The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever.
No, it doesn't. Winning ten million on the lottery changes your life forever. The internet just makes a lot of things easier to do.
You can do or not-do something on the internet, but it's now a choice that needs to be made every hour of the day forever. Try reading old literature sometime, with the perspective of looking for when characters were really rather bored with nothing to do - "kick the can" for 3 hours and then dinner - really?! Or the farmers sitting around the parlor when Ma didn't feel like playing the piano, so they all just sat there kinda listless. Eew.
You seem to think that simply having access to all the stuff you can consume on the internet means you are doing something. You're not, any more than if you're watching TV mindlessly.
Stupid people have always got bored easily, and they still do if you give them a TV or internet connection. In "old literature" they probably engaged themselves with an actual book.
What? Those useless "for the children" laws where an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old can get charged with rape just by having sex with someone who is legally considered a minor? You expect me to believe that a 13-17 year old can't much such a decision?
Why 13-17? They are just arbitrary limits too. Why not 10 which is the age of criminal responsibility (in the UK)?
The point is that most people would agree that you have to have some sort of legal cut off point, and by definition it is not going to apply equally. One girl may enter puberty at 10 while for her brother it's not until 15.
It seems to be mainly the US where sex with a minor is automatically rape, here in the UK where the age of consent is 16, if a boy aged 16 and 1 day had sex with a girl aged 15 and 364 days, it is highly unlikely that he would be charged with anything at all.
If you have ever taken your computer to be repaired by a shop, if you have nude picture of yourself on your hard drive, I can guarantee with about 99% certainty that they looked at them.
I find it amusing that these guys are being prosecuted for doing something that nearly everyone in that business does.
LK
Regardless of the fact that doesn't excuse it in the first place, most people in that business probably keep the pics to themselves and don't try to pass them on to the victim's friend, like these geniuses did.
The article reads like it was written by the media industry. Theft, stealing, stolen property... come on people, it's fucking copyright infringement. Nothing was stolen... the girl was not left without her nude pictures. The guys didn't "take" them from her. Data was copied without permission. Simple as that. The only "property" in question is the phones and other computing devices mentioned in the article... and none of that was "stolen" either.
If you want to argue that you can't "steal" someone's privacy, go ahead, you're probably linguistically correct. Just don't start bleating on abut how CCTV cameras in the UK are some Orwellian nightmare, or how having a clothed pat down at an airport is sexual assault.
Complete, unmitigated, 100% bullshit.
Most men I know wouldn't do that. If all the men you know would, you need to spend your time with a different group. This reeks of the "any man would rape a woman if he could get away with it" nonsense that floats around.
That the "dweeb" at the phone store would (gasp!) behave professionally and not invade a customer's privacy?
More professional pay might encourage more professional behavior.
But everything is about racing to the bottom and squeezing blood from turnips these days.
Utter bollocks. You don't get more professionalism by paying people more. Otherwise investment banking would have the highest standard of ethics out of any business.
All the more reason to learn how to do your own PC repairs.
Similarly, everyone should do their own car repairs, roofing work, re-wiring, washing machine overhauls and so on. Plus you should probably only eat meat you have hunted yourself, and nvever, ever drink fluoridated water.
Meanwhile, in the real world, only a tiny minority of people have any interest in repairing their own PC.
When someone accuses you of being a creep after you do a nice thing for them, because they lack the morals to take responsibility for their own embarrassing mistakes and would rather blame the person who helped you out, you are absolutely 100% justified in calling that person whatever you want.
As we're in playground rthics territory now, can I just say that two wrongs don't make a right?
it's even worse to watch guys who I thought were rational and mature experience omg-shes-hawt-brain-leak-out-ear syndrome and decide that despite all facts and evidence that he's going to somehow get laid by taking her side.
I remember this attractive woman asking me to cut in line. She looked confused and hurt when I indifferently told her no.
Yeah, that serves the bitch right for daring to talk to an Aspie.
I hate to break it to you but for each individual boss you've had and will ever have, the odds are probably greater than 50% that they have sex. Smaller odds are that it might involve whipped cream, video equipment, or other add-ons. Your reaction to that is your problem, not theirs.
Oh please, you wouldn't have any problem accepting your boss in a position of authority barking orders if you've seen her butt naked covered in whipped cream? It's like learning that the tough kid at school actually wears pink bunny slippers and still sleeps with a teddy bear, it's nothing wrong as such but you'll never take him seriously as a tough kid ever again. His reaction seems pretty human to me...
You seem to be under the mistaken impresson that your own bosses have never been naked or had sex. That is pretty unlikely unless you work at a games company.
The worst part though was that his wife was also my boss... must say it was very difficult to take her seriously after that!
I've never understood that reaction. I can sort of understand being vaguely uncomfortable interacting with them, but to not take someone seriously because of information you found out regarding their sex life? That's just... weird, at least to me.
It's the reaction of a thirteen year old virgin to finding out that his parents have, eww gorss, done it in the past and are still doing it now. A lot of slashdotters maintain that attitude even when they are chronologically adult and have had sexual partners themselves.
Why do you think celebrity sex tapes, even the ones who are not all that hot and where the image is just a grainy out of focus night vision shot that shows you almost nothing, are so popular?
People seem to like seeing porn, even bad porn, of people they know. Even if they only know them through the TV.
That is to a large extent an attempt by Mr Average to gain some vicarious revenge on the rich and famoius. It's envy. Or, if you prefer, a democratisation of the secual act as a revolutionary gesture.
It's a power thing. Even if you don't intend to wield that power against that person.
I know what you mean, but it's not necessarily power. I'd say in most cases it's simply that it's a "real" person. The porn equivalent is "girl next door" or "concealed camera" - the fantasy of accessibility or presence. Sometimes there are less relatively "innocent" motivations, but it's usually just that I think.
.
The difference with "girl next door" or "concealed camera" porn is that it's...well, porn. It's not real. You aren't intruding on the models' privacy or gaining some surreptitious knowledge about them.
Ahh, one of the many local AC misogynists speaks, and gets +5 insightful.
Highly eroticised "taboos" about seeing your neighbours' tits are only powerful because woman-hating buffoons with zero social skills and sexual experience like yourself make them so.
I doubt it's a power thing. It's a fact that a woman you know, even if you only had a short conversation with her, is more attractive than a similarly built woman that you don't know. It's easy to guess at evolutionary reasons for this.
No, it's because you can have absolutely no power in your fantasies over some stranger on the internet, whereas if it's your neighbour, well maybe you'll get lucky and find her helpless one day so that you can rape and murder her.
And they are running out of money... or so they say... (certainly, nobody of us gives them a single cent anymore, and I will hunt you down if you do!).
In which case there will eventually be no film industry to make the ridiculously successful blockbuster films involving comic book super heroes that people here seem so keen on.
The value of MegaUpload has been estimated to up to a billion dollars, not two hundred million. You need to take into account future earning potential.
If you base a business on breaking the law, it has zero future earning potential, as Kim Dotfuck is now finding out.
He'll have to go back to dodgy share dealing instead of bamboozling a few geeks who are impressed that he's got richer from (breaking) the copyright laws they so disapprove of than almost any actual content creator.
Oh no! It's a 3-digit UID Slashdotter who hates money! Fucking typical.
Money ain't evil, it paid for your computer.
Dotcom did nothing wrong, except piss off Hollywood.
There is a difference, you utter twat, between differentiating criminal from non-criminal economic activities, and hating money.
You are perilously close to parroting the extreme right wing/libertarian lie that any business is good by definition, because all that matters is economics.
You're right, but still, if I had to choose, I'd choose an evil douche like him with his evil company over an organized evil body like MAFIAA with its lapdog, the US government, any time, anywhere without so much of a blink of an eye.
Yeah, that's the libertarian argument. Any criminal is better than the government, because the government is evil by definition, and some little guy just trying to earn a few millions is a fucking hero.
Slashdot Mirror
The simplest example is the raw internet - once you grok that the internet is "always on" (service glitches aside), your entire life changes forever.
No, it doesn't. Winning ten million on the lottery changes your life forever. The internet just makes a lot of things easier to do.
You can do or not-do something on the internet, but it's now a choice that needs to be made every hour of the day forever. Try reading old literature sometime, with the perspective of looking for when characters were really rather bored with nothing to do - "kick the can" for 3 hours and then dinner - really?! Or the farmers sitting around the parlor when Ma didn't feel like playing the piano, so they all just sat there kinda listless. Eew.
You seem to think that simply having access to all the stuff you can consume on the internet means you are doing something. You're not, any more than if you're watching TV mindlessly.
Stupid people have always got bored easily, and they still do if you give them a TV or internet connection. In "old literature" they probably engaged themselves with an actual book.
Did the work of Franklin, Telsa and Eddison ruin the culture of the world by making us more civilized.
There is a fairly obvious difference those three improving their own, and current day geeks interfering in someone else's civilisation.
What? Those useless "for the children" laws where an 18 year old who has sex with a 17 year old can get charged with rape just by having sex with someone who is legally considered a minor? You expect me to believe that a 13-17 year old can't much such a decision?
Why 13-17? They are just arbitrary limits too. Why not 10 which is the age of criminal responsibility (in the UK)?
The point is that most people would agree that you have to have some sort of legal cut off point, and by definition it is not going to apply equally. One girl may enter puberty at 10 while for her brother it's not until 15.
It seems to be mainly the US where sex with a minor is automatically rape, here in the UK where the age of consent is 16, if a boy aged 16 and 1 day had sex with a girl aged 15 and 364 days, it is highly unlikely that he would be charged with anything at all.
If you have ever taken your computer to be repaired by a shop, if you have nude picture of yourself on your hard drive, I can guarantee with about 99% certainty that they looked at them.
I find it amusing that these guys are being prosecuted for doing something that nearly everyone in that business does.
LK
Regardless of the fact that doesn't excuse it in the first place, most people in that business probably keep the pics to themselves and don't try to pass them on to the victim's friend, like these geniuses did.
The article reads like it was written by the media industry. Theft, stealing, stolen property... come on people, it's fucking copyright infringement. Nothing was stolen... the girl was not left without her nude pictures. The guys didn't "take" them from her. Data was copied without permission. Simple as that. The only "property" in question is the phones and other computing devices mentioned in the article... and none of that was "stolen" either.
If you want to argue that you can't "steal" someone's privacy, go ahead, you're probably linguistically correct. Just don't start bleating on abut how CCTV cameras in the UK are some Orwellian nightmare, or how having a clothed pat down at an airport is sexual assault.
Complete, unmitigated, 100% bullshit. Most men I know wouldn't do that. If all the men you know would, you need to spend your time with a different group. This reeks of the "any man would rape a woman if he could get away with it" nonsense that floats around.
Yeah, it floats around would-be rapists.
Another issue is why is there nude pictures on the phone in the first place?
Ah, of course, it was her fault. She was asking for it.
That the "dweeb" at the phone store would (gasp!) behave professionally and not invade a customer's privacy?
More professional pay might encourage more professional behavior.
But everything is about racing to the bottom and squeezing blood from turnips these days.
Utter bollocks. You don't get more professionalism by paying people more. Otherwise investment banking would have the highest standard of ethics out of any business.
All the more reason to learn how to do your own PC repairs.
Similarly, everyone should do their own car repairs, roofing work, re-wiring, washing machine overhauls and so on. Plus you should probably only eat meat you have hunted yourself, and nvever, ever drink fluoridated water.
Meanwhile, in the real world, only a tiny minority of people have any interest in repairing their own PC.
When someone accuses you of being a creep after you do a nice thing for them, because they lack the morals to take responsibility for their own embarrassing mistakes and would rather blame the person who helped you out, you are absolutely 100% justified in calling that person whatever you want.
As we're in playground rthics territory now, can I just say that two wrongs don't make a right?
it's even worse to watch guys who I thought were rational and mature experience omg-shes-hawt-brain-leak-out-ear syndrome and decide that despite all facts and evidence that he's going to somehow get laid by taking her side.
I remember this attractive woman asking me to cut in line. She looked confused and hurt when I indifferently told her no.
Yeah, that serves the bitch right for daring to talk to an Aspie.
I hate to break it to you but for each individual boss you've had and will ever have, the odds are probably greater than 50% that they have sex. Smaller odds are that it might involve whipped cream, video equipment, or other add-ons. Your reaction to that is your problem, not theirs.
Oh please, you wouldn't have any problem accepting your boss in a position of authority barking orders if you've seen her butt naked covered in whipped cream? It's like learning that the tough kid at school actually wears pink bunny slippers and still sleeps with a teddy bear, it's nothing wrong as such but you'll never take him seriously as a tough kid ever again. His reaction seems pretty human to me...
You seem to be under the mistaken impresson that your own bosses have never been naked or had sex. That is pretty unlikely unless you work at a games company.
The worst part though was that his wife was also my boss... must say it was very difficult to take her seriously after that!
I've never understood that reaction. I can sort of understand being vaguely uncomfortable interacting with them, but to not take someone seriously because of information you found out regarding their sex life? That's just ... weird, at least to me.
It's the reaction of a thirteen year old virgin to finding out that his parents have, eww gorss, done it in the past and are still doing it now. A lot of slashdotters maintain that attitude even when they are chronologically adult and have had sexual partners themselves.
No, he looked through the pictures, took a copy and distributed them. They performed a privacy invasion and a copyright infringement.
Well done for shoehorning the "copyright infringment!=theft" meme into an entirely unconnected thread and getting a +5, Insightful mod.
Why do you think celebrity sex tapes, even the ones who are not all that hot and where the image is just a grainy out of focus night vision shot that shows you almost nothing, are so popular?
People seem to like seeing porn, even bad porn, of people they know. Even if they only know them through the TV.
That is to a large extent an attempt by Mr Average to gain some vicarious revenge on the rich and famoius. It's envy. Or, if you prefer, a democratisation of the secual act as a revolutionary gesture.
It's a power thing. Even if you don't intend to wield that power against that person.
I know what you mean, but it's not necessarily power. I'd say in most cases it's simply that it's a "real" person. The porn equivalent is "girl next door" or "concealed camera" - the fantasy of accessibility or presence. Sometimes there are less relatively "innocent" motivations, but it's usually just that I think.
. The difference with "girl next door" or "concealed camera" porn is that it's...well, porn. It's not real. You aren't intruding on the models' privacy or gaining some surreptitious knowledge about them.
Ahh, one of the many local AC misogynists speaks, and gets +5 insightful.
Highly eroticised "taboos" about seeing your neighbours' tits are only powerful because woman-hating buffoons with zero social skills and sexual experience like yourself make them so.
I doubt it's a power thing. It's a fact that a woman you know, even if you only had a short conversation with her, is more attractive than a similarly built woman that you don't know. It's easy to guess at evolutionary reasons for this.
No, it's because you can have absolutely no power in your fantasies over some stranger on the internet, whereas if it's your neighbour, well maybe you'll get lucky and find her helpless one day so that you can rape and murder her.
Which is why it's a joke that it went so far as to have them arrested and charged.
I imagine you don't believe that rape is a crime either?
And they are running out of money... or so they say... (certainly, nobody of us gives them a single cent anymore, and I will hunt you down if you do!).
In which case there will eventually be no film industry to make the ridiculously successful blockbuster films involving comic book super heroes that people here seem so keen on.
The value of MegaUpload has been estimated to up to a billion dollars, not two hundred million. You need to take into account future earning potential.
If you base a business on breaking the law, it has zero future earning potential, as Kim Dotfuck is now finding out.
He'll have to go back to dodgy share dealing instead of bamboozling a few geeks who are impressed that he's got richer from (breaking) the copyright laws they so disapprove of than almost any actual content creator.
Put me on the jury and i'll award him billions.
You have to be over 18 and of sound mind to serve on a jury where I come from.
Oh no! It's a 3-digit UID Slashdotter who hates money! Fucking typical.
Money ain't evil, it paid for your computer.
Dotcom did nothing wrong, except piss off Hollywood.
There is a difference, you utter twat, between differentiating criminal from non-criminal economic activities, and hating money.
You are perilously close to parroting the extreme right wing/libertarian lie that any business is good by definition, because all that matters is economics.
You're right, but still, if I had to choose, I'd choose an evil douche like him with his evil company over an organized evil body like MAFIAA with its lapdog, the US government, any time, anywhere without so much of a blink of an eye.
Yeah, that's the libertarian argument. Any criminal is better than the government, because the government is evil by definition, and some little guy just trying to earn a few millions is a fucking hero.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
No he's not. At best he is a temporary taxtical asset.
So Kim while a douche and maybe a criminal he's precisely the kind of guy we want to have on our side.
Sure, if you want the public to associate anyone campaigning against the current cpyright laws as a sleazebag and criminal.