That wasn't an attempt to incite abuse. That was her asking people whether she's a terrible person.

Should I take it your answer is "yes"?

The point is it's irrelevant. Whether Gjoni was the victim here or not, don't take sides in a personal squabble that you have no fucking clue about .

Whatever the claims about Zoe Quinn's infidelity, it has absolutely nothing to do with ethics in video games journalism. She didn't have sex in exchange for exposure. The journalists wrote bout her games because they were friends with her. Which means that the guilty parties here are the journalists. Not Quinn!

My view is that Gamergate attracted a lot of trolls and other idiots, several people were ruthlessly dogpiled, but other people did genuinely see that there was a legitimate point about ethics in journalism and felt that the trolls were just one of those things you get on the internet. Meanwhile, those who support gamergate were also relentlessly attacked and dogpiled, but the attackers seem to get a free pass, even when they send death threats.

Meanwhile, the politics of the anti-GG lobby appears to have made it into an extreme feminist ideology that has attracted a lot of right wingers to gamergate, even though they have no interest in video games.

Then you get the complete and utter morons with high profiles like the Ralph Report, who seems to think everything is about gamergate, and Rebecca Watson actually advocating violence and Doxxing.

So I personally am in favour of video game journalists making it clear when they know the developers they're reporting on, but am against relentless harassment of people for the audacity of disagreeing with you.

So ultimately I'll say I'm neutral.

For it to work in a corporate environment, it must be mandated by the company so that everyone does it, everyone must have a client that supports it, keys must exist and be distributed, and only then can everyone rely on an unsigned message being invalid. If your boss forgets to sign a message telling you to do something and you ignore it, you better have a company policy backing you up.

I don't see this as a big problem. Most people will use whatever's installed on their machines, because setting up a new client is too much hassle. And surely even Outlook has PGP add-ons.

To deal with the other issue, we do need extra utility - clients that will automatically sign, and automatically reject and return unsigned emails from addresses with known keys.

The second and third laws are the wrong way round.

I don't want my expensive robot or self driving car to damage itself just because I wasn't clear enough in my instructions.

The hackers' main point of contention is with the fact that Ashley Madison charges users a fee of 15 pounds to carry out a "full delete" of their information if they decide to leave the site. Although users have the option of permanently hiding their profile free of charge, the company's advertisements claim that the full delete service is the only way to completely remove their information from the servers.

Still don't approve of the hackers, but I have a lot less sympathy for the company, if this is true.

Of course, Amazon have a different business model. They know they're going to make a lot more money from the average consumer from media sales than hardware. It costs them a lot more to piss of customers.

Not that I think it makes sense to Sling to do this. These days it's harder than ever to cover up bad corporate behaviour, and this is going to bite them.

Seriously. The Google car could do nothing that wouldn't also endanger other road users.

You know this for a fact? In this case, I'm sure there was nothing that it could do but how about the other 13 accidents?

Whether such a bizarre obligation exists or not doesn't change who was in the right and who was not.

Who cares who's in the right and who's in the wrong? I'd rather simply not be rear ended.

Yes. If you can't do something then obviously you shouldn't.

The suggestion that one should respond does presuppose that there is a possible response that might actually prevent the accident.

So assuming That there is another car about to rear end you, and assuming that there is something you can do to prevent oneself from being rear ended, is it not better to do this thing to prevent being rear ended than to do nothing? That is "Better". Not "mandatory". not "legal responsibility". Simply "better"?

Because this is clearly the situation we are talking about.

No. I'm saying your views are inconsistent.

You would feel obligated to defend yourself against being punched. You wouldn't feel obligated to defend yourself against being rear ended.

In both examples you'd be acting to prevent injury to yourself in response to somebody else's fault, so what criteria do you use?

I don't really care if it does. I just want it to taste good. Lots of things that aren't bacon taste good.

Why would you be obliged to defend yourself? It's not your fault that they're punching you.

statistically speaking the best way to do that is to take the bus

Yes, but that would be a little extreme. Obviously we balance risk and utility. Is this really the sort of thing that needs to be spelled out? I'm not sure I see the point of this pedantry.

you can also take steps to...

Yes. You should do all these things. So should self driving cars.

It's not a legal doctrine. Simply a matter of common sense.

If someone were to punch you, would you move out of the way, or stay there, on the basis that it's their responsibility not to punch you?

If I can do something to prevent someone rear ending me then I will do so. It's not always possible but if it is, it's in my interests. I don't want a damaged car, I don't want whiplash, and I don't want to interrupt my journey with an exchange of insurance details.

Whether it's their fault or my fault doesn't lessen the impact.