Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:Obligatory (Score 1) 176

Shouldn't be long; the story is /.'d, but I assume they're filling the Altavista servers with hot grits like liquid glass in a clunker.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of those running Linux, all naked and petrified, just like Natalie Portman.

Comment Re:Wrong by law (Score 1) 601

The comment I responded to went like this:

He is merely wrong by law, not by morality. ...Being an independent thinker, I side with morality, and therefore he is a hero.

I was merely pointing out that his morality is not above question, and the conclusion that 'therefore he is a hero' is likewise flawed.

Comment Re:Wrong by law (Score 1) 601

Now then, back to the NSA. And quit trying to derail this conversation. The NSA is in violation of the US Constitution.

Actually, you're the one trying to derail the conversation. If you'd taken a second to read this thread, you'll notice that the initial comment I replied to stated:

He is merely wrong by law, not by morality

The sub-discussion I was involved in is clearly about whether or not Snowden had a moral right to do what he did. My view is that while he was working for the NSA/Booz Allen, he was furthering their goals, and once he knew it was wrong, should have divorced himself from their employ. If his goal in continuing to work for them was only to gather evidence, the pay he collected should be considered dirty money and donated. The fact is he knew of their behavior, continued to work for them, took their money and kept it for himself, and then went public.

Or, more succinctly - he had no problem taking their money and continuing to work for them after he knew what they were doing was immoral.

Comment Re:Wrong by law (Score 1) 601

I don't think "A transcendent being of pure energy requiring neither food nor shelter" was among the poll options.

So he should've gotten another job. But continuing to do the work for which he was paid, for an agency he knew to be corrupt makes him complicit. He was perfectly happy to take dirty money, and he's got no moral high ground on which to stand.

Comment Re:Wrong by law (Score 0) 601

He certainly had no qualms about cashing the checks from Booz Allen, despite the knowledge of their immoral behavior. He should donate the whole of his earnings from Booz Allen to charity (or the EFF or ACLU or some organization that defends personal privacy/liberties) before he or his supporters claim moral superiority.

Slashdot Top Deals

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Working...