I'd find it troubling if my boss hated me for reasons he should not be and may be under-paying me and a select group of my coworkers as a result of it.

Every year that goes by this just gets fuzzier and fuzzier. Soon your private chat is going to be picked up by somebody at the next table wearing Google Glass. Then the line will shift. And so on.

"what is your position on the forced sale of the clippers?"

Recording and leaking that audio was wrong. Since it was made public, through no fault of the NBA, it had to be dealt with. It wasn't a "what the US believes" sort of thing, it was an "oop, this got complicated fast, and our players may quit" sort of thing.

I do not believe the forced sale of the clippers is correct. I believe transmission of these photos is fine. this is what they deserve for their blind faith.

These two statements contradict each other. Sterling knows phone conversations can be recorded. He also knew he had an agreement with the NBA to behave. His blind faith lost him the Clippers. Now if you disagree with that statement we're actually a little closer to seeing eye to eye. We probably have differing ideas about where the line of liability should be drawn. Perhaps "phone chats are private but data on the cloud isn't", or something like that. The problem I have with that line of thought is the line between 'phone chat' and 'on the internet' is getting blurrier every year. Worse, we are not all masters of every domain we cross. You may know how to be safe on the internet, that doesn't mean you're super smart and are also super safe at getting your car repaired or at knowing when to use interest-free credit cards.

In either case you've got somebody who did something wrong. It sounds like tough-love right up until you're bitten by it.

I'm not talking about the bank with the bad security, I'm talking about the people actively sharing my love letters they know they don't have permission to send and how that weakens their position on certain topics.

"You're advocating privacy through self-control."

No, I'm not, I'm suggesting that the behaviour in question is damaging the value of privacy. By behaving as though celebrities have no expectation of privacy one thing you're not doing is strengthening the privacy of everybody else.

One of the reasons privacy is important is that you don't want somebody, be it the government or some random stranger, having something they can use against you. I don't have any problem with conceding that the NSA's behaviour is a much bigger deal, but when you break things down to their basic components the philosophy is still very much the same whether it's about extorting money or punishment for having that political bumper sticker on your car.

It's also possible to advocate something like privacy and immediately start fapping over unethically acquired photos because a lot of blood has left your brain. Take a guess which category this particular behaviour falls into,

It would be a better idea to just not download them. Oh, who am I kidding, nobody cares about privacy while they're holding their dick in their hand.

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.

Let me make this simple in case there's a post-fap-clearer-head lurking around this area of the thread: No, you do not have a good reason to acquire those photos. Yes, you are a bad person for grabbing them and sharing them. No, modding my posts down does not make me wrong about it. You lot, and you know who you are, are despicable.

Why is this comment modded off-topic? Not only is it perfectly on-topic, but it also illustrates why you assholes that are seeking to aquire these photos really shouldn't be!

It's GNU/Linux's fault. Android, still based on Linux, could likely win the desktop if Google got their act together and stopped pushing ChromeOS. Notice how my binary applications run on *very* many Android devices without recompilation, even when I write in C using the NDK. Notice how Android does not introduce bugs in my applications by swapping in a buggy shared library which I never tested. Notice how nearly impossible it is to publish a GNU/Linux app in comparison. In one case, you just publish your app to Google and wait a day or so. Notice how my app simply installs in a comparitavely secure jailed directory rather than having to disperse crap all over the file system. For Linux, you need to write and test different and binary incompatible installatoin packages for RedHat, Arch, Debian, Suse, then wait a few years for your package to be accepted and migrate from unstable to testing to stable, and even then you don't run everywhere.

Just freaking stupid.... year of the GNU/Linux Desktop my butt!

On a completely unrelated note, WTF is up with the new slashdot site? I had the newly dumbed-down ads disabled with a check-box. The check box is gone, and the ads are back, and dumber than ever! I miss the days of Barracuda ads that made sense on slashdot. The new ones aren't targeted at geeks at all.

All Google has to do is dump that stupid steaming pile called ChromeOS, and admit that Android wins. A desktop customized version of Android (complete with a real desktop) is still based on Linux (at least Google's fork of it), already has hundreds of thousands of apps, and could be better in nearly every way than Windows or Mac OS-X in 2 years, IMO.

The other broken OS, GNU/Linux, needs a major overhaul before it will ever be popular among anyone but geeks who are willing to accept that their OS is hostile to sharing new apps, or too blinded by fan-boy-ism to notice. I write this from my Ubuntu laptop, where my code contributions are far lower than Android or even Windows, even though I put in most of my effort here. It's just easier to publish an Android app. It's even easier to publish software for Windows. If Mark Shuttleworth were just a bit smarter, I think he'd realize he needs to abandon managing .deb packages and start this whole mess over based on a more git-like aproach. He's done a lot in that direction - user PPAs for example, but it's still not there. No RPM or .deb based Linux OS will ever become the basis for the Year of the Linux Desktop.

The funny thing here is that Digia is still going to support Tivoization, but customers will have to pay for it! I suppose that's better than letting hardware manufacturers Tivoize their hardware for free, but this is the first time I have ever seen anyone upgrade their GPL license simply to force customers to pay more. It seems wrong somehow...