Will these new elements have significantly shorter half-lives? Will they themselves be able to function as fuel and could thus further be changed?
If both of these are true, even if they're still transuranics, then wouldn't it make sense to build a few of these reactors in geologically-stable areas?
We know the causes of the three biggest nuclear disasters, one being a maintenance task that went awry (TMI), one being an ill-considered test that led to meltdown (Chernobyl), and one being a natural disaster that caused the equipment maintaining the reactor to fail (Fukushima Dai-Ichi). We can probably avoid #2 and #3 based on good management techniques and proper site choice, and #1 is a matter of engineering/technical. If this would make it so that we don't have to attempt to tell two or three future civilizations how to avoid irradiating themselves then it might be worthwhile even if there are added volatility risks.
Unfortunately the addage, "three may share a secret...if two are dead," applies perfectly here. All of the system/software security in the world doesn't matter if someone that is authorized decides to violate the trust of the other party.
Money, important as it is, is impersonal. Any given United States Dollar can be exchanged with any other United States Dollar in the context of being fiat currency and it is irrelevant to the owner, and a perpetrator that steals a Dollar from someone has no further power over the victim and cannot continue to harm the victim after the original theft. In the case of banks, there are laws governing the culpability and liability of a bank to its depositors, to the point that the FDIC forces banks to shut down and merge when they get overleveraged to prevent a complete failure.
As to the personal side of the money angle, if I don't follow good practices like attempting to protect my PIN, then perhaps I deserve the headache associated with having to deal with the bank to get the matter resolved.
On the other hand, naked pictures are personal, and the argument can be made that the continued distribution is further victimization when the pictures were made in private and were redistributed without permission. It gets murkier when one considers the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject, but if the distributor is not the copyright holder then in the past, the subject has been considered a victim.
On the same vein, this is not the first time that celebrities have had their personal photos redistributed by someone other than the subject or the photographer. Off the top of my head, Kat Dennings and Scarlett Johansson were recent victims of this, and there have been numerous redistributions of private photos unauthorized by both the photographer and the subject, and more still that were unauthorized by just the subject, such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
If they were taken off of an Apple server/service, then yes, Apple might bear some culpability, but based on what I've seen, Apple is no worse than anyone else, they all fail. The entire industry needs an enema, everything from the communications protocols that our data transfers happen on to the user credential policies is flawed, and that includes the servers, services, and underlying code that makes it all work.
I still think that you're describing an asymptote situation, one where we can quantify what we want the situation to be, but where as much a we strive for it we never actually get there.
We'll never get there because fundamentally, we like dirt, scandal, sensationalism, dirty laundry, whatever you want to call it. That fundamental vulnerability will always cause someone to seek-out other vulnerabilities, and every technology has them.
I am happy to blame the victim in all circumstances where the victim was presented with the information needed to understand the odds of it and to avoid becoming a victim in advance of it happening. The crux of the matter is that I do not *only* blame the victim.
More than a decade ago my pickup truck was stolen out of the parking lot of the apartment that I lived in. I didn't have a steering wheel lock or other immobilization device on it and per my parents' advice only had liability coverage, as it was an older truck and only worth a couple-thousand dollars Unfortunately I had also just been laid-off, and couldn't afford to buy another vehicle and left with none. I bore at least some responsibility as I did not make an effort to see how theft-prone these trucks were, did not use anything to make the vehicle a harder target, and didn't have the insurance necessary to deal with it. My parents also accepted some blame in that the insurance situation was their idea, and they let me borrow a vehicle until I found work, then they bought me a cheap vehicle and I paid them back as I could afford to.
Blaming the victim does not mean demonizing the victim. It means there's an understanding that the victim took unnecessary risks and suffered the consequences of those risks when the odds fell against their favor. This is a cruel world that we live in, and while it's nice to think that maybe some day people won't commit acts against each other, that is never going to happen and we all have to do our part to protect ourselves, as again, we can only affect our own behavior, not anyone else's.
Her words at an awards show where she commented that if she showed a tit she'd break the Internet, then reached up for her decolletage, throws a bit of a wrench in that analysis. The venue was far too public for her to let her guard down, and it flies in the face of a carefully cultivated image of higher standards in a vein like that of Taylor Swift.
My home is connected to the street network. That doesn't mean I expect anyone with access to the street to have access to my home.
The real issue here is trusting Apple to manage the lock on your front door.
That my house is connected to the street network is why I have locks on my doors, a fence around my backyard, locks on my windows, curtains and blinds on my windows, and a security system. I follow my own due diligence to attempt to keep people out by making it hard for them to know what stuff I have, as difficult as possible for them to get in such that they have to break laws in the act, and I have a means of detecting if they force their way in otherwise.
It's wrong of people to attempt to steal my stuff, but just because it's wrong doesn't excuse me from making an effort to ensure that it doesn't happen.
Stop. This is the fault of allowing users to use devices with no training. Standard I.T. data security ON THE PART OF THE USERS would have prevented this. If you dont understand the device you are using, seek training, or dont put sensitive info on it. Its not ok to be a moron in the Information Age.
I used to feel that way, but I don't think it works that way anymore. There's too much tech to be able to keep up with it, even for computing professionals. There are too many things that we're dependent on that we only get to see as a black box. There are too many vulnerabilities constantly discovered and often times left unpatched (Heartbleed anyone?) that are out of the user's control.
Yes, there are some things that the user can control, but there are plenty of things outside of that control, and plenty of other things that stop working if the user doesn't allow various services to be turned on or available. In some ways it's our own Chilling Effect, but those are the breaks when one wants to foist interconnectivity on everyone and everything. It means now that everything is potentially subject to review by everyone else.
the screenshots were probably the biggest mistake though. He identified extra nodes (quite literally with the machine names) that made it much easier to cross-check real-world "networking" to other people and the organization that he works for. Or worked for, as I expect that come tomorrow he won't work there anymore as his sheer presence will be damaging to the company. Heck, if he used company resources and the FBI comes calling, all of those computers in the screenshots will probably be confiscated and the company will effectively wither on the vine.
If he hadn't been showboating he might have managed to stay anonymous enough to be left alone.
You get a shot at seeing boobies and all the sudden all those complaints you have about the NSA peeking at your files goes flying out the window. When that's brought up all the sudden we've got something worthwhile to spend our mod-points on. Cute.
No one really wants to pay taxes. We will seek out any and all provisions of the tax code to pay as little tax as reasonably possible. At the same time many of us will make the argument in favor of higher taxes on groups of people that can afford it, even if we ourselves are in that group. Warren Buffet and George Soros have both said it and they would be greatly impacted by it.
It's possible to advocate against a behavior that one engages in without simply being in denial. It's possible to advocate against government data mining and against computer hacking in general while still enjoying the fruits of it, understanding that one may eventually no longer be able to enjoy the results if one gets one's way.
Well, when I got my phone that uses "the cloud", security was never a marketing feature touted. Come to think of it, the only cloud-served phone that I can think of that really talks about security is Blackberry, and that seems tenuous at best.
Some are freaking-out though, or at least their publicity management people are. From what I gather, someone started tweeting they were fake, and apparently the more were released to prove they weren't.
I do expect that the leaking of such images could cost actors some roles or cause other damage. Family-friendly movies might not cast them if the controversy would hurt the bottom-line of the movie, or these could end up pushing the actress toward the casting-couch. Or, as we've seen with other actresses that have gone off the deep end in concert with nude photos or public indecency photos, they could end up with a reputation that means they don't really get cast at all.
If you cannot even trust the platform, then how does your logic work?
Can't trust cell phone cameras. By definition it's a camera attached to a communications device. It's designed to share that photo.
Can't trust storing it on a PC as PCs are connected to the Internet in the overwhelming majority of instances.
Can't even store on many modern-day cameras, as they're communincations-enabled.
...and all of these devices are designed to communicate with each other in as transparent a means as possible, specifically to facilitate sharing pictures, videos, etc between the devices that create them, and the devices best able to display them. Then there's the issue of automatic cloud backup on any of these devices, where the camera or phone might not be configured to do it, but the computer or tablet might, as soon as it has retrieved the photo or video.
Then there's the whole point of a picture, looking it at it. Typically that means more than just the picture-taker looking at it if the photographer and the subject are the same person (ie, selfie), or the subject is not the photographer, then the subject is trusting that the photographer won't leave the image vulnerable to all of the possibilities above, and won't intentionally share it as well.
For all we know, none of these women's accounts were compromised. Their boyfriends, husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends accounts could have been, or those people could have shared the photos with others, and their accounts were compromised.
I guess what it comes down to is, if it exists, it could be evidence. The only solution is to not let it exist in the first place.
Fact of the matter is, tech-types who should know better still struggle with digital security and lose; laymen don't really have a chance. These women are actors and singers, not computing professionals, and they probably don't have a clue how to choose good passwords for things that are important, don't have an understanding of how the tech that they're using works, and thus are completely vulnerable. As long as they're willing to take naked pictures of themselves then they're going to be targets, and would be regardless of the medium in which the photos were taken. They could be 35mm, polaroid, 3.5" floppy on a Mavica, whatever, as long as they exist then someone is out to find them. It could be the guy developing film, it could be someone going through the garbage that finds an accidently-tossed polariod, it could be someone attempting to hack a local personal computer.
There are millions of photos of naked women out there that can be viewed wiithout violating anyone's privacy.
Strictly speaking, while there are lots of paid model/glamour photos, there are also lots of leaked/shared/stolen photos of women that probably didn't want their images shared with the world too. So short of paying for the images from sites that only publish photos that they took themselves, you're probably still going to be violating someone's privacy.
Since when has Apple prided itself or even claimed strict security? They claim pretty hardware and perhaps strong integration with their other products for interoperbility, and based on the numbers of prototypes that have been accidentally left in public places, they don't even maintain good security on those.
That is, your identity is literally worthless if there's no money on the attached "prepaid" card.
Heh. Kind of like how if you want to do anything with significant amounts of money in the United States, they require that you allow them to do a credit check on you first?
Neighbors were getting solar put on their roof. We figured it wouldn't hurt to talk to the salesman since he was there. He wanted to run a credit-check on us. We laughed in his face. We'll consent to a credit check only when we're at the stage of seeking to actually borrow money, and basically that means only for the purchases of vehicles and real property, and we do it on our terms, through our bank, in advance, not on the terms of some merchant and certainly not through their financing people.
Most people here don't do that. They will go in cold, without having any sort of in-advance approved financing from a lender that they already have a relationship with, and will get screwed. Makes me wonder if this situation in Nigeria will work out the same way for the vast majority of people there, as they won't have sought in-advance to get the backing they need, and will ultimately pay more for whatever because of it.
That job was desktop support. So, if no trouble tickets were assigned, there was nothing to do. We didn't have permissions to raid the queue either, so if a manager didn't assign a ticket then one couldn't really take the initiative and find new tickets to do.
It's Panasonic's direct competitor. CT-30W52. True it's Component only, not HDMI/DVI, but so far that hasn't been a problem. The Blu-Ray player has component (heck, it still has S-video!) and the PC has a component card in it that works fine.
If the image size were a lot larger then perhaps it'd be an issue, but we don't even have cable. We watch the news, some sitcoms including several older ones that were never high-def to start with, some sci-fi, etc. Works fine.
The old TV, a 25" Magnavox, died one day when an IC finally popped and left a greasy black stain on the circuit board where it used to be. We'd had that TV for close to 15 years at that point and were basically okay with it, TV isn't that big of a part of our lives.
Or if they shared the photos with a paramour or significant other, if that person saved them on a Mac...
What it comes down to is, if you don't want naked pictures of yourself to end up for all the world to see, don't take naked pictures of yourself. Famous or not, just don't do it.
Yes, it's wrong for someone to seek to steal your nude photos, but pragmatically people want to satisfy their prurient interests. If you're famous and if your beauty was in large-part responsible for getting you there, you've created incentive for those fans to want to see more. That's why programs like Entertainment Tonight, Extra, and TMZ can make a living, because people want to satisfy their prurient interests with you. Some like Paris Hilton and Mrs. Kanye West and the rest of the Kardashian family have managed to exploit that successfully in the past, and others like Miley Cyrus are trying very hard to exploit that now, and unfortunately their antics have helped to make it acceptable, to an extent, for this invasive phenomenon to stand.
Once the genie's out of the bottle it's over. Apparently Lawrence's lawyers are threatening to sue or refer for criminal prosecution anyone that shares the photos of her. I very much doubt they'll have a lot of luck though, even if the original source of the leak is found. If anything they're just going to make it worse via Streisand Effect.
And for those that say I'm blaming the victim, yes, I am blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the leaker and the culture of invasiveness that makes these leaks so incredibly desired, but I am blaming the victim. Would you go walking through a part of town known for muggings during the time of day or night when those muggings are most likely to happen? Yeah, it's wrong for the mugger to attack you, but armed with the knowledge that you're placing yourself in undue risk you'd generally avoid doing that because the only behavior that you can control is your own. Same thing applies here. It's 100% wrong for someone to fraudulently obtain access to your account and your cache of nude photos of yourself, but you know that if others know they exist they'll certainly try, or if you're famous you know that they'll try just to see if they exist in the first place, so despite the very much known risk you've put yourself in a position to become a victim. Don't do that.
Slashdot Mirror
Will these new elements have significantly shorter half-lives? Will they themselves be able to function as fuel and could thus further be changed?
If both of these are true, even if they're still transuranics, then wouldn't it make sense to build a few of these reactors in geologically-stable areas?
We know the causes of the three biggest nuclear disasters, one being a maintenance task that went awry (TMI), one being an ill-considered test that led to meltdown (Chernobyl), and one being a natural disaster that caused the equipment maintaining the reactor to fail (Fukushima Dai-Ichi). We can probably avoid #2 and #3 based on good management techniques and proper site choice, and #1 is a matter of engineering/technical. If this would make it so that we don't have to attempt to tell two or three future civilizations how to avoid irradiating themselves then it might be worthwhile even if there are added volatility risks.
Any pickup line that works is an effective pickup line.
Though in hindsight, using, "Gimme a waitress, hold the dressing," successfully at the IHOP should have set off some warning bells...
It may prolong it though, if it continues making the news due to lawsuits or criminal prosecution, or re-introduce it once it's subsided.
Unfortunately the addage, "three may share a secret...if two are dead," applies perfectly here. All of the system/software security in the world doesn't matter if someone that is authorized decides to violate the trust of the other party.
Money, important as it is, is impersonal. Any given United States Dollar can be exchanged with any other United States Dollar in the context of being fiat currency and it is irrelevant to the owner, and a perpetrator that steals a Dollar from someone has no further power over the victim and cannot continue to harm the victim after the original theft. In the case of banks, there are laws governing the culpability and liability of a bank to its depositors, to the point that the FDIC forces banks to shut down and merge when they get overleveraged to prevent a complete failure.
As to the personal side of the money angle, if I don't follow good practices like attempting to protect my PIN, then perhaps I deserve the headache associated with having to deal with the bank to get the matter resolved.
On the other hand, naked pictures are personal, and the argument can be made that the continued distribution is further victimization when the pictures were made in private and were redistributed without permission. It gets murkier when one considers the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject, but if the distributor is not the copyright holder then in the past, the subject has been considered a victim.
On the same vein, this is not the first time that celebrities have had their personal photos redistributed by someone other than the subject or the photographer. Off the top of my head, Kat Dennings and Scarlett Johansson were recent victims of this, and there have been numerous redistributions of private photos unauthorized by both the photographer and the subject, and more still that were unauthorized by just the subject, such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.
If they were taken off of an Apple server/service, then yes, Apple might bear some culpability, but based on what I've seen, Apple is no worse than anyone else, they all fail. The entire industry needs an enema, everything from the communications protocols that our data transfers happen on to the user credential policies is flawed, and that includes the servers, services, and underlying code that makes it all work.
I still think that you're describing an asymptote situation, one where we can quantify what we want the situation to be, but where as much a we strive for it we never actually get there.
We'll never get there because fundamentally, we like dirt, scandal, sensationalism, dirty laundry, whatever you want to call it. That fundamental vulnerability will always cause someone to seek-out other vulnerabilities, and every technology has them.
Way too many faces for them all to be fakes.
I remember fanbois going on about how Macs don't get viruses, but I don't remember Apple stating that.
I think that qualifies as, "enjoying the fruits of it"...
I am happy to blame the victim in all circumstances where the victim was presented with the information needed to understand the odds of it and to avoid becoming a victim in advance of it happening. The crux of the matter is that I do not *only* blame the victim.
More than a decade ago my pickup truck was stolen out of the parking lot of the apartment that I lived in. I didn't have a steering wheel lock or other immobilization device on it and per my parents' advice only had liability coverage, as it was an older truck and only worth a couple-thousand dollars Unfortunately I had also just been laid-off, and couldn't afford to buy another vehicle and left with none. I bore at least some responsibility as I did not make an effort to see how theft-prone these trucks were, did not use anything to make the vehicle a harder target, and didn't have the insurance necessary to deal with it. My parents also accepted some blame in that the insurance situation was their idea, and they let me borrow a vehicle until I found work, then they bought me a cheap vehicle and I paid them back as I could afford to.
Blaming the victim does not mean demonizing the victim. It means there's an understanding that the victim took unnecessary risks and suffered the consequences of those risks when the odds fell against their favor. This is a cruel world that we live in, and while it's nice to think that maybe some day people won't commit acts against each other, that is never going to happen and we all have to do our part to protect ourselves, as again, we can only affect our own behavior, not anyone else's.
Her words at an awards show where she commented that if she showed a tit she'd break the Internet, then reached up for her decolletage, throws a bit of a wrench in that analysis. The venue was far too public for her to let her guard down, and it flies in the face of a carefully cultivated image of higher standards in a vein like that of Taylor Swift.
That my house is connected to the street network is why I have locks on my doors, a fence around my backyard, locks on my windows, curtains and blinds on my windows, and a security system. I follow my own due diligence to attempt to keep people out by making it hard for them to know what stuff I have, as difficult as possible for them to get in such that they have to break laws in the act, and I have a means of detecting if they force their way in otherwise.
It's wrong of people to attempt to steal my stuff, but just because it's wrong doesn't excuse me from making an effort to ensure that it doesn't happen.
I used to feel that way, but I don't think it works that way anymore. There's too much tech to be able to keep up with it, even for computing professionals. There are too many things that we're dependent on that we only get to see as a black box. There are too many vulnerabilities constantly discovered and often times left unpatched (Heartbleed anyone?) that are out of the user's control.
Yes, there are some things that the user can control, but there are plenty of things outside of that control, and plenty of other things that stop working if the user doesn't allow various services to be turned on or available. In some ways it's our own Chilling Effect, but those are the breaks when one wants to foist interconnectivity on everyone and everything. It means now that everything is potentially subject to review by everyone else.
the screenshots were probably the biggest mistake though. He identified extra nodes (quite literally with the machine names) that made it much easier to cross-check real-world "networking" to other people and the organization that he works for. Or worked for, as I expect that come tomorrow he won't work there anymore as his sheer presence will be damaging to the company. Heck, if he used company resources and the FBI comes calling, all of those computers in the screenshots will probably be confiscated and the company will effectively wither on the vine.
If he hadn't been showboating he might have managed to stay anonymous enough to be left alone.
No one really wants to pay taxes. We will seek out any and all provisions of the tax code to pay as little tax as reasonably possible. At the same time many of us will make the argument in favor of higher taxes on groups of people that can afford it, even if we ourselves are in that group. Warren Buffet and George Soros have both said it and they would be greatly impacted by it.
It's possible to advocate against a behavior that one engages in without simply being in denial. It's possible to advocate against government data mining and against computer hacking in general while still enjoying the fruits of it, understanding that one may eventually no longer be able to enjoy the results if one gets one's way.
Well, when I got my phone that uses "the cloud", security was never a marketing feature touted. Come to think of it, the only cloud-served phone that I can think of that really talks about security is Blackberry, and that seems tenuous at best.
Some are freaking-out though, or at least their publicity management people are. From what I gather, someone started tweeting they were fake, and apparently the more were released to prove they weren't.
I do expect that the leaking of such images could cost actors some roles or cause other damage. Family-friendly movies might not cast them if the controversy would hurt the bottom-line of the movie, or these could end up pushing the actress toward the casting-couch. Or, as we've seen with other actresses that have gone off the deep end in concert with nude photos or public indecency photos, they could end up with a reputation that means they don't really get cast at all.
If you cannot even trust the platform, then how does your logic work?
...and all of these devices are designed to communicate with each other in as transparent a means as possible, specifically to facilitate sharing pictures, videos, etc between the devices that create them, and the devices best able to display them. Then there's the issue of automatic cloud backup on any of these devices, where the camera or phone might not be configured to do it, but the computer or tablet might, as soon as it has retrieved the photo or video.
Can't trust cell phone cameras. By definition it's a camera attached to a communications device. It's designed to share that photo.
Can't trust storing it on a PC as PCs are connected to the Internet in the overwhelming majority of instances.
Can't even store on many modern-day cameras, as they're communincations-enabled.
Then there's the whole point of a picture, looking it at it. Typically that means more than just the picture-taker looking at it if the photographer and the subject are the same person (ie, selfie), or the subject is not the photographer, then the subject is trusting that the photographer won't leave the image vulnerable to all of the possibilities above, and won't intentionally share it as well.
For all we know, none of these women's accounts were compromised. Their boyfriends, husbands, ex-boyfriends, ex-husbands, girlfriends, ex-girlfriends accounts could have been, or those people could have shared the photos with others, and their accounts were compromised.
I guess what it comes down to is, if it exists, it could be evidence. The only solution is to not let it exist in the first place.
Fact of the matter is, tech-types who should know better still struggle with digital security and lose; laymen don't really have a chance. These women are actors and singers, not computing professionals, and they probably don't have a clue how to choose good passwords for things that are important, don't have an understanding of how the tech that they're using works, and thus are completely vulnerable. As long as they're willing to take naked pictures of themselves then they're going to be targets, and would be regardless of the medium in which the photos were taken. They could be 35mm, polaroid, 3.5" floppy on a Mavica, whatever, as long as they exist then someone is out to find them. It could be the guy developing film, it could be someone going through the garbage that finds an accidently-tossed polariod, it could be someone attempting to hack a local personal computer.
The only winning move is not to play.
Strictly speaking, while there are lots of paid model/glamour photos, there are also lots of leaked/shared/stolen photos of women that probably didn't want their images shared with the world too. So short of paying for the images from sites that only publish photos that they took themselves, you're probably still going to be violating someone's privacy.
Since when has Apple prided itself or even claimed strict security? They claim pretty hardware and perhaps strong integration with their other products for interoperbility, and based on the numbers of prototypes that have been accidentally left in public places, they don't even maintain good security on those.
Heh. Kind of like how if you want to do anything with significant amounts of money in the United States, they require that you allow them to do a credit check on you first?
Neighbors were getting solar put on their roof. We figured it wouldn't hurt to talk to the salesman since he was there. He wanted to run a credit-check on us. We laughed in his face. We'll consent to a credit check only when we're at the stage of seeking to actually borrow money, and basically that means only for the purchases of vehicles and real property, and we do it on our terms, through our bank, in advance, not on the terms of some merchant and certainly not through their financing people.
Most people here don't do that. They will go in cold, without having any sort of in-advance approved financing from a lender that they already have a relationship with, and will get screwed. Makes me wonder if this situation in Nigeria will work out the same way for the vast majority of people there, as they won't have sought in-advance to get the backing they need, and will ultimately pay more for whatever because of it.
That job was desktop support. So, if no trouble tickets were assigned, there was nothing to do. We didn't have permissions to raid the queue either, so if a manager didn't assign a ticket then one couldn't really take the initiative and find new tickets to do.
It's Panasonic's direct competitor. CT-30W52. True it's Component only, not HDMI/DVI, but so far that hasn't been a problem. The Blu-Ray player has component (heck, it still has S-video!) and the PC has a component card in it that works fine.
If the image size were a lot larger then perhaps it'd be an issue, but we don't even have cable. We watch the news, some sitcoms including several older ones that were never high-def to start with, some sci-fi, etc. Works fine.
The old TV, a 25" Magnavox, died one day when an IC finally popped and left a greasy black stain on the circuit board where it used to be. We'd had that TV for close to 15 years at that point and were basically okay with it, TV isn't that big of a part of our lives.
Or if they shared the photos with a paramour or significant other, if that person saved them on a Mac...
What it comes down to is, if you don't want naked pictures of yourself to end up for all the world to see, don't take naked pictures of yourself. Famous or not, just don't do it.
Yes, it's wrong for someone to seek to steal your nude photos, but pragmatically people want to satisfy their prurient interests. If you're famous and if your beauty was in large-part responsible for getting you there, you've created incentive for those fans to want to see more. That's why programs like Entertainment Tonight, Extra, and TMZ can make a living, because people want to satisfy their prurient interests with you. Some like Paris Hilton and Mrs. Kanye West and the rest of the Kardashian family have managed to exploit that successfully in the past, and others like Miley Cyrus are trying very hard to exploit that now, and unfortunately their antics have helped to make it acceptable, to an extent, for this invasive phenomenon to stand.
Once the genie's out of the bottle it's over. Apparently Lawrence's lawyers are threatening to sue or refer for criminal prosecution anyone that shares the photos of her. I very much doubt they'll have a lot of luck though, even if the original source of the leak is found. If anything they're just going to make it worse via Streisand Effect.
And for those that say I'm blaming the victim, yes, I am blaming the victim. I'm also blaming the leaker and the culture of invasiveness that makes these leaks so incredibly desired, but I am blaming the victim. Would you go walking through a part of town known for muggings during the time of day or night when those muggings are most likely to happen? Yeah, it's wrong for the mugger to attack you, but armed with the knowledge that you're placing yourself in undue risk you'd generally avoid doing that because the only behavior that you can control is your own. Same thing applies here. It's 100% wrong for someone to fraudulently obtain access to your account and your cache of nude photos of yourself, but you know that if others know they exist they'll certainly try, or if you're famous you know that they'll try just to see if they exist in the first place, so despite the very much known risk you've put yourself in a position to become a victim. Don't do that.