Congratulations on missing the point of both the OP's post and mine.
Alan Turing is the odd one out because what he was doing was illegal at the time. The others weren't "illegal" (for the admittedly broad definition of word that the OP was using to demonstrate his point) until society - and subsequently the law - changed around them, and suddenly they had everything to fear, when previously they didn't.
And that's the OP's point. Right now it's not illegal to watch wrestling, but what if one day wrestling falls out of favour with the authorities and they decide to trawl back through all that data they collected during the period when "no-one [had] anything to fear"?
Actually legally he was doing something wrong. By the standards of the day, I suspect most people would have considered his sexual activies/sexuality morally unacceptable as well. The rest of your examples have a "before" to compare them to, but that one doesn't quite fit.
As with many Slashdot stories linking to news reports of scientific experiments, you may need to travel a whole two clicks away:
we installed three popular browsers, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and
Mozilla Firefox, on six new notebook and four desktop computers running Windows 8. We then
measured the average power draw over one-second intervals for a six-minute period with each of the
individual browsers open, for each of the ten most-visited websites in the U.S. In addition, we also
measured power draw for both the Flash® and HTML5 versions of an online video, as well as the
Fishbowl HTML5 benchmark.
You can read the AC's comment either way. It's not really clear what side of the fence he's standing on, except that by implication he's presumably opposing Obfuscant's assertion that for plenty of uses a cellphone camera serves the purpose just as well (or better, perhaps, for being more convenient).
Then again, he could equally be agreeing with Obfuscant. We may never know.
Seriously? Did I really deserve +5 Insightful just for retracting my own hasty post, and yet no-one down-modded the original? Maybe that just goes to show how rare such a thing is here.
And do you really think it's going to be anywhere near that simple if this actually gets anywhere near a court? I read this the other day:
The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches.
However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds.
That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials.
Seems like there's still plenty of room for argument to be had over legality yet.
Hilarious is a huge overkill for anything on that show.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the arbiter of what's funny and what isn't. Everybody? Did you hear? BBT's not funny any more, arkane1234 said!
Of course, I should acknowledge the apparent irony of calling you out for this when I've previously declared it "hilarious" without a six-foot-high disclaimer that that's my personal subjective opinion. The difference, of course, is that that was a throw-away adjective casually tossed in for mild comic effect, and that I didn't post solely to prove my inherent superiority by sneering down my nose at people who enjoy something I don't.
Cisco has teamed up with robotics firm iRobot to create their own enterprise version of the 'Sheldonbot' from US comedy series The Big Bang Theory.
Presence-bots were around long before Big Bang Theory made them hilarious. This just looks like a fancier version of the same with smoother curves and all the wires on the inside.
Uh, the massive spying program that spies on American citizens without warrant or just cause?
Has that been shown to be illegal yet?
(laws that are laughably unconstitutional)
But were, nonetheless, passed - that in itself suggests there is at least some weasel-room as to the legality of all this should it be formally challenged. I hope it is, and I hope the weasels lose, but wishing isn't knowing.
Not yet proven. That's not to say I don't think he was right to reveal, or that he should be prosecuted if the govt does manage to legally weasle their way out, but I've yet to see anything definitively categorised as illegal about what PRISM has been doing.
He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.
What activity by the government, in this case, has been shown to be illegal?
If the moon had been in a different position when Sandy hit, the tide would have been out. I suggest a pre-emptive assault on the moon with razor mines, acid grenades, and automated laser monkeys.
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber.
Not that I disagree with your point, but that was 370 years ago. Would you find something Obama says about racism "interesting" because his country still had slavery only 150 years ago?
Slashdot Mirror
If God didn't want us to eat meat, why did he make animals so tasty?
It's a car. It's buried in TFS somewhere.
Hope you don't 'look' gay...
I look fabulous, thank you very much.
Congratulations on missing the point of both the OP's post and mine.
Alan Turing is the odd one out because what he was doing was illegal at the time. The others weren't "illegal" (for the admittedly broad definition of word that the OP was using to demonstrate his point) until society - and subsequently the law - changed around them, and suddenly they had everything to fear, when previously they didn't.
And that's the OP's point. Right now it's not illegal to watch wrestling, but what if one day wrestling falls out of favour with the authorities and they decide to trawl back through all that data they collected during the period when "no-one [had] anything to fear"?
Was Alan Turing doing anything wrong? Nope.
Actually legally he was doing something wrong. By the standards of the day, I suspect most people would have considered his sexual activies/sexuality morally unacceptable as well. The rest of your examples have a "before" to compare them to, but that one doesn't quite fit.
In true /. tradition, I did not read the article. So perhaps the article contradicts me
Spoiler alert: it does.
I would have thought the fastest browser was the most efficient
Why? You wouldn't assume the same of cars, would you?*
*knowing my luck this will probably turn out to be obviously true
we installed three popular browsers, Google Chrome, Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Mozilla Firefox, on six new notebook and four desktop computers running Windows 8. We then measured the average power draw over one-second intervals for a six-minute period with each of the individual browsers open, for each of the ten most-visited websites in the U.S. In addition, we also measured power draw for both the Flash® and HTML5 versions of an online video, as well as the Fishbowl HTML5 benchmark.
Sharing HBO Go Accounts Could Result In Prison
...but probably won't.
Next!
You can read the AC's comment either way. It's not really clear what side of the fence he's standing on, except that by implication he's presumably opposing Obfuscant's assertion that for plenty of uses a cellphone camera serves the purpose just as well (or better, perhaps, for being more convenient).
Then again, he could equally be agreeing with Obfuscant. We may never know.
So when the police come to arrest you for interfering with communications*, they can beat you with impunity! Brilliant!
*Not that that would actually stop these devices recording at all.
Seriously? Did I really deserve +5 Insightful just for retracting my own hasty post, and yet no-one down-modded the original? Maybe that just goes to show how rare such a thing is here.
FLAC is an audio format similar to MP3, but 'lossless'
Sooo... not similar at all, really?
The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches.
However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds.
That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials.
Seems like there's still plenty of room for argument to be had over legality yet.
Hilarious is a huge overkill for anything on that show.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the arbiter of what's funny and what isn't. Everybody? Did you hear? BBT's not funny any more, arkane1234 said!
Of course, I should acknowledge the apparent irony of calling you out for this when I've previously declared it "hilarious" without a six-foot-high disclaimer that that's my personal subjective opinion. The difference, of course, is that that was a throw-away adjective casually tossed in for mild comic effect, and that I didn't post solely to prove my inherent superiority by sneering down my nose at people who enjoy something I don't.
Cisco has teamed up with robotics firm iRobot to create their own enterprise version of the 'Sheldonbot' from US comedy series The Big Bang Theory.
Presence-bots were around long before Big Bang Theory made them hilarious. This just looks like a fancier version of the same with smoother curves and all the wires on the inside.
Or, alternatively, you could answer my question and both demolish any inferred sarcasm in my question and educate the reading public.
Uh, the massive spying program that spies on American citizens without warrant or just cause?
Has that been shown to be illegal yet?
(laws that are laughably unconstitutional)
But were, nonetheless, passed - that in itself suggests there is at least some weasel-room as to the legality of all this should it be formally challenged. I hope it is, and I hope the weasels lose, but wishing isn't knowing.
illegal activities
Not yet proven. That's not to say I don't think he was right to reveal, or that he should be prosecuted if the govt does manage to legally weasle their way out, but I've yet to see anything definitively categorised as illegal about what PRISM has been doing.
He WAS abiding by the law by exposing illegal activities carried out by the government on an ongoing basis. How is what he did illegal or wrong, by any stretch of the imagination? A law instructing any citizen to not report any illegal activity is itself an illegal law.
What activity by the government, in this case, has been shown to be illegal?
If the moon had been in a different position when Sandy hit, the tide would have been out. I suggest a pre-emptive assault on the moon with razor mines, acid grenades, and automated laser monkeys.
Actually, you know what, I'm being needlessly picky. A lesson from the past is still a lesson worth remembering.
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber.
Not that I disagree with your point, but that was 370 years ago. Would you find something Obama says about racism "interesting" because his country still had slavery only 150 years ago?
the rudest word in the universe.
Belgium.
I'm still running Debian on 64 MB of RAM
I can still Windows on 64mb of RAM, as I long I don't specify the version either...