practicalities of balanced thinking.
Everyone is hungry from time to time and figuring out how to eat for a week. It's just that for some people it's much easier to find a solution than it is for others. You might already have capital somewhere which you just need to take a few moments to access. You might have the support of family to fall back on. Or you might be sufficiently healthy and able that you can say to anyone you know "I'll be happy to do whatever you want all day" - whether that's helping them with their work or doing stuff around the house - and in return they're happy to give you a meal and let you sleep on the couch or in the spare room.
Whenever I've been in a third world[tm] country, I admit that I've never decided to deny myself access to money for an extended period of time and somehow disable my ability and health just to experience what it really means to be deprived. I'm not sure it's actually possible to do this without whacking myself over the head until I'm slow, alienating everyone I know, giving away everything I have and renouncing my citizenship - otherwise I always know I have something to fall back on, giving me the very security and hope that truly destitute people don't have. I've not eaten for a week out of choice, to see what it was like - I am in for those kind of extreme experiences - and it wasn't difficult. But it wasn't difficult because I knew it was my choice. I knew that I had access to resources to start eating again, and even if I was denied access to everything I had built up so far, I had my intelligence to enable me to find work and start again. If even that failed, I'd have the fallback of state support.
So, how would you like me to punish myself so that I can experience this state of helplessness? And you seem to be implying that experiencing helplessness would make me less charitable - why? Because whenever I go through something difficult, it makes me think "how could this have been even worse?" and I'm more motivated to help those worse off than me.
Surely Javascript sent from the server with which the SSL session has been made has the opportunity to read what's being transmitted to/from the server anyway? And third party Javascript doesn't get access to random SSL connections with other domains?
What are these guys claiming? That known plaintext at the start of an SSL session plus access to all packets passing between client and server means further characters can eventually be worked out?
You sound like a sad little hippie who still has a chip on his shoulder because some jocks picked on him a decade or two prior.
Where I went to school, "jocks" wouldn't have passed the entrance exam. I dislike my elite past, but I'm not going to deny it.
What is wrong with competition?
What is right with competition? There are times when it seems to work but there is nothing inherently good about it.
And you propose a losers-distribute-winnings-equally environment?
You're paying no attention. I propose that the intelligent act out of a desire to achieve good things in their discipline rather than to profit. There are 7 billion people in the world - more than enough who are both clever and benevolent. We simply have no need of the "gr8 people like me need $$$ incentive to support you!" mantra any more - it's a more outdated idea than RIAA, which is why certain groups are trying so hard to cling on to it.
For people who
(i) are sufficiently intelligent to enter MIT (or similar); but
(ii) are interested in application of technology to benevolent causes rather than application of technology to their bank account
to refuse an acceptance or to leave the university and instead do what they believe is right on their own?
If you want to force any organisation to change its behaviour, as any fule kno, you withold labour. Top universities exist on the reputation of a tiny minority of dedicated academics, but their business is processing journeymen who either stop at graduation or do a small amount of research work to launch them into a high-paying commercial job.
To take an example, the director of my MSc programme resigned in angry disgust at the increasing commercialisation of higher education but most academics are too scared to leave the security of their tenure (or quasi-tenure). His action encouraged me as a student to take a look at politics in the university and higher education in general, and I aborted my research plans out of principle. Interestingly, my cousin at the LSE did the same as a final year PhD student.
No, you got up to 56 days' interest free credit, another liable party to guarantee seller performance, extended warranty, cashback, and the opportunity to make an otherwise unaffordable payment in an emergency at a not-insane rate of interest.
This is worth way more than $10. And credit cards are absolutely not a cash replacement - cash is still available if you want a degree of anonymity.
But what's most important is that Visa/Mastercard/Amex/banks' primary business isn't targeted advertising. They will have a lot of data spread across departments and competitors but they won't group together and trip over themselves to mine and track every last tiny thing out of you. Putting anything more in the Google basket is not wise.
MIT epitomises the competitive, winner-takes-it-all, might-makes-right environment which is keeping half the world in poverty. Every dominant man starts forming his network at one of the elite universities, supporting research in collusion with exploitative business. When you've accepted that offer, you've already asked to be part of the system - to pretend to do something against it is ineffective hypocrisy.
hw r u 2day? batt rnning low lol
Sender is a midget artificial intelligence and is distressed that her bath is leaking.
There's a hole in her bucket, dear Eliza.
And even in 1990 the idea that one could slow down the clock of a synchronous digital processor was obvious.
Gather round while I sing you of Wernher von Braun
A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience
Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown
"Ha, Nazi schmazi," says Wernher von Braun
Don't say that he's hypocritical
Say rather that he's apolitical
"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun
Some have harsh words for this man of renown
But some think our attitude should be one of gratitude
Like the widows and cripples in old London town
Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun
You too may be a big hero
Once you've learned to count backwards to zero
"In German oder English I know how to count down
Und I'm learning Chinese," says Wernher von Braun.
Everyone deserves empathy. That's how empathy works. If you're applying some formula to decide whether someone's worthy then you're not really demonstrating empathy at all.
I offer to do it for $100/year. I shall use the money to print out a sign at each major airport saying:
Welcome to another great American city.
Sorry we slipped up earlier.
We'll leave you to go about your peaceful business now.
If anyone anywhere wants to kill hundreds of people, they have their pick of any busy street. But they don't because they don't. Security at airports is irrelevant.
On the contrary, the Israelis do it quite badly. They think that protecting one avenue for attack is going to help, but it just means other places will be targeted.
There are sixty million people in the UK and each day on average close to 0 of them wish to kill a selection of strangers within the country. Is it because we have wonderful security? No. It's because the UK is a bearable place to live.
"Terror" doesn't happen because certain groups are inherently evil. It happens because certain groups of people identifying what is to them a grave injustice lack the means to form a regular military. The solution needs to be the same as it was when we stopped having to bomb-dodge in central London 13 years ago: a willingness to reduce one's ego and bring everyone to the negotiating table.
(1) What does that mean? An MBR partition table is in a well-defined place, and the only thing that it could write over with is another partition table. Windows simply doesn't repartition your drive during regular usage, nor during setup unless you ask it to - perhaps you were running an OEM-provided restore utility?
Likely problem: OEM.
(2) Could you give detail about what you're doing? Windows search by default isn't set up to search the name and content of all files throughout the drive - that'd be a waste of time and indexing storage. Perhaps you're thinking in Unix, thinking it's reasonable to put files anywhere rather than following system convention, then assuming that search is just a dumb 'find' run with full filesystem privileges.
Likely problem: BCAK.
(3) The root-can-do-everything philosophy is one of the most sucky things about Unix. WNT adopted a simplified VMS security model, which means that privileges are more fine-grained. Do something as the local system account if you absolutely must, but only after you've checked you've understood why the file's been denied even to Administrators.
Likely problem: Unix. Well, Unix bias.
(4) How?
(5) Rename a file in search so it no longer fits the filter and it gets removed from the list of results;
Likely problem: BCAK.
(6) What?
(7) Yes, the file copy interface isn't ideal - and it's very annoying when things pop up while you're working on something else. It's good that third party solutions can be developed and integrated with Explorer (i.e. not OS X).
Likely problem: Microsoft.
At least W7 now has a proper firewall built in. Pity about it constantly asking about 'connecting to a network' and 'make a local network'
You have some badly written third party software which keeps creating new interfaces.
Likely problem: third party software.
Also a pity that my legit laptop OS is constantly accusing me of having 'non-genuine' software (is this even possible?) on a *laptop*.
Is it genuine? Have you made any significant hardware changes? What did Microsoft do when you asked them?
Likely problem: BCAK or Microsoft.
Oh, and where are my OS install disks? Right. Non-existent. So, how do I do a clean install? Right.
There is an official Microsoft distributor download which requires no login. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine...
Likely problem: BCAK.
Searching for 'windows 7 problem' brings back lots of hits for other Windows OS.
...ok, maybe you don't. But the fact that Google tries to be clever and guess what you meant is, well...
Likely problem: Google.
No. There is this misconception that humans are stupid and react only to reward / punishment. In fact, given the opportunity, we're also really good at responding to reason.
(1) If you're severely impaired to the extent that you have no capability to assess the situation, simply don't do what you're planning to do until you've received advice;
(2) If you are not severely impaired (and most people playing the Internet Asperger card come under this category), assess it yourself;
(3) If you're proceeding and you receive negative feedback, go back to (1);
(4) Carry on.
There is no grey area to lots of people who you know telling you that you are being mean.
Anyway, basing morality purely on whether something "feels" right is a very primitive and potentially dangerous way to go about things: any thinker, autistic or otherwise, can apply reason to premises. If he is having trouble reasoning, he can study the reasoning of others.
Are you sure it's not just that he knows now that his actions might lead to negative consequences from your daughter? IOW is it that he can't think or that he previously saw no reason to think?
The Internet Asperger defence often comes down to "I didn't think". Well, think. Learn what it means to be a dick. If you're not sure, try to find out. If you're still not sure, just don't do it. If you decide to do something anyway, without researching the consequences, whose fault is that?
Reduce.
Profiteer.
Fail.
Extinguish.
Ask self, "But we have such a culture of smahtness surely it must be someone else's fault and not just that we got lucky with a good idea and excellent backing back in 1997?"
Rinse.
Re-buy.
Repeat.
Please use Google+ please please please. More control and information please.