No, you don't. If you did you'd have built your system to make *them* aware first, instead of posting a "don't blame the messenger" shame tool that exposes their vulnerabilities.

The hacking-promotes-security argument is weak sauce, even more so in your case. The vast percentage of people you've exposed (i.e. not anonymous mega-corps, but rather small mom-and-pops set up and left un-managed by unskilled sysadmins, innocuous self-hosting newbies, etc.) will likely never encounter your list, even after it provides scriptkiddies with an easily digestible list of opportunities who wipe their servers and turn them into warez hubs only to be rinse-repeated because they will *never* know any better.

You are merely a new vector for the disease, selling itself as a cure. Where in this is your moment to feel proud?

So by that logic, I assume you rape every woman you pass on a dark street, mug the elderly who don't go out in groups, and commit every other crime of opportunity to shame people into what *you* consider proper, minimum safe behavior. How brave and noble of you.

I'm so tired of people dressing up shitty behavior under the guise of protecting them when really all they are doing is being selfish, self-satisfying little asshats.

If this guy wasn't such a douche, he'd be emailing the websites a notice letting them know of the vulnerabilities, not making the list available for everybody. This would have been a good example of how decent behavior could have helped protect both visitors and the site owners, instead of what at best will become a life lesson taught through severe litigation and (if we are lucky) state prosecution.

Seriously, so is Earth.

'

I call bullshit, FUD-boy. I doubt you could prove even a single one one of your claims.

I too am Canadian, and wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to get a "black market gun", and doubt many of my neighbors would either. Never mind some meek, socially damaged dude who'd probably set warning flags off where-ever he went. Even scum who would *sell* these kinds of guns wouldn't be interested in the couple of hundred bucks the Columbine-looking shit would be offering. And in the end if you did manage to find one, you can sure as hell bet it was made or at least traffic'd through good old America so you've just circled around to the stated problem.

The fact is, the gun is the enabler. There is no way this kid would have killed 2 people let alone 26 if all he'd had to work with was a set of steak knives, and possibly wouldn't have even considered attempting it without the firepower to back his cowardly bullshit move. The same would apply to all the cowards who kill this way. The gun (or knife, for that matter) carrier is the easiest way to identify the sniveling cowards in the crowd. I've never understood the damaged logic some 2-bit self-entitled sack of shit has that convinces him that attacking an unarmed person makes him anything more than a cowardly worm.

The NRA might as well relabel themselves as the Paranoid People's Association of Cowards, sponsored by the Unethical Abusement of Nonsequiter Statistics and Random Bullshit, Inc. We, being Socialist Pinkos, would not qualify for membership.

Being a white males is not a "background", it is a skin color and gender.

Cheers to this. One of my best friends is Indian. We code the same way, solve problems in similar ways, and often borrow code from each other because our methods and approaches are interchangeable even though we've only known each other for a couple of years. When it comes to code we share zero fucking diversity, even though I'm a middle-aged white guy and he's a Sikh styling in his dastar. Conversely I spend hours every week arguing with a stubborn white-male colleague who's methodologies and coding style are completely different than mine. Diversity galore.

Diversity cheerleaders are simply shallow thinkers. They base their opinions on all the bigoted ideas that the rest of us either see beyond or don't even factor into our decisions. I won't go as far as accusing Josh Susser of being a reverse and/or closet bigot, but by fostering the concept of carefully orchestrated tokenism and posting passive-aggressive tweets he fails to understand that a) he is the divisive one and b) he hinders, rather than furthers the cause of true blind equality we'd all like to see in the world.

Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous.

It depends what your definition is. If 'dangerous' includes indoctrination into superstition, the suppression of critical analysis and of humanist morality in place of ideological dogma, forwarding backwards concepts such as anti-contraception in AIDS-riddled Africa and anti-abortion at the cost of the mother's life (etc. ad nauseum) then yes it is dangerous.

Worst of all, religion denies all of man's achievements, ascribing them instead to an all-mighty deity who simply bequeaths them on a whim. What a wonderful belief system ... not.

Even when cherry-picking from the Christian buffet to avoid nonsense like a 6000-year old universe and original sin and taking it down to its barest essence, you still end up with a fear/reward system that promises *infinite* and *eternal* pleasure or pain depending upon how you lived your seventy-odd years of life here on earth. People who behave because they long for heaven or are afraid of hell are my definition of crazy.

So while the rest of the world is happily masturbating to images and videos, you go sit in your safe Christian corner and say a prayer for Cameron. He's likely to need all the help he can get next election (em, but I guess prayer doesn't always work, eh Romney?).

No question the guy is a mega-douche for posting this, but I'm more befuddled what spawns this Jerry-Springeresque "look at what a tool I am" mentality. Perhaps it is just the closest things modern humans have to a dead-end-evolution-type effect, where those who aren't meant to survive do or say something repulsive in full view of the digital world, only to spend the rest of their lives applying for jobs who Google -> wtf? -> fail! this guy into a shitty life.

And, ahem, girls know Google too. So maybe it isn't all that far from Darwin's theory after all. Nature finds a way, I guess.

So you go, Matthew Wood, isolate yourself from the gene pool and general society. If I need crude, I'll look to a guy like George Carlin who knew the difference between rebellion and unwashed cruelty.

I'll gladly give examples, I will!

1) Three control keys on a keyboard (Ctrl,Alt,Command). It beggars the mind why you would need three 'special' keys, especially considering people rarely use anything more sophisticated than Shift. WTF has got to be put under the as-useless-as-the-windows-key 'Apple' key that couldn't live under Ctrl or Alt? The correct answer is 'nothing' that could justify muddying the primary interface.

2) A single-button mouse. *Come* *on* *Apple*. Talk about issues letting go. If you can toast floppy drives so easily, surely you can tack a second button onto a mouse after so many years of complaints.

3) The newest issue in the newest product: no stylus for the iPad. Jobs says "if it has a stylus, then its a failure". He really is an arrogant and clueless moron. Go ahead, geniuses, try and take notes and draw diagrams with your thumbs. iPad+stylus would put this currently useless consumer device into every boardroom and classroom on the planet. In the words of my 7-yr old, "Epic Fail".

4) Plenty of software UI dullardry, too. For instance: the most common action should be the most easily accessible, so does that mean that when a file is selected the most common action is to rename it? Must be for Apple users, as that's what hitting the enter key does. Or, how about adding a new folder? Does it do this in the currently selected folder? Nope, in the root. Then try and find a nice organized location for all your files. Doesn't exist, as most Mac users have little idea how they are 'supposed' to organize and there is no common install format so they could be anywhere. And how about all of those "eject me" icons that end up on the desktop, that serve no real purpose other than to intimidate the newbie. Or how about that the control menu for an application is physically detached from the he current app ... how in the fuck is that *helpful*? (most of these came from trying to explain to coworkers who drank the Apple kool-aid and couldn't figure things out on their own. God I hate that they know I use Mac products).

The reason this is so entrenched isn't just Jobs fault, but also the fervent zealots that live among the fanbase and have absorbed the Jobs mindset as a type of religion. I had one, in response to my second example, as his final and ultimate argument, tell me to "give it a rest, people have been complaining about the one-button mouse for six years. Once you use it for a while you will realize it is better that way." This latter bit is the core and crux of their arguments, as it has been for Jobs. Don't discuss alternatives, don't disagree with me, just get used to it, I know best, you just don't get it.

And for the record (I hate having to justify this, but the fanboys really annoy me) I own 2 new Macs, an iPhone, and a host of other gear ... and yet I am typing this out on my 7-year old PC. If they were soooo much better, don't you think I'd be using the sexy-looking aluminum laptop sitting beside it?

Charges are the only possible outcome from publishing this story, and his lawyer's efforts at using "Journalist" as a defense are an absurd stretch. The "for the sake of public interest" theme certainly won't mitigate the fact that Gizmodo staff knowingly purchased property from an individual who clearly did not own the property. While I'm no fan of Apple lately, and it certainly was an interesting story, common sense should have prevailed. I guess the carrot was too big and donkey too greedy.

Too bad. The 'ethical' choice might have earned them a place at the feet of Jobs, rather than under his heel.

Applebashing? I own a 1yr old MacBook Pro*, a new iMac and an iPhone, buddy.

A rational person can be an Apple user *and* be critical of the company's policies when he/she doesn't agree with them. I think the latest controversies (no Flash, restrictive dev platform requirements) are insulting, self-serving and isolationist, and so I reserve the right to be both an Apple user and snide/sarcastic when they offer with one hand and take away with the other.

If you want to blindly line up at the iTrough and lap up everything they pour into it, that's your decision.

*qualification: lately the MacBook does spend more time running Windows 7 then OSX.

Ding ... under two minutes for somebody (actually two sombody's) not to recognize sarcasm on /. ... *even* with the preceding "Should Adobe sue Apple" article.

I weep for today's youth.