He didn't punch that Italian bastard in the face, he didn't kick him or even head-butt him in the head - he went for the most elegant solution possible under those circumstances and head-butted him in the chest. He managed to get him on the ground without bloodshed.
Zidane is pure-100%-made in France genius, and you can teach a robot all sorts of hopping tricks, but it would be impossible to get them to behave in such ingenius ways should someone cuss their mother.
Who cares about your good games? It's the really terrible games that are very funny/very useful.
For e.g if I want to convince myself to go to the gym, I need to frustrate myself/get semi-pissed/get rowdy. I immediately fire up Driver 3.
Driver 3, and troll-mod me to hell, is the worst game mankind has ever concieved. It is so bad you get pissed before the map loads. So bad that it looks like someone transformed 3D into 2D. It's so fucking terrible in all respects that I sometimes show it to friends to make them laugh.
There is a certain quality in bad games that is just unattainable through imagination/hard work. They couldn't do this if they tried, and that puts you in awe of the Bad Game.
You are actually correct: feeling sorry for someone who has posted photos of his member to an online sex freak, all from work, is a very difficult thing for me to do. The more subtle things like respecting privacy rights suddenly lose their meaning when you enter this kind of territory.
Privacy and even hiding the "sins" of those who have supposedly done something wrong is a wonderful idea, but I cannot help but feel grim satisfaction when people who should be ashamed of themselves are exposed. If a man's secrets with his wife are told, everybody would find this disgusting and it would only make him uncomfortable. This is where privacy matters. Meanwhile, in this situation, nobody feels sorry for the bastards cheating on their wives, and the rest of the idiots using their work email addresses for this kind of purpose need to learn from their stupidity.
Your analogy with online logs is completely wrong, too. This situation is more like having your logs published if you download from a server hosting pirated files, as opposed to your complete set of activities.
Finally, this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. This guy did not defame anyone, or break any contract. He is simly publishing facts that they were stupid enough to send. Online prostitution/sex is a dirty business, and like I said before, the internet is not the most private of places. If you're doing something you know will more probably than not seen as disgusting/shameful by most bosses/wives/friends/etc then don't do it with this degree of tarzan-ness, and for Gates' sake don't send pics of your dick from your work account.
cracking the crypto keys on any of these airports' networks and trying to get free access? Even MAC-filtering can be fooled, so how are these networks tied down?
Sections may remain modified because they are overlooked and/or not touching on controversial topics that driving the editing. Editing for non-paid citizens of the internets is more likely an opinionated matter than for paid professionals, and this scheme could allow malicious groups of people to render undisputable sections quite controversial.
But that is not my concern at all. He simply made information they sent available to the public (which should sort of taken for granted when you send things on the internet). If you see this as punishment, then you are immediately assuming everybody agrees with me and is riding my "high horse", whereas if you are right then society in general shouldn't be a problem here.
As much as I believe in hiding people's undiscovered errors, I also think those freaks deserved what they got from their wives and employers. I wouldn't do this myself, but I can't blame the guy either. The man who published the info did not control the views of society in general. He does not dictate what the world thinks. If the world thought the way you do, there would be no problem would there(with publishing the info)?
But the world doesn't, and that's why you feel so strongly about what he did. If it "ruined their lives" that people know about them then either
a) Society is right and they deserve it or b) Society in general is wrong and they don't.
Wouldn't it be fun if you were right, if the main diffrence between the prestige of software.eng and other types was just this: complexity? You see more complex means greater need to design, and that is what engineering is..
How 'bout you tie this guy down and shine intense blue light on him, then ask him which way is north?
The article says blue light is needed, although if these molecules are part of cells "inside" your brain/under your skin then I really don't see the connection. I don't think visible light wavelengths are able to penetrate human skin.
For a no.2, try putting him in the dark and asking him the same questions, making sure you whirl him around enough to lose his bearings. After its over you can buy him coffee or something. I'm sure he'll understand.
The surprise is that the two don't behave like matter and anti-matter. They don't explode on contact.
Well I can clearly see I'm in for some serious surprises there, totally mind-numbing physics. Come on, is this course for science majors?
Truth: There has to be some common-sense everyday physics "feel" to the bogus effects to make them enjoyable (that's why you have physics engines in games). We are not contesting that if superman threw a 80 ton ball it would flatten the ferrari and bounce off correctly. We just want you to remember that the motherf*er threw an 80-ton ball.
But it is. It is not a faithful representation of text-book utilitarianism (because that wouldn't work) but it is based heavily on it, just like everything else in modern western life.
The guy who pulled this vile stunt went beyond that, by deciding that he had the right to act on his beliefs, to carry out the sentence he believed these poor saps deserved.
But wait..isn't the "sentence" what the society will give them in terms of shame, rejection..etc? He did not commit a crime, whereas they arguably did.
And yes, as you shockingly discovered, when I say they deserve it I mean that I (the author of my own words) believe they deserve it. You on the other hand, do not believe they deserve it, because that's what you wrote. Fascinating isn't it?
Now you say his "victims" (thats a funny word for 6'4" guys posting pics of their genitals to a whore) were stupid. You're wrong, you believe they were just stupid, and you believe any publicity is unwarranted (because it is punishment?). But that's just what you believe. I believe differently.
John Stuart Mill did indeed place much higher value on "higher" pleasures that were supposed to be more intellectual of nature, but like you said, most of what goes on in your mind is not important in a court of law.
As for the value of money/physical/material utility(or similarly dis-utility) it is extremely high in legal-moral terms. If you steal 10 million dollars from a bank (federally insured money), your punishment will be far more severe than if you (untruthfully) defame an innocent wife who suffers a nervous breakdown. As you can see, Mill is not alive in our courts.
I am of course not arguing about the utilitarian model does not make some rational decisions..it makes simple, utility-maximizing decisions that can help a community survive (because life is of greatest utility and death is the worst that can happen).
But it is ultimately lifeless because the more abstract notions are forgotten in practice. It's all about the cars and the sex and the money and the egos. You cannot escape this grim fact.
Yes you are quite right. I don't usually do anything I would be ashamed of showing the world. That doesn't make me Jesus or Muhammad, it just makes me a normal person who doesn't send pics of his dick to a whore from his work address.
And what are we supposed to do now, protect these creeps from the world at large? Let me tell you one thing: the internet is not a very private place to be. Some information is announced to be private (and you can sue if it is made public) while most info is just lying around on publicly accessible/easily hackable boxes. If you want to do something you know you will be ashamed of, do it in private. Don't document and send it around the world.
I am against what the guy did on principle, but I am quite happy it happened. And that fact that you are an Anonymous Coward makes me very uncomfortable. Are you ashamed of your views, hiding from this terrible, unjust society?
But if I'm on a high horse and being totally unreasonable, why fear from what an employer might think when he sees this? Why will they deal with this if they only committed minor crimes? Is the rest of society riding my high horse? If consenting adults can do anything they want and be in your good books, then why worry about them?
If you are right, no harm will come to them of this, and the creep who did it will look bad alone. If you are wrong, then they are objectively wrong in the eye of society, and I am right that they deserve it.
Utilitarianism governs our way of life and by extension the laws that govern us. It is the basis for almost all the decisions on "right and wrong" (whether recognised as morality or not) that take place in western society, the other factors being culture and remnants od Christian values that are inevitably passed down through generations.
When you spread pics of someone cheating on their wife, you are seen as assaulting them, thus causing alot of damage that may amount to monetary value in some cases. In doing so, the dis-utility you are causing the person is notably high, and anything to do with money scores high on the utility charts. For this reason, you are seen as the bad guy whereas the man involved is only guilty of "sin" (utilitarians like to put "sin" in quotations). Government realises the material/physical dis-utility and you are sued.
On the other hand, if his wife finds out, she may not be able to do anything in a court of law, but everybody is on her side because only she has suffered the "damage". Of course, this is very controversial. Her damage is psychological, but unlike the poor husband who got defamed (I insist on the usage despite the other informative reply) nobody was intentionally seeking to harm her (in theory) so utilitarian law cannot have him framed as guilty of anything. Values like honour and virtue are meaningless here unless they involve some utility, and they usually do not.
Conclusion: utilitarianism is not only flawed in the traditional play-with-the-numbers sense, but also in the sense that it rips out the human part of things and disregards the spiritual element of governance. Thankfully judges have room to make semi-emotional decisions and thus we have a livable society. However, the social diseases that spread by this philosophy are far more imminent than the physical harm that is avoided.
at least the pricks who were cheating on their wives do. Sure, he was immature as anything (where do these people get all the time?) but I don't think he violated anyones privacy.
Rule #1 : When you post your most intimate information, in photographic form, from your work address to a sex freak on the internet - you don't have any privacy anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Because this post had nothing to with Microsoft or Duke Nukem.
He was good. I mean, he was really really good:
He didn't punch that Italian bastard in the face, he didn't kick him or even head-butt him in the head - he went for the most elegant solution possible under those circumstances and head-butted him in the chest. He managed to get him on the ground without bloodshed.
Zidane is pure-100%-made in France genius, and you can teach a robot all sorts of hopping tricks, but it would be impossible to get them to behave in such ingenius ways should someone cuss their mother.
They never said women women sailing ships, they said women on board ships. Worlds apart.
Who cares about your good games? It's the really terrible games that are very funny/very useful.
For e.g if I want to convince myself to go to the gym, I need to frustrate myself/get semi-pissed/get rowdy. I immediately fire up Driver 3.
Driver 3, and troll-mod me to hell, is the worst game mankind has ever concieved. It is so bad you get pissed before the map loads. So bad that it looks like someone transformed 3D into 2D. It's so fucking terrible in all respects that I sometimes show it to friends to make them laugh.
There is a certain quality in bad games that is just unattainable through imagination/hard work. They couldn't do this if they tried, and that puts you in awe of the Bad Game.
You are actually correct: feeling sorry for someone who has posted photos of his member to an online sex freak, all from work, is a very difficult thing for me to do. The more subtle things like respecting privacy rights suddenly lose their meaning when you enter this kind of territory.
Privacy and even hiding the "sins" of those who have supposedly done something wrong is a wonderful idea, but I cannot help but feel grim satisfaction when people who should be ashamed of themselves are exposed. If a man's secrets with his wife are told, everybody would find this disgusting and it would only make him uncomfortable. This is where privacy matters. Meanwhile, in this situation, nobody feels sorry for the bastards cheating on their wives, and the rest of the idiots using their work email addresses for this kind of purpose need to learn from their stupidity.
Your analogy with online logs is completely wrong, too. This situation is more like having your logs published if you download from a server hosting pirated files, as opposed to your complete set of activities.
Finally, this whole thing is being blown out of proportion. This guy did not defame anyone, or break any contract. He is simly publishing facts that they were stupid enough to send. Online prostitution/sex is a dirty business, and like I said before, the internet is not the most private of places. If you're doing something you know will more probably than not seen as disgusting/shameful by most bosses/wives/friends/etc then don't do it with this degree of tarzan-ness, and for Gates' sake don't send pics of your dick from your work account.
A) Companies will need to spend 3 or 4 times the amount they currently spend on advertising production.
B) If people keep their blueteeth shut, the billboard will be a waste of money.
C) More radiation going through my head.
D) What if you want your bluetooth to be active + shown but you don't want this..err..service?
Sorry folks, but if we won't be pessimistic about such designs, who on earth will?
So the server generates unique logins per session, or are they sniffable?
This has turned into a rather interesting conversation, has it not? I luv slashdot.
P.S Freud called me up said you have a small tool, and are making racial generalisations on member sizes based on it.
cracking the crypto keys on any of these airports' networks and trying to get free access? Even MAC-filtering can be fooled, so how are these networks tied down?
Just an innocent question.
See, my tongue didn't burst into flames or anything. :)
Wait until morning.
Sections may remain modified because they are overlooked and/or not touching on controversial topics that driving the editing. Editing for non-paid citizens of the internets is more likely an opinionated matter than for paid professionals, and this scheme could allow malicious groups of people to render undisputable sections quite controversial.
But that is not my concern at all. He simply made information they sent available to the public (which should sort of taken for granted when you send things on the internet). If you see this as punishment, then you are immediately assuming everybody agrees with me and is riding my "high horse", whereas if you are right then society in general shouldn't be a problem here.
As much as I believe in hiding people's undiscovered errors, I also think those freaks deserved what they got from their wives and employers. I wouldn't do this myself, but I can't blame the guy either. The man who published the info did not control the views of society in general. He does not dictate what the world thinks. If the world thought the way you do, there would be no problem would there(with publishing the info)?
But the world doesn't, and that's why you feel so strongly about what he did. If it "ruined their lives" that people know about them then either
a) Society is right and they deserve it
or
b) Society in general is wrong and they don't.
I pick (a).
Wouldn't it be fun if you were right, if the main diffrence between the prestige of software.eng and other types was just this: complexity? You see more complex means greater need to design, and that is what engineering is..
How 'bout you tie this guy down and shine intense blue light on him, then ask him which way is north?
The article says blue light is needed, although if these molecules are part of cells "inside" your brain/under your skin then I really don't see the connection. I don't think visible light wavelengths are able to penetrate human skin.
For a no.2, try putting him in the dark and asking him the same questions, making sure you whirl him around enough to lose his bearings. After its over you can buy him coffee or something. I'm sure he'll understand.
The surprise is that the two don't behave like matter and anti-matter. They don't explode on contact.
Well I can clearly see I'm in for some serious surprises there, totally mind-numbing physics. Come on, is this course for science majors?
Truth: There has to be some common-sense everyday physics "feel" to the bogus effects to make them enjoyable (that's why you have physics engines in games). We are not contesting that if superman threw a 80 ton ball it would flatten the ferrari and bounce off correctly. We just want you to remember that the motherf*er threw an 80-ton ball.
It's the biology that's complaining, Sherlock.
You're either a troll or a joke, but leaning more towards a troll: Andy Serkis looks great!
But it is. It is not a faithful representation of text-book utilitarianism (because that wouldn't work) but it is based heavily on it, just like everything else in modern western life.
The guy who pulled this vile stunt went beyond that, by deciding that he had the right to act on his beliefs, to carry out the sentence he believed these poor saps deserved.
..etc? He did not commit a crime, whereas they arguably did.
But wait..isn't the "sentence" what the society will give them in terms of shame, rejection
And yes, as you shockingly discovered, when I say they deserve it I mean that I (the author of my own words) believe they deserve it. You on the other hand, do not believe they deserve it, because that's what you wrote. Fascinating isn't it?
Now you say his "victims" (thats a funny word for 6'4" guys posting pics of their genitals to a whore) were stupid. You're wrong, you believe they were just stupid, and you believe any publicity is unwarranted (because it is punishment?). But that's just what you believe. I believe differently.
We could do this all night.
John Stuart Mill did indeed place much higher value on "higher" pleasures that were supposed to be more intellectual of nature, but like you said, most of what goes on in your mind is not important in a court of law.
As for the value of money/physical/material utility(or similarly dis-utility) it is extremely high in legal-moral terms. If you steal 10 million dollars from a bank (federally insured money), your punishment will be far more severe than if you (untruthfully) defame an innocent wife who suffers a nervous breakdown. As you can see, Mill is not alive in our courts.
I am of course not arguing about the utilitarian model does not make some rational decisions..it makes simple, utility-maximizing decisions that can help a community survive (because life is of greatest utility and death is the worst that can happen).
But it is ultimately lifeless because the more abstract notions are forgotten in practice. It's all about the cars and the sex and the money and the egos. You cannot escape this grim fact.
Yes you are quite right. I don't usually do anything I would be ashamed of showing the world. That doesn't make me Jesus or Muhammad, it just makes me a normal person who doesn't send pics of his dick to a whore from his work address.
And what are we supposed to do now, protect these creeps from the world at large? Let me tell you one thing: the internet is not a very private place to be. Some information is announced to be private (and you can sue if it is made public) while most info is just lying around on publicly accessible/easily hackable boxes. If you want to do something you know you will be ashamed of, do it in private. Don't document and send it around the world.
I am against what the guy did on principle, but I am quite happy it happened. And that fact that you are an Anonymous Coward makes me very uncomfortable. Are you ashamed of your views, hiding from this terrible, unjust society?
But if I'm on a high horse and being totally unreasonable, why fear from what an employer might think when he sees this? Why will they deal with this if they only committed minor crimes? Is the rest of society riding my high horse? If consenting adults can do anything they want and be in your good books, then why worry about them?
If you are right, no harm will come to them of this, and the creep who did it will look bad alone.
If you are wrong, then they are objectively wrong in the eye of society, and I am right that they deserve it.
There really is no third option.
Utilitarianism governs our way of life and by extension the laws that govern us. It is the basis for almost all the decisions on "right and wrong" (whether recognised as morality or not) that take place in western society, the other factors being culture and remnants od Christian values that are inevitably passed down through generations.
When you spread pics of someone cheating on their wife, you are seen as assaulting them, thus causing alot of damage that may amount to monetary value in some cases. In doing so, the dis-utility you are causing the person is notably high, and anything to do with money scores high on the utility charts. For this reason, you are seen as the bad guy whereas the man involved is only guilty of "sin" (utilitarians like to put "sin" in quotations). Government realises the material/physical dis-utility and you are sued.
On the other hand, if his wife finds out, she may not be able to do anything in a court of law, but everybody is on her side because only she has suffered the "damage". Of course, this is very controversial. Her damage is psychological, but unlike the poor husband who got defamed (I insist on the usage despite the other informative reply) nobody was intentionally seeking to harm her (in theory) so utilitarian law cannot have him framed as guilty of anything. Values like honour and virtue are meaningless here unless they involve some utility, and they usually do not.
Conclusion: utilitarianism is not only flawed in the traditional play-with-the-numbers sense, but also in the sense that it rips out the human part of things and disregards the spiritual element of governance. Thankfully judges have room to make semi-emotional decisions and thus we have a livable society. However, the social diseases that spread by this philosophy are far more imminent than the physical harm that is avoided.
at least the pricks who were cheating on their wives do. Sure, he was immature as anything (where do these people get all the time?) but I don't think he violated anyones privacy.
Rule #1 : When you post your most intimate information, in photographic form, from your work address to a sex freak on the internet - you don't have any privacy anymore.
You cheat on your wife and someone puts pics of you all over the place: defamation.
You cheat on your wife and she finds out for herself: you're screwed.
Why? Utilitarian philosophy.
You are wrong of course. The porn market is very much infinite.