Comment Re:Well (Score 1) 326
If you think LibreOffice is of higher quality than MS Office, then we certainly don't have the same definition of quality. And I don't even like MS Office that much.
If you think LibreOffice is of higher quality than MS Office, then we certainly don't have the same definition of quality. And I don't even like MS Office that much.
Blame isnt this binary thing where only one person can have done something wrong.
Didn't say it was. I simply said that you can't go greater than 100% on blame. And the criminals already have 100%. There may be multiple criminals n which case multiple people get blame.
I havent done anything illegal or wrong, but Im going to get mugged and a small part of the fault lies with me for making bad choices.
So you're using a mighty strange definition of fault that doesn't include illegal or wrong. This misuse of language goes back to childhood, so can be difficult to shift.
So, you can live in a fantasy world and pretend that anything you do thats legal, you should be able to do.
No, I live in a world where if you don't do something illegal or immoral, then you are not at fault. I'd hate to live in your world if it works differently.
you dont seem to understand that 100% wrong, on the attackers part has nothing at all to do with sharing the blame. He is wrong to attack you 100% he had no right to do so. but that does not mean that you could not have avoided it by doing something slightly different than you chose to do.
Then I'm glad you've moved from your previous position of blaming the victim:
"If I walk to the bad part of town and that I know is the bad part of town and something bad happens to me yes, I am partially to blame"
however if you have a bankerbag full of 100 grand and you walk through downtown harlem at 3 AM with it on your shoulder and you get mugged, I cant say I really feel sorry for you
Then you are a bad person. And you are indeed blaming the victim for the crime.
you call me naive, yet you are the one who does not understand something as simple as varying degrees of risk
I have no problem with probability. Risk is simply probability attached to a bad outcome. I understand it very well. But unlike you I differentiate it from responsibility. The word risk is confusing you.
You're failing to differentiate between responsibility and choice. You have no such responsibility. If you were to walk through that part of town and you were not mugged, did you do something wrong?
How about at a time when you are not attaching it to a particular victim or victims, in order to allocate blame to them.
The only close-to-acceptable way to create it and not have it be at risk is to not use a digital means.
The only close to acceptable way to protect yourself from being mugged is not to carry any money or valuables. Do you carry them?
Uh, GP didn't say he never uploaded photos to iCloud. He said he does NOT upload photos he doesn't "want distributed widely" to iCloud.
It's a backup. Whilst on PC software there may be facilities for not backing up certain directories, no-one chooses per photo. And on a phone there's no facility for doing so anyway.
The ONLY place you have your photos of your kids is on your phone and on iCloud? I have electronic copies of photos I care about shared via a syncing utility (not based on commercial servers or services) on at least four different computers, with at least two different computers in different locations running backups daily.
Does your mom? Don't give me stories about what you as a geek do. We're talking about ordinary people here, who wouldn't even understand what you just said, let alone be able to do it. Their choice is a local backup in the house or a commercial service.
And if your own solution works via the internet, there's nothing to say it's any more secure than commercial services.
I do NOT get why you feel the need to attack someone (GP) who is talking about reasonable precautions to take to avoid being taken advantage of evil people in the world.
What's reasonable? What part of your liberty are you prepared to give up for your safety? Are you at fault if you get burgled because you don't live in a gated community with security guards?
Sounds like you have more computer equipment than most people. Are you responsible if it gets stolen because you had so much? It would be safer to have less, after all.
it really is that simple basil.
No, that's your naive opinion. It's not at all simple, it's nuanced.
they chose the job, they could have chose other assignments. again it was just an example.
So a cop is responsible if he gets shot? You are responsible if you carry a wallet and get mugged? In fact you're responsible even if you don't carry a wallet because you stepped foot out of the house?
No, these are all things that reasonably need to be done. If you become the victim of a crime whilst doing them it's not your fault.
We need cops, we need news from war zone, people need to carry wallets, and walk outside the house. They are not things that you should not do. You carry no blame for doing them.
In that kind of circumstance the rapist is 100% at fault for his actions, but that doesn't mean that one can't cite additional responsibility on the part of those that took away their own self-control.
"Responsibility" implies that you are at fault if you don't do a thing. And you've already allocated 100% of the "at fault" to the rapist. So there's a logical fault there.
There's nothing wrong with advice to people about what ways they can minimise risk. But the time for that is before the crime, and the people to do that to are people that are in danger. Raising it after the crime, amongst a group of people who are not renowned for having photogenic bodies, reveals that it is just reducing the blame allocated to the criminals, and that's wrong.
These people had no responsibility not to take nude pictures; no responsibility not to have them backed up on line, and bear no part of the blame for the crime of them being hacked.
Which is not the same thing as it being less risky not to do those things.
You know it would be less risky if I didn't carry cash in my wallet. But that doesn't make me even slightly responsible or to blame if I get mugged.
I right click on the video and it says "HTML 5 Player". If you're getting a Flash player then there's something lacking at your end. Perhaps you've not configured YouTube to deliver HTML5 instead of Flash. In which case I suggest you do.
Not they are not. They are doing their jobs. You are not to blame if you are murdered in the course of doing your job. The person(s) that murdered you are 100% to blame.
the attacker is still 100% wrong in his actions, but I feel that I share some of the blame if i did something that i could have avoided doing which caused the issue to begin with.
Which would make for more than 100% of the blame, and is thus impossible.
The thief is responsible for committing the crime and you didn't deserve to be the victim of that crime, but you *are* responsible for the circumstances which made it possible by not taking reasonable precautions like keeping your laptop out of site (or out of your car entirely).
The second use of the word responsible doesn't belong there. It's a good idea to lock your car door. It's a good idea to not leave the laptop there. But you have no responsibility to do either. And if you don't do either, and the laptop is taken, the thief still has 100% responsibility for their crime. Ease of committing the crime isn't a mitigating circumstance.
Passwords, door locks, security systems, and safes exist for a reason.
Sure, they have a practical use. But thankfully there is no legal, moral or any other responsibility to use them.
I don't upload photos that I don't want distributed widely to iCloud. I figure if I do that I'm just asking for whatever happens.
Then I hope you backup your phone locally, and realise that if you have a house fire you may lose all your photos and other data. Which if you are a parent with photos of the kids would be adding one tragedy to another.
I'm done here. One can never win this kind of argument because there is never any rationality to it. It's all emotional.
There is not the slightest bit of emotion in my argument. It's perfectly rational. The criminal is 100% responsible for the crimes they chose to commit. And thus there in no percentage points available for allocating to the victim.
Being an idiot, not being fully aware of what needs to be done for good security, and being to blame, are 3 completely different things.
A victim may well have been unwise in various ways. That does not make them in the slightest bit to blame. Because if you allocate them a percentage of blame, you must therefore reduce the blame from the criminal. And the criminal's blame is 100% - only they chose to to the crime - no one made them.
PURGE COMPLETE.
