Who said they couldn't handle the risk? They're certainly handling the consequences.

Equating to buying stocks is false equivalence (there appears to be a lot of that in this thread). Nobody is shaming you for buying a bad stock. People aren't deliberately tanking the stock you bought in order to discredit or destroy you. Buying a stock isn't a social stigma (yet). Your gender isn't even involved in buying stocks (would anyone have looked for male pictures? would people have cared this much about them? how is Anthony Weiner doing these days?)

I don't think that we need to immediately go to the standard "We must prevent this tragedy from ever happening again!" brouhaha, and instead work on how we handle things like this. I know, it sucks that we have to grow as people in order to handle HEHEHEHEHEEH BEWBS as adults, but it puts the onus on us to reduce the impact that this level of violation has on the victim.

If we didn't care about the photos being displayed in public, would we be having this conversation?

Upvote this AC, please.

Eric Schmidt is a hypocrite who said that exactly because his company make money on selling people's information.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/0...

False equivalence. The pictures were not left in plain view. The attackers were cracking the account in hopes of finding something, anything, and what they happened to find was the thing most valuable to them.

If you write your pin number on your ATM card are you not at least partially to blame when a thief finds the card and cleans out your account? Of course the thief is wrong, but wow you were stupid!

False equivalence. They didn't leave their password out. Their accounts were cracked.

Yeah, I thought we were also dosing farm animals with massive amounts of estrogen to improve milk production.

Every time I've heard someone say something was "self-explanatory" or "self-evident" or "obvious", it was always anything but...

This may be an excellent article, but it is very poorly written. If only there were people whose job it was to read things and then ... change... them so they were better... Like... a changer? Is that a thing?

So choose BSD

It's not cheaper in the US because the government refuses to subsidize it, and indeed has done almost everything they could do to destroy Amtrak. Airlines, on the other hand, since they are private, get bailouts and subsidies and tax incentives and all sorts of help from the government.

I'm wondering if those flowcharts actually do help people learn basic program flow and basic boolean logic. After a while, you don't need them, because you can think like the machine. But, for getting started, it might be a good step and encourage thought before shotgun coding.

I tend to fix my own problem and then submit the code anyway. If my dealings with the project are unsatisfactory (and they usually are), I find a new solution to my problem.

Even submitting bug reports is hit-and-miss regarding appreciating contributions...

That's awesome. Thanks!

[citation needed]. The Tesla deification is starting to get annoying.

It's semantics, is what GP is saying. Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan wasn't about "What would happen if we had the power to create worlds?", it was a character-driven action movie about Captain Kirk. It was a good movie, but it was not a good example of SF.