Comment Re:Privacy is dead (Score 1) 175
This thread is about whether privacy infringement constitutes harm in this context, though.
This thread is about whether privacy infringement constitutes harm in this context, though.
As a straight male, I've been called Noob, loser, moron, fag (though it doesn't apply), n*gga (though it doesn't apply), whatever.
Go read TFA. Read the first few paragraphs evens. We are talking about rape and death threats, which included the author's home address. She goes on to show how that isn't an isolated incident.
If it were just the usual 12 year old XBOX Live bullshit you would have a point, but this is people going far out of their way to gather information on their targets and make specific, violent threats that they are capable of carrying out.
What do you mean by 'social skills'? Some would say this means "you just need to know how to talk to women". Why doesn't this apply to women as well? The post itself mentions something about women having to 'talk nice' to men to be heard, and that it's oppressive. Sorry, but if it's good for the gander, then it's good for the goose.
The difference is that when people talk about men knowing how to talk to women they mean knowing how not to be insulting, lecherous dicks showing them with unwanted attention... You know, talking to them like they talk to other guys they have no sexual interest in, i.e. normally.
When people talk about women knowing how to talk to men they mean women knowing how to talk extremely passively so as not to upset some apparently quite delicate feelings. It's the exact thing that a lot of men complain about - women being overly sensitive. The point she is making is that actually some men are at least as bad, and feel insulted and threatened when a women offers constructive criticism.
You can see it all over the comments on this article. A woman dares to suggest that some men are being arseholes when they made credible threats to rape and murder her, and suddenly all these guys get defensive and upset instead of just saying "yeah, maybe people shouldn't do that."
You don't get a lot of women being told they're neckbearded losers living in their momma's basements because they have micropenises, either.
No, they get told they are ugly, nerdy, flat chested and unable to get a boyfriend. Different words, same bullshit.
People keep asking for equality AND special treatment.
Can you say specifically what special treatment the author of the article is asking for? I don't get the impression that she thinks only women should be excluded from death and rape threats, which include details like their home address, and which continue for months and even years after one article was published.
Your misunderstanding is pretty common, unfortunately. She isn't saying that women should have special treatment, she is saying that men generally don't have to put up with this stuff and women shouldn't have to either (i.e. equality). To be absolutely clear, if it was white men being routinely threatened with rape and murder just for doing their job it would still be a problem.
I'll bet that the anecdotes depicted in this article were actually subjected to scenario 1, and took it personally instead of constructively.
How do you take an email saying "Women are the niggers of gender. If you killed yourself, I wouldnâ(TM)t even fuck the corpse" constructively? How do you take people threatening to come to your house, complete with your home address, constructively? Why do so many of these kind people post their constructive criticism anonymously?
A few men do something, and now suddenly we need pervasive, invasive, due process rights destroying changes to the law, making it toxic for ALL men.
Bad laws are a problem in themselves, not a gender issue. Having said that I find that they are generally well balanced and fair in my country, and apply equally to both genders. I have benefited from them, and I'm male (e.g. I now get the same relaxed dress code as women do).
It's worse than that. TFA has countless examples of rape and death threats. Someone even posted one woman's address in this threat. How many men, or even black man or gay men get threats like that?
There is a significant market for region free, modified DVD players that let you skip all the crap. So significant that even supermarket 20 quid models are often region free, or very easy to "modify" with a few button presses on the remote. Clearly there is a demand for something better.
I personally rarely do it because no matter what resolution you are streaming at, the compression is so high that it cannot even compare to Blu-ray. Same with the illegal downloads - if you think a two hour film in true HD quality and sound can fit in a couple of gigs, you don't know wtf you are talking about.
You are doing it wrong. Netflix at the highest bit rate is similar to BluRay, and they support 4k which is even better (and yes, the bitrate is adequate). As for downloads proper BluRay rips clock in around 10GB of an average 1.5-2 hour movie. I think you might have been downloading low quality 720p or telecine rips.
The lawsuit also rides on the fact that these people bought Android phones at a time when Google already knew (but was not telling anyone) that it would be changing its privacy policy. By being forced to replace their devices - which automatically had the new policy applied to them - the customers have been demonstrably harmed. In fact this appears in the paperwork before the battery drain issue.
Inasmuch as the plaintiffs had the opportunity to discontinue the use of Google's products when the policy changed, that's correct. If Pizza Hut changes its name to Poop On Bread Hut and starts selling poop on bread, and you still shop there, that's on you.
However the judge agrees with the plaintiffs that they bought Android device which tied them into the changed privacy policy, and that Google was aware of the impending change at the time it was marketing devices. This would be like, I don't know, prepaying for a year of Pizza Hut and then they decide to become Poop on Bread Hut and you're stuck with their craploaves. If they knew at the time you prepaid that they would be making this change, then they have misled you.
ISPs are regulated by UK laws and thus forced to spy on all their customers. Andrews & Arnold are not immune, they must log their user's metadata and hand it to various government bodies when asked. They are no substitute for a VPN.
VPNs were never covered by EU data retention laws (because they are not ISPs) and bypass all UK laws.
For certain limited definitions of "support".
I'm truly sorry, but an IT union isn't happening, until at least my generational cohort is out of the system.
A. Too many libertarians.
B. Too many people convinced of their own prowess and respect
C. None of us are at much physical risk
D. We get quite a bit more than a living wage, in general
Those factors add up to an insurmountable barrier, even if I personally think the idea is wise.
For some tasks I can understand recycling. I use older hardware to build routers, anti-spam gateways, VPN appliances and the like. Normally these are fairly low-cycle tasks, at least for smaller offices. But I've learned my lesson about using older hardware in mission critical applications. I've set up custom routers that worked just great, until the motherboards popped a cap, and then they're down, and unless you've got spares sitting around, you're in for some misery.
"It's the best thing since professional golfers on 'ludes." -- Rick Obidiah
