This AC parent deserves to be modded up. Wikipedia should cite the best sources possible, but closed access is bad. As a working scientist, I have been frustrated by unavailable publications countless times, and have suffered weeks of delays waiting for ILL to come through.
On balance, I'm not sure if this Elsevier deal is bad or good. Propagating closed access is undesirable, but if Wikipedia ends up citing more reliable sources (i.e. lots of past research published in those journals) that editors would otherwise be unable to access it's hard to see that as bad. It's especially useful for editors to verify the content of papers which are being cited by others...
I have them on the left (Tree Style Tabs). They also load and unload themselves from memory (BarTab), block ads (uBlock origin), and run only desired scripts (NoScript).
Chrome "apps" are essentially just bookmarks, which sometimes interact with a specialized extension. I guess the idea is continuity with ChromeOS or something.
A good friend feels this way. He is convinced that my house, which has as much technology as a linux user's house really should, is choked with rays (his words).
To be fair, the rays are everywhere. They're not interacting with his body, but they are there.
He's also convinced that chemtrails are real and that cancer is caused by a virus and that the black part of the gov't controls both.
Again, to be fair, a bunch of specific cancer types are caused by viruses. Cervical cancer and HPV for instance.
He's not making things up from whole cloth, but spinning partly understood fragments of truth into a delusional tapestry.
Marin also has an abnormally high breast cancer incidence. IIRC it's somewhat more than what's explained by affluence (which increases risk somehow). Not really relevant, but it's got some unusual medical statistics aside from the EHS and immunization wackos.
There's a little accidental dualism here. All mental processes are their neurochemical correlates. Illnesses with psychosocial causes are physically real even if their causes are psychosocial.
With the exception of a few horrendous examples of gay people fearing for their lives, I'm not aware of danger of PHYSICAL attack as a result of this fiasco.
The AM hack exposed the personal information of 32 million subscribers, about 3.2 million of who are women. It is a statistical certainty that at least thousands of these people have been subject to abuse, and as much so that some of them will experience more abuse because of the hack. Take these statistics and multiply them by 3.2 million.
Furthermore, Wired reports that a PI firm has created a site which permits anyone to search the AM data easily, without having to know how leaked data dumps are usually shared.
And if you were in the slightest hearing me as suggesting that would be good thing, then I've got it badly wrong.
I appreciate your straightforwardness, and lack of hostility. Looking back in the thread I see something like "AM hack response == puritan lynch mob" >> "It's OK for us to challenge people [like this]." Though not written explicitly, the [like this] seemed like a clear implication, which is why I did hear it as a suggestion the hack/doxxing is acceptable.
But suppose this hack had been of the identities of people watching child pornography?
Having reviewed the AM user statistics linked above, it's pretty clear the vast majority of users were never able to realize an affair, or even to communicate with a potential partner. 90% of the users are men, suggesting 81% are heterosexual men and 9% are heterosexual women (~10% of people are gay). That gives a 9:1 ratio. In light of that, the analogy ought to be "people who registered potential intent to consider watching child pornography." Creating an Ashley Madison account is apparently tantamount only to admitting the potential intent to consider an affair, which (most likely) never occurred.
Nevertheless, assuming the direct analogy is valid, the result of such a leak would be to make criminal convictions for those people extremely difficult to obtain. The mob cannot deliver justice - no matter the crime - because mob justice is arbitrary and irrevocably severe. Thus, I say that the extralegal doxxing of child porn watchers is also likely to result in a worse overall outcome than allowing the legal system to proceed by its usual means.
And yet, it is arguable, that a WATCHER of child porn is less destructive to real children - especially if that porn is CGI generated - than an adulterer who destroys a family.
Maybe so (if and only if your 'especially' become 'only'), but then again you've intentionally chosen to compare the least and most extreme cases of child porn and adultery, respectively.
The fact is, a large plurality of men and women do commit adultery. A large plurality of marriages also end in divorce, which is almost always quite traumatic for children. Sexual frustrations are often cited as contributing to both adultery and divorce. A more sexually flexible society would probably exhibit greater family stability when compared to our rigid one.
Overt racism will probably get you booted out of most circles...to dismiss my treatment of an adulterer as the behaviour of a lynch mob but condone similar treatment for an overt racist shows a failure to think.
You now say you're treatment of an adulterer is considerably more mild than the remedy forced upon us by the AM hackers, in which case your point is somewhat valid. I say 'somewhat' because the scourge of racism, which is mathematically guaranteed to result in inferior group performance*, has been enorm
Given that mutual fidelity is an assumed if not explicit part of the marriage contract, why shouldn't adultery factor into divorce proceedings?
No one has said that it shouldn't in this thread, which was about so-called alienation of affection, and by extension the criminalization of adultery (and government enforcement of civil/financial remedy) rather than the bearing of adultery to divorce proceedings.
Nice touch with the whole "it's your fault if your partner cheats" thing though.
I first explicitly wrote "responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse." Then I only implied that the other spouse could share some responsibility as well. As you say, the third party didn't sign anything.
And that's if you can afford insurance (and perhaps legal representation), police take your complaints seriously, and the lost property doesn't severely affect your life.
Getting robbed sucks no matter what, but imagine how bad it would be if you were poor and lost something critical to your career.
The one thing you can't accuse the law of is being biased against women.
Lawyers familiar with the application of the law disagree with you, but even if we stipulate the extraordinarily dubious idea that men have no advantages over women in our legal system, alienation of affection laws arise from common laws which were explicitly or implicitly targeted against women, who were/are viewed as nothing more than property with no decision making capacity. That's why the laws hold the third party financially responsible.
I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children.
The position seems to be that sex and especially extramarital sex are so inherently bad, that these kids will be ruined by a form of spooky action at a distance. (I am giving Bruce66423 the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn't actually discuss sexual conquests with children).
There's no strawman here. TFA and this entire comment thread are about mob justice as applied to adultery.
The idea that it might possibly be appropriate to challenge behaviour that is objectively damaging to society.
Do you realize what you're saying here? Aside from your assertion that you are objectively superior to others, you are saying that it's good for malicious hackers to compromise the personal information of random nobodies who might have engaged in extramarital affairs and then share that information with everyone from stalkers and violent exes to reporters and bosses.
As long as the government is bothering to regulate marriage, it seems like it has to mean something.
I think that's pretty flimsy, but the shocking thing about the 'alienation of affection' laws under discussion is that they hold the third party liable, essentially for 'stealing' the (historically female) spouse, who is themselves viewed as a piece of property with no decision making capacity. That's the definition of marriage the government is supposed to uphold using force of law?
Alienation of affection laws misplace responsibility because the third party with whom an affair is conducted is held financially liable, even though personal responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse.
I get that you want the government to protect you from your own bad decision making and inability to form meaningful relationships, but such things have no place in a free society.
100% of the worlds pain and misery come from these people who find glee in forcing their beliefs on others.
Hey now, let's not forget disease. I think there are one or two we'd still be struggling with even if the religions hadn't slowed our progress by a couple thousand years.
It is reasonable for society - attempting to encourage couples to stay together so that children get to benefit from a stable background in which to grow up - to challenge behaviour that damages children, and therefore society.
I'm quite sure any particular member of a lynch mob thinks it's "reasonable" for them to be there.
Slashdot Mirror
This AC parent deserves to be modded up. Wikipedia should cite the best sources possible, but closed access is bad. As a working scientist, I have been frustrated by unavailable publications countless times, and have suffered weeks of delays waiting for ILL to come through.
On balance, I'm not sure if this Elsevier deal is bad or good. Propagating closed access is undesirable, but if Wikipedia ends up citing more reliable sources (i.e. lots of past research published in those journals) that editors would otherwise be unable to access it's hard to see that as bad. It's especially useful for editors to verify the content of papers which are being cited by others...
An AC said it: It writes www.youtube.com in the address bar so you don't have to. I think it used to be able to download some videos, but not anymore.
And if they want to put the tabs on top
I have them on the left (Tree Style Tabs). They also load and unload themselves from memory (BarTab), block ads (uBlock origin), and run only desired scripts (NoScript).
Chrome "apps" are essentially just bookmarks, which sometimes interact with a specialized extension. I guess the idea is continuity with ChromeOS or something.
As to why you'd need it, I have no answer.
Indeed. Giorgio Maone, the developer of NoScript, says everything is OK.
This is false. The developer of NoScript says that they are working with him to make sure extensions may still alter native behavior.
Not according to the developer of NoScript. In fact, he says they are involving him to make sure extensions which alter native behavior remain possible.
So did you miss this part?
describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT
Actually they are really proposing to ban third party software (Google cache of FCC page for "594280 D02 U-NII Device Security v01r02 - FCC"). For some reason the FCC page itself is redirecting me.
Describe in detail how the device is protected from “flashing” and the installation of third-party firmware such as DD-WRT.
A good friend feels this way. He is convinced that my house, which has as much technology as a linux user's house really should, is choked with rays (his words).
To be fair, the rays are everywhere. They're not interacting with his body, but they are there.
He's also convinced that chemtrails are real and that cancer is caused by a virus and that the black part of the gov't controls both.
Again, to be fair, a bunch of specific cancer types are caused by viruses. Cervical cancer and HPV for instance.
He's not making things up from whole cloth, but spinning partly understood fragments of truth into a delusional tapestry.
Marin also has an abnormally high breast cancer incidence. IIRC it's somewhat more than what's explained by affluence (which increases risk somehow). Not really relevant, but it's got some unusual medical statistics aside from the EHS and immunization wackos.
There's a little accidental dualism here. All mental processes are their neurochemical correlates. Illnesses with psychosocial causes are physically real even if their causes are psychosocial.
If you have a third ear, does it increase your risk for EHS?
With the exception of a few horrendous examples of gay people fearing for their lives, I'm not aware of danger of PHYSICAL attack as a result of this fiasco.
The AM hack exposed the personal information of 32 million subscribers, about 3.2 million of who are women. It is a statistical certainty that at least thousands of these people have been subject to abuse, and as much so that some of them will experience more abuse because of the hack. Take these statistics and multiply them by 3.2 million.
Furthermore, Wired reports that a PI firm has created a site which permits anyone to search the AM data easily, without having to know how leaked data dumps are usually shared.
And if you were in the slightest hearing me as suggesting that would be good thing, then I've got it badly wrong.
I appreciate your straightforwardness, and lack of hostility. Looking back in the thread I see something like "AM hack response == puritan lynch mob" >> "It's OK for us to challenge people [like this]." Though not written explicitly, the [like this] seemed like a clear implication, which is why I did hear it as a suggestion the hack/doxxing is acceptable.
But suppose this hack had been of the identities of people watching child pornography?
Having reviewed the AM user statistics linked above, it's pretty clear the vast majority of users were never able to realize an affair, or even to communicate with a potential partner. 90% of the users are men, suggesting 81% are heterosexual men and 9% are heterosexual women (~10% of people are gay). That gives a 9:1 ratio. In light of that, the analogy ought to be "people who registered potential intent to consider watching child pornography." Creating an Ashley Madison account is apparently tantamount only to admitting the potential intent to consider an affair, which (most likely) never occurred.
Nevertheless, assuming the direct analogy is valid, the result of such a leak would be to make criminal convictions for those people extremely difficult to obtain. The mob cannot deliver justice - no matter the crime - because mob justice is arbitrary and irrevocably severe. Thus, I say that the extralegal doxxing of child porn watchers is also likely to result in a worse overall outcome than allowing the legal system to proceed by its usual means.
And yet, it is arguable, that a WATCHER of child porn is less destructive to real children - especially if that porn is CGI generated - than an adulterer who destroys a family.
Maybe so (if and only if your 'especially' become 'only'), but then again you've intentionally chosen to compare the least and most extreme cases of child porn and adultery, respectively.
The fact is, a large plurality of men and women do commit adultery. A large plurality of marriages also end in divorce, which is almost always quite traumatic for children. Sexual frustrations are often cited as contributing to both adultery and divorce. A more sexually flexible society would probably exhibit greater family stability when compared to our rigid one.
Overt racism will probably get you booted out of most circles...to dismiss my treatment of an adulterer as the behaviour of a lynch mob but condone similar treatment for an overt racist shows a failure to think.
You now say you're treatment of an adulterer is considerably more mild than the remedy forced upon us by the AM hackers, in which case your point is somewhat valid. I say 'somewhat' because the scourge of racism, which is mathematically guaranteed to result in inferior group performance*, has been enorm
Given that mutual fidelity is an assumed if not explicit part of the marriage contract, why shouldn't adultery factor into divorce proceedings?
No one has said that it shouldn't in this thread, which was about so-called alienation of affection, and by extension the criminalization of adultery (and government enforcement of civil/financial remedy) rather than the bearing of adultery to divorce proceedings.
Nice touch with the whole "it's your fault if your partner cheats" thing though.
I first explicitly wrote "responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse." Then I only implied that the other spouse could share some responsibility as well. As you say, the third party didn't sign anything.
And that's if you can afford insurance (and perhaps legal representation), police take your complaints seriously, and the lost property doesn't severely affect your life.
Getting robbed sucks no matter what, but imagine how bad it would be if you were poor and lost something critical to your career.
The one thing you can't accuse the law of is being biased against women.
Lawyers familiar with the application of the law disagree with you, but even if we stipulate the extraordinarily dubious idea that men have no advantages over women in our legal system, alienation of affection laws arise from common laws which were explicitly or implicitly targeted against women, who were/are viewed as nothing more than property with no decision making capacity. That's why the laws hold the third party financially responsible.
I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children.
The position seems to be that sex and especially extramarital sex are so inherently bad, that these kids will be ruined by a form of spooky action at a distance. (I am giving Bruce66423 the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn't actually discuss sexual conquests with children).
Ah - the joys of straw man argumentation.
There's no strawman here. TFA and this entire comment thread are about mob justice as applied to adultery.
The idea that it might possibly be appropriate to challenge behaviour that is objectively damaging to society.
Do you realize what you're saying here? Aside from your assertion that you are objectively superior to others, you are saying that it's good for malicious hackers to compromise the personal information of random nobodies who might have engaged in extramarital affairs and then share that information with everyone from stalkers and violent exes to reporters and bosses.
As long as the government is bothering to regulate marriage, it seems like it has to mean something.
I think that's pretty flimsy, but the shocking thing about the 'alienation of affection' laws under discussion is that they hold the third party liable, essentially for 'stealing' the (historically female) spouse, who is themselves viewed as a piece of property with no decision making capacity. That's the definition of marriage the government is supposed to uphold using force of law?
Alienation of affection laws misplace responsibility because the third party with whom an affair is conducted is held financially liable, even though personal responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse.
I get that you want the government to protect you from your own bad decision making and inability to form meaningful relationships, but such things have no place in a free society.
TL;DR: Why believe in psychology when you can substitute your own made up shit for science?
forcing their beliefs on others
how is that forcing anybody to do anything
These things are different. Intentionally or unintentionally, you changed the subject.
If someone's beliefs lead them to antagonize me, they are forcing their beliefs on me without necessarily forcing me to do anything (besides suffer).
100% of the worlds pain and misery come from these people who find glee in forcing their beliefs on others.
Hey now, let's not forget disease. I think there are one or two we'd still be struggling with even if the religions hadn't slowed our progress by a couple thousand years.
It is reasonable for society - attempting to encourage couples to stay together so that children get to benefit from a stable background in which to grow up - to challenge behaviour that damages children, and therefore society.
I'm quite sure any particular member of a lynch mob thinks it's "reasonable" for them to be there.