Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 1) 705

Ok, so you agree that I'm not charged for murder, because the actual murder is committed by someone else? That's the whole point. I don't really care what the "DA might throw", this is not a TV show; I don't even know which country we're talking about, this is about some guys from who knows where (probably multiple countries) dumping a database from a canadian site, with consequences to to some guy from some ass-backwards country were they kill people for being gay. It's more of an ethical discussion to me. Also do you agree that these guys didn't conspire with anyone, didn't instruct anyone to do anything, didn't pay anyone to kill anyone else, they just dumped a database?

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 1) 705

I don't know if it's morally neutral, but if I'm ever tried for my actions I will be responsible for telling someone the location of Sam Hamwich and not for killing Sam Hamwich. If, instead of a person, it was a computer asking me to program in the coordinates of Sam Hamwich so it can shoot a missile at him, then yes, I'm responsible, because the computer is just a deterministic machine, it will do what it's programmed to with the information I input, but the hit man is a man, he has free will and can make his own decisions, I'm not responsible for his actions, only for my own.

The actual interesting argument (this is where I thought you were going) is, is the person who paid the hit man also responsible for the death of Sam Hamwich? He didn't actually killed him, he paid money to a hit man (who can make his own decision, etc). But the hackers who published the Ashley Madison database did not pay anyone to do anything as far as I know, so I'm gonna say it's irrelevant :p

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 1) 705

Of course it is possible, that's why the first thing I say is that the hackers are violating people's privacy. I'm not saying the hackers are blameless, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions, and everyone has to answer/be punished for their actions and not somebody else's. The hackers hacked, and the killers killed. But the hackers did not kill.

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 3, Interesting) 705

No, I'm saying everyone is responsible for their actions. The people who snitched are responsible for snitching, the people who killed are responsible for killing. If you put it all on the snitches, you're making the nazis as machines, like they don't make their own choices. Turning someone in to the gestapo is not the same as pushing someone in front of a train. The train is a machine, it obeys the laws of movement, it can't stop, so the blame is with whoever pushed the person. Someone who kills someone else for being gay or cheating on their spouse is not a machine, is a person that can make choices, and is responsible for the consequences of those choices.

Comment Re:"I am about to be killed, tortured, or exiled," (Score 4, Insightful) 705

That's my main problem with this, I get that this data breach is a violation of people's privacy, but if someone is killed for doing nothing, it's the fault of the person who killed them, not some hacker. If we blame the hackers, we're reducing every other participant to some sort of deterministic machine, with no mind of its own. That's not what they are; a killer (a person, or a government) can choose not to kill someone for being gay, and if they choose to kill, it's entirely on their hands, and they are responsible for their actions. They don't get to claim that some hacker fed them information and they somehow completely lost control of themselves.

Comment How can one group control what gets nominated? (Score 1) 1034

Ok so the summary was really confusing, and the articles linked were obviously one-sided, and talking about "sad puppies" right away (wtf are you even talking about?), but some of the comments here clarified the situation. The only question is, how were these groups able to control who got nominated in the first place? Are the nominations picked by one group of people? Are these the people that rule the awards, will they pick the same way next year? How can they win at the nominations and lose at the final vote?

Comment "under penalty of perjury" (Score 1) 272

Don't DMCA takedown notices count as sworn statements? I remember something along the lines of "I swear under penalty of perjury that the information in this document is correct". If the takedown request is actually wrong, isn't this actionable? Is perjury punishable in a civil court?

Comment Control the television (Score 1) 58

Is this some alternate timeline of the future where we still care about television? I haven't turned on my TV at home for years, let alone on a hotel room. Now if the hotel would provide proxies to different countries so that guests could watch their favorite streaming service with the correct catalog, *that* would be the future.

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Working...