It's an interesting question as to whether a business should be allowed to discriminate in an area the business has an opinion on. Even whether a business can hold an opinion as such, although they are part of society.
Given businesses can come out in support of issues (Google with gay marriage) and, more directly, the fact that many large business support a particular political party financially, it's not a clear-cut situation.
Even the ones who CLAIM to be happy fill their conversations with backstabbing comments about their spouse.
That's because they spend so much of their life interacting with and thinking about their spouses, it doesn't mean they are unhappy. The same is true for people with children and people with jobs. Most spend a lot of time wryly complaining about them, but it doesn't mean that overall they wish to be childless and unemployed.
It's possible that a hacked version of wine became known to Blizzard (they would follow the known cheater forums etc.) and they updated Warden to detect it. From my brief perusal of OwnedCore there are plenty of people successfully cheating even on Windows.
As you say, even a hacked wine is going to generate certain patterns and possible event anomalies.
Out of interest I risked my WoW account recently trying to send X keypresses to the Wine WoW window. I could send them to Notepad, but nothing happened in WoW. I didn't try further but it made me wonder if they do analyse these things; timings between keydown and keyup etc.
It's a fascinating cat-and-mouse game, being on Blizzard's Warden team would be one of the more interesting programming jobs available.
Haha I was wondering if an electronic music fan would take issue with this, but I do agree. All I'm trying to say is that some music cannot be effectively reproduced live, or reproduced in a way that adds anything to the recording. I'm not saying such music is inferior.
The main point of live performances is to personalise the music, to better feel the creative tension of the music and the interaction between the musicians. This can be achieved by some electronic musicians.
The secondary point is star-power, which is just paying for celebrity and is mostly retarded. Anyone suggesting cultivating celebrity as a business model for recompensating artists has missed the point of art./strawman
Man... I'm 34, and getting old and jaded. If you can't see the beauty and wonder of True Love Fantasy, I fear for your soul.
Right, but you linked me a digital recording, you didn't send me plane tickets to a concert. As you say, non-sampled is where it gets more interesting.
I think you are confusing a distribution system as a product, and the content as a product.
The way I see it is content + distribution = product. An unavailable item (i.e. no distribution) cannot be consider a product. The unique thing about digital is that distribution is virtually free, and pirates can also obtain the content for free. If the content can not be owned it's hard to see how any business model will work.
We emphatically do not have the right to own intellectual property, ideas or artistic concepts. That idea is based in greed, a horrible sense of entitlement
I disagree, although remain somewhat open to the idea of a society where what you say it true, as for me the ownership of physical property does not seem necessarily innate either. The notion of 'stealing someone else's idea' goes way back in history, and I think society generally accepts that a work of art, or piece of software, is somehow owned by the creator, perhaps as a reflection of their intellect or soul that took effort to construct. On the other hand you could argue we have just reified the incidental effects of original copyright.
and a dismissive attitude about just how many people and generations contributed to the environment that allowed you the luxury to have created your works in the first place.
This is no different from constructing a physical product. It relies on someone using a vast history of education and discovery, increasingly precise machines made by others, then adding a little bit extra. The concept of IP ownership recognises that little bit extra. The expiry of copyright recognises the foundation.
The question is why do we allow temporary control over intellectual property in the first place? The answer [...] our collective wealth [...]
Profitability was never the question. [...] That's a standard of living, not a promise of being a fucking hundred millionaire or billionaire.
That's my point, but you have shown the same tendency. As soon as "millionaire" enters the picture there are cries against the concept of IP, betraying a very socialist viewpoint, which is an interesting indication of how the situation is viewed. We have no problem with the owner of a successful business making millions by providing value to many members of society, and collating the profits of that value for themselves, so why is a successful artist, for example, only allowed a standard living?
As for collective wealth, that's how I see this whole debate, as a tension between the idealism of individual rights and the pragmatism of societal benefit. You seem to be firmly in the camp of societal benefit, I think there is something natural about IP ownership.
Fuck the middle men, lawyers, and douchbag executives that are nothing but parasites at this point.
At this point, yes, as their role was mainly distribution and market making. However if IP is unownable then complaints about labels are silly as they really did the bulk of the work. I.e., why do we complain that artists are not 'fairly' rewarded for coming up with content they do not own?
Even if people just walked around with the most current and popular content being automatically synced across portable devices it could be the endgame for content providers.
My prediction, once storage size allows, is that a single community website/program/app/portal will emerge that contains all music, and remains updated by the community. You would then periodically sync your device if you want to listen to a newly-released album, receiving 100s more.
This is why the alternative business model arguments will eventually fall flat. There is almost no way for artists or businesses to offer a superior product to this. For music, perhaps concerts may work, but then only for music that works in a live setting. Much electronic music doesn't fall into this category (and can be replicated live by someone other than the artist pushing the play button). For movies, screenings are becoming less attractive with home theatre For books, live readings are hardly going to cut it even for fiction, and I'd like to see the Gang of Four touring the world with renditions of Design Patterns.
However all talk of profitability may be a red herring. The real question is do we have a right to 'own' intellectual property, ideas or artistic concepts. For some reason we argue about acceptable levels of profitability, which is similar to the idea that it's okay to steal from multinational chains but not the corner shop. Perhaps it shows that society is all about pragmatism and equality of wealth distribution rather than ideals and innate rights.
What HFTs do add, in addition to liquidity, is volatility. But it's not clear to me why "real investors" should care about short-term volatility.
This is the interesting part, is the volatility necessarily short-term? Given that the market consists or 'true' investors and speculators/HFTs at any given time, and that they interact, couldn't the effects be longer-term?
You're off by a factor of 10, it's $400. Also remember valuation is a price to earnings calculation, so a typical P/E value of 15 means a user should provide revenue of $27 per year. Using the company figure that's $1,000 per year average which is not a ridiculous amount to expect a corporation to pay for this software.
When I'm in the market for a girlfriend I only approach married women. This makes sense as they have the proven skills to be in a relationship. When I speak to them, I show that I earn 80% as much as their husband, and am only 75% as attentive but will do 90% as many jobs around the house.
This has yet to work. Clearly there is a shortage of women.
That's the capitalist ideal, but you are clearly a valued employee in a good industry. The problem is that there is a power imbalance between employers and employees, which you do hint at. The imbalance swings both ways, and varies wildy between industries. Advanced societies can afford to pay (and it may cost us GDP overall) to smooth this imbalance through laws; union restrictions, minimum wage etc.
Pure capitalism allows for the exploitation of power, it's basically a free-for-all fight, and advanced societies are hopefully more cooperative than full of conflict.
Yes, it's a shame that we used to have a nice, open protocol for forums that has been replaced by commerically-owned ones. Understandable from a storage point of view, as it's more efficient to have one central copy that interested users access rather than having your ISP store all possible forums its users may want.
2) Blocking access to information is censorship in it's pure form. No democracy should allow any form of censorship.
I don't know why you linked democracy and no censorship, except perhaps you consider them both 'right'. Every democracy that has ever existed has had censorship, it has never been voted away.
Also it's duplicitous to call this censorship (although I agree in a technical sense). The information* is not banned, just a means of obtaining it without payment. It's like complaining that the police shutting down a protection racket is interfering with the free market.
* The information is the copyright content. You may claim they are censoring the "list of hashes", but then by your own admission that information is "useless on its own", so no harm can be done.... unless context and possible use matters?
Just because a computer was given an 'if' statement doesn't mean it made a decision in the same sense that a human would. Free speech clearly applies to the publisher, not the tool with which they used to publish or initially analyse the information (which can be the same tool in the case of a web server). If Google and Facebook did all their aggregation with an abacus, paper and pen which they then displayed in their shop window would we be asking if free speech applied to beads on a wire?
So the real question being asked here is can free speech conflict with regulation on company behaviour.
You are not really paying for everything as they know you will only watch a handful of what's available, and all the shows still have to be produced (but see below), so in a user-pays model you will be paying the same (if you are an average viewer).
If you watch quality dramas, you can expect to pay more. If you are one of the masses watching cheap reality TV you will pay a whole lot less. Maybe that's fair.
What would actually happen is that producing a show would become riskier so we would either see fewer, higher quality shows produced, or fewer, safer and more lowest-common-denominator ones.
There is no longer any compelling technological reason for time-slot television.
I disagree! Two that I can think of are complete lack of bandwidth (1080 digital TV streams run at 1GB per half hour) and simplicity - there is no on-demand broadcast or streaming standard, it's fragmented between various physical devices and online services that require a PC. This puts it beyond the abilities and hassle-horizon of many people, especially the elderly.
Getting off-topic, and I'm an amateur, but I'd think you should be using old-school stomp pedals to record, not after (unless you're talking about reverb etc.). To incorporate pedals/rack effects after recording you could try re-amping - record clean to get the performance then replay your performance as many times as you want, experimenting with different non-digital effects.
Also, wouldn't digital effects be easier in a proper DAW like Reaper or even Ardour, rather than Audacity?
You used the term "black box" initially. A torque wrench is not a black box as it's perfectly understandable. What is happening here is closer to motorcycle manufacturers building bikes out of black boxes (possibly literally), where you can't rebuild or tweak them, only swap out large blocks for completely new blocks. This has already happened with cars and you can't even diagnose some problems without plugging them into a special computer from the car maker. Yes, there are advantages to production cost, but it sucks for tinkerers and home mechanics.
That is why it is considered rape to have sex with an intoxicated female, even if she consents.
Ok, this was the opposite of my assumption, but some quick checking indicates this seems to be the case in my country. I agree this is wrong, and shows an inconsistency with the philosophy behind laws such as drunk driving.
Further, it would imply that a drunken male's decision to force himself on a female could not be considered rape. Possibly an argument could be made that consent is different from a decision (passive versus active again), as in if a drunken female propositioned a male rather than accepting the male's proposition, but that seems thin to me.
This leads to the Kafkaesque situation of two drunken people theoretically raping each other, not to mention 'shameful years of mutual abuse' in long-term couples who drink together.
The best argument I can think of for this is that it is known a drunk person's decision making ability is impaired (as we know of children or mentally disabled people) and therefore deliberately using that is an abuse of power.
There is a big difference [...] Having sex with someone doesn't damage them. The damage in a rape is the mental trauma of enduring the experience.
I disagree, this is still victim blaming. The analogy is not perfect but the equivalent would be saying that giving away money is not inherently harmful, but the forced 'giving away' during a mugging is traumatic. Yes, the lost money is inherently harmful but generally the trauma is worse (compare to somebody stealing $100 using your credit card number). Also, how about the case of a woman walking down a dark alley and being raped? Is this just as must her fault as if she "got gangbanged at the frat house after [getting] wasted on jello shots"?
Why is a drunk driver responsible for the outcome of their choice to become intoxicated but a woman is not? Sorry, if you got gangbanged at the frat house after you got wasted on jello shots and passed out on the couch
It's a passive versus active thing, and it's not the decision to become intoxicated but the decision to drive.
A drunk decision is still a decision. Being unconscious means no decision can be made, and therefore no consent can be given.
What you are suggesting is akin to claiming that if you make the decision to walk down a dark alley then the 'entirely predictable' result of being mugged is your fault. Perhaps this becomes blurry when the result of an action is so obvious that you could be accused of deliberately placing yourself in harm's way. There is an interesting princple on the sharing of cupability between two interdependent actors but I can't recall the name.
Remember legal definitions of terms sometimes don't match up with common usage. This can be fine, but it has the effect of diluting the meaning, so if we hear someone was convicted of rape we can't assume it was a violent attack at knifepoint.
I can see this both ways. Rape seems a term best reserved for forcing sex against consent, not for deception, but the effects of deception are similar, feelings of violation etc. A loose analogy would be breaking into a home and tying up the owners versus deceiving them into leaving the house then robbing it.
Your linked story doesn't necessarily apply to the condom argument. That was a simple question of whether the girls gave (informed) consent or not - they claim they were unconscious and he had sex with them. That's clearly rape if true/provable. The Assange details are unclear and may contain a similar sleep/unconsciousness situation, but this thread is about consenting to sex on a condition (wearing of a condom) and the man not fulfulling that condition unbeknownst to the woman.
It would be interesting to apply this to breach-of-contract, a civil matter. In the case of promising to marry, the damages would be very substantial.
The summary isn't quite accurate. The article states that the survey was mostly IT managers and executives, and the actual report PDF mentions that about 25% were "business/admin/technical staff" (i.e. regular workers), but there is no breakdown as to which group was less honest.
Still, while I'd grant that managers might be more sociopathic, humans in general are quite corrupt. This sort of white-collar unethical behaviour is all too common as, unlike physical violence, it's very indirect as to the effects. This is why so many people cheat on their taxes, pirate software, take stationary etc. etc.
The survey was also done by a company that sells data security products, for what it's worth.
At my last job it was common practice to take a copy of the source code even if you were just leaving for greener pastures.
I considered it myself - not for the trade secrets or to sell, but because it functioned as a programming reference guide ("How do I do that again? That's right, I did it before in library X"). In the end I took the high road and consoled myself that anything I had figured out before I could figure out again.
Slashdot Mirror
Won't sombody please think of the third-world children with their app-less smartphones?
It's an interesting question as to whether a business should be allowed to discriminate in an area the business has an opinion on. Even whether a business can hold an opinion as such, although they are part of society.
Given businesses can come out in support of issues (Google with gay marriage) and, more directly, the fact that many large business support a particular political party financially, it's not a clear-cut situation.
Even the ones who CLAIM to be happy fill their conversations with backstabbing comments about their spouse.
That's because they spend so much of their life interacting with and thinking about their spouses, it doesn't mean they are unhappy. The same is true for people with children and people with jobs. Most spend a lot of time wryly complaining about them, but it doesn't mean that overall they wish to be childless and unemployed.
It's possible that a hacked version of wine became known to Blizzard (they would follow the known cheater forums etc.) and they updated Warden to detect it. From my brief perusal of OwnedCore there are plenty of people successfully cheating even on Windows.
As you say, even a hacked wine is going to generate certain patterns and possible event anomalies.
Out of interest I risked my WoW account recently trying to send X keypresses to the Wine WoW window. I could send them to Notepad, but nothing happened in WoW. I didn't try further but it made me wonder if they do analyse these things; timings between keydown and keyup etc.
It's a fascinating cat-and-mouse game, being on Blizzard's Warden team would be one of the more interesting programming jobs available.
Haha I was wondering if an electronic music fan would take issue with this, but I do agree. All I'm trying to say is that some music cannot be effectively reproduced live, or reproduced in a way that adds anything to the recording. I'm not saying such music is inferior.
The main point of live performances is to personalise the music, to better feel the creative tension of the music and the interaction between the musicians. This can be achieved by some electronic musicians.
The secondary point is star-power, which is just paying for celebrity and is mostly retarded. Anyone suggesting cultivating celebrity as a business model for recompensating artists has missed the point of art. /strawman
Man... I'm 34, and getting old and jaded. If you can't see the beauty and wonder of True Love Fantasy, I fear for your soul.
Right, but you linked me a digital recording, you didn't send me plane tickets to a concert. As you say, non-sampled is where it gets more interesting.
I think you are confusing a distribution system as a product, and the content as a product.
The way I see it is content + distribution = product. An unavailable item (i.e. no distribution) cannot be consider a product. The unique thing about digital is that distribution is virtually free, and pirates can also obtain the content for free. If the content can not be owned it's hard to see how any business model will work.
We emphatically do not have the right to own intellectual property, ideas or artistic concepts. That idea is based in greed, a horrible sense of entitlement
I disagree, although remain somewhat open to the idea of a society where what you say it true, as for me the ownership of physical property does not seem necessarily innate either. The notion of 'stealing someone else's idea' goes way back in history, and I think society generally accepts that a work of art, or piece of software, is somehow owned by the creator, perhaps as a reflection of their intellect or soul that took effort to construct. On the other hand you could argue we have just reified the incidental effects of original copyright.
and a dismissive attitude about just how many people and generations contributed to the environment that allowed you the luxury to have created your works in the first place.
This is no different from constructing a physical product. It relies on someone using a vast history of education and discovery, increasingly precise machines made by others, then adding a little bit extra. The concept of IP ownership recognises that little bit extra. The expiry of copyright recognises the foundation.
The question is why do we allow temporary control over intellectual property in the first place? The answer [...] our collective wealth [...] Profitability was never the question. [...] That's a standard of living, not a promise of being a fucking hundred millionaire or billionaire.
That's my point, but you have shown the same tendency. As soon as "millionaire" enters the picture there are cries against the concept of IP, betraying a very socialist viewpoint, which is an interesting indication of how the situation is viewed. We have no problem with the owner of a successful business making millions by providing value to many members of society, and collating the profits of that value for themselves, so why is a successful artist, for example, only allowed a standard living?
As for collective wealth, that's how I see this whole debate, as a tension between the idealism of individual rights and the pragmatism of societal benefit. You seem to be firmly in the camp of societal benefit, I think there is something natural about IP ownership.
Fuck the middle men, lawyers, and douchbag executives that are nothing but parasites at this point.
At this point, yes, as their role was mainly distribution and market making. However if IP is unownable then complaints about labels are silly as they really did the bulk of the work. I.e., why do we complain that artists are not 'fairly' rewarded for coming up with content they do not own?
Even if people just walked around with the most current and popular content being automatically synced across portable devices it could be the endgame for content providers.
My prediction, once storage size allows, is that a single community website/program/app/portal will emerge that contains all music, and remains updated by the community. You would then periodically sync your device if you want to listen to a newly-released album, receiving 100s more.
This is why the alternative business model arguments will eventually fall flat. There is almost no way for artists or businesses to offer a superior product to this. For music, perhaps concerts may work, but then only for music that works in a live setting. Much electronic music doesn't fall into this category (and can be replicated live by someone other than the artist pushing the play button). For movies, screenings are becoming less attractive with home theatre For books, live readings are hardly going to cut it even for fiction, and I'd like to see the Gang of Four touring the world with renditions of Design Patterns.
However all talk of profitability may be a red herring. The real question is do we have a right to 'own' intellectual property, ideas or artistic concepts. For some reason we argue about acceptable levels of profitability, which is similar to the idea that it's okay to steal from multinational chains but not the corner shop. Perhaps it shows that society is all about pragmatism and equality of wealth distribution rather than ideals and innate rights.
What HFTs do add, in addition to liquidity, is volatility. But it's not clear to me why "real investors" should care about short-term volatility.
This is the interesting part, is the volatility necessarily short-term? Given that the market consists or 'true' investors and speculators/HFTs at any given time, and that they interact, couldn't the effects be longer-term?
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's actually a straw man done properly.
You're off by a factor of 10, it's $400. Also remember valuation is a price to earnings calculation, so a typical P/E value of 15 means a user should provide revenue of $27 per year. Using the company figure that's $1,000 per year average which is not a ridiculous amount to expect a corporation to pay for this software.
When I'm in the market for a girlfriend I only approach married women. This makes sense as they have the proven skills to be in a relationship. When I speak to them, I show that I earn 80% as much as their husband, and am only 75% as attentive but will do 90% as many jobs around the house.
This has yet to work. Clearly there is a shortage of women.
That's the capitalist ideal, but you are clearly a valued employee in a good industry. The problem is that there is a power imbalance between employers and employees, which you do hint at. The imbalance swings both ways, and varies wildy between industries. Advanced societies can afford to pay (and it may cost us GDP overall) to smooth this imbalance through laws; union restrictions, minimum wage etc.
Pure capitalism allows for the exploitation of power, it's basically a free-for-all fight, and advanced societies are hopefully more cooperative than full of conflict.
Yes, it's a shame that we used to have a nice, open protocol for forums that has been replaced by commerically-owned ones. Understandable from a storage point of view, as it's more efficient to have one central copy that interested users access rather than having your ISP store all possible forums its users may want.
2) Blocking access to information is censorship in it's pure form. No democracy should allow any form of censorship.
I don't know why you linked democracy and no censorship, except perhaps you consider them both 'right'. Every democracy that has ever existed has had censorship, it has never been voted away.
Also it's duplicitous to call this censorship (although I agree in a technical sense). The information* is not banned, just a means of obtaining it without payment. It's like complaining that the police shutting down a protection racket is interfering with the free market.
* The information is the copyright content. You may claim they are censoring the "list of hashes", but then by your own admission that information is "useless on its own", so no harm can be done.... unless context and possible use matters?
Just because a computer was given an 'if' statement doesn't mean it made a decision in the same sense that a human would. Free speech clearly applies to the publisher, not the tool with which they used to publish or initially analyse the information (which can be the same tool in the case of a web server). If Google and Facebook did all their aggregation with an abacus, paper and pen which they then displayed in their shop window would we be asking if free speech applied to beads on a wire?
So the real question being asked here is can free speech conflict with regulation on company behaviour.
You are not really paying for everything as they know you will only watch a handful of what's available, and all the shows still have to be produced (but see below), so in a user-pays model you will be paying the same (if you are an average viewer).
If you watch quality dramas, you can expect to pay more. If you are one of the masses watching cheap reality TV you will pay a whole lot less. Maybe that's fair.
What would actually happen is that producing a show would become riskier so we would either see fewer, higher quality shows produced, or fewer, safer and more lowest-common-denominator ones.
There is no longer any compelling technological reason for time-slot television.
I disagree! Two that I can think of are complete lack of bandwidth (1080 digital TV streams run at 1GB per half hour) and simplicity - there is no on-demand broadcast or streaming standard, it's fragmented between various physical devices and online services that require a PC. This puts it beyond the abilities and hassle-horizon of many people, especially the elderly.
We are motivated more by fear and greed than love. Same mechanism that makes capitalism work better than communism.
Getting off-topic, and I'm an amateur, but I'd think you should be using old-school stomp pedals to record, not after (unless you're talking about reverb etc.). To incorporate pedals/rack effects after recording you could try re-amping - record clean to get the performance then replay your performance as many times as you want, experimenting with different non-digital effects.
Also, wouldn't digital effects be easier in a proper DAW like Reaper or even Ardour, rather than Audacity?
You used the term "black box" initially. A torque wrench is not a black box as it's perfectly understandable. What is happening here is closer to motorcycle manufacturers building bikes out of black boxes (possibly literally), where you can't rebuild or tweak them, only swap out large blocks for completely new blocks. This has already happened with cars and you can't even diagnose some problems without plugging them into a special computer from the car maker. Yes, there are advantages to production cost, but it sucks for tinkerers and home mechanics.
That is why it is considered rape to have sex with an intoxicated female, even if she consents.
Ok, this was the opposite of my assumption, but some quick checking indicates this seems to be the case in my country. I agree this is wrong, and shows an inconsistency with the philosophy behind laws such as drunk driving.
Further, it would imply that a drunken male's decision to force himself on a female could not be considered rape. Possibly an argument could be made that consent is different from a decision (passive versus active again), as in if a drunken female propositioned a male rather than accepting the male's proposition, but that seems thin to me.
This leads to the Kafkaesque situation of two drunken people theoretically raping each other, not to mention 'shameful years of mutual abuse' in long-term couples who drink together.
The best argument I can think of for this is that it is known a drunk person's decision making ability is impaired (as we know of children or mentally disabled people) and therefore deliberately using that is an abuse of power.
There is a big difference [...] Having sex with someone doesn't damage them. The damage in a rape is the mental trauma of enduring the experience.
I disagree, this is still victim blaming. The analogy is not perfect but the equivalent would be saying that giving away money is not inherently harmful, but the forced 'giving away' during a mugging is traumatic. Yes, the lost money is inherently harmful but generally the trauma is worse (compare to somebody stealing $100 using your credit card number). Also, how about the case of a woman walking down a dark alley and being raped? Is this just as must her fault as if she "got gangbanged at the frat house after [getting] wasted on jello shots"?
Why is a drunk driver responsible for the outcome of their choice to become intoxicated but a woman is not? Sorry, if you got gangbanged at the frat house after you got wasted on jello shots and passed out on the couch
It's a passive versus active thing, and it's not the decision to become intoxicated but the decision to drive.
A drunk decision is still a decision. Being unconscious means no decision can be made, and therefore no consent can be given.
What you are suggesting is akin to claiming that if you make the decision to walk down a dark alley then the 'entirely predictable' result of being mugged is your fault. Perhaps this becomes blurry when the result of an action is so obvious that you could be accused of deliberately placing yourself in harm's way. There is an interesting princple on the sharing of cupability between two interdependent actors but I can't recall the name.
Remember legal definitions of terms sometimes don't match up with common usage. This can be fine, but it has the effect of diluting the meaning, so if we hear someone was convicted of rape we can't assume it was a violent attack at knifepoint.
I can see this both ways. Rape seems a term best reserved for forcing sex against consent, not for deception, but the effects of deception are similar, feelings of violation etc. A loose analogy would be breaking into a home and tying up the owners versus deceiving them into leaving the house then robbing it.
Your linked story doesn't necessarily apply to the condom argument. That was a simple question of whether the girls gave (informed) consent or not - they claim they were unconscious and he had sex with them. That's clearly rape if true/provable. The Assange details are unclear and may contain a similar sleep/unconsciousness situation, but this thread is about consenting to sex on a condition (wearing of a condom) and the man not fulfulling that condition unbeknownst to the woman.
It would be interesting to apply this to breach-of-contract, a civil matter. In the case of promising to marry, the damages would be very substantial.
Exactly, that's I love and recommend Linux. It's open source so Linux is trustworthy. It even comes with a 'true' program.
Linux, for all your software needs.
It's the low-paid one which are honest
The summary isn't quite accurate. The article states that the survey was mostly IT managers and executives, and the actual report PDF mentions that about 25% were "business/admin/technical staff" (i.e. regular workers), but there is no breakdown as to which group was less honest.
Still, while I'd grant that managers might be more sociopathic, humans in general are quite corrupt. This sort of white-collar unethical behaviour is all too common as, unlike physical violence, it's very indirect as to the effects. This is why so many people cheat on their taxes, pirate software, take stationary etc. etc.
The survey was also done by a company that sells data security products, for what it's worth.
At my last job it was common practice to take a copy of the source code even if you were just leaving for greener pastures.
I considered it myself - not for the trade secrets or to sell, but because it functioned as a programming reference guide ("How do I do that again? That's right, I did it before in library X"). In the end I took the high road and consoled myself that anything I had figured out before I could figure out again.