Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re:Chronically Stupid Parents (Score 1) 583

A good friend feels this way. He is convinced that my house, which has as much technology as a linux user's house really should, is choked with rays (his words).

To be fair, the rays are everywhere. They're not interacting with his body, but they are there.

He's also convinced that chemtrails are real and that cancer is caused by a virus and that the black part of the gov't controls both.

Again, to be fair, a bunch of specific cancer types are caused by viruses. Cervical cancer and HPV for instance.

He's not making things up from whole cloth, but spinning partly understood fragments of truth into a delusional tapestry.

Comment Re:Fascinating misunderstanding (Score 1) 705

With the exception of a few horrendous examples of gay people fearing for their lives, I'm not aware of danger of PHYSICAL attack as a result of this fiasco.

The AM hack exposed the personal information of 32 million subscribers, about 3.2 million of who are women. It is a statistical certainty that at least thousands of these people have been subject to abuse, and as much so that some of them will experience more abuse because of the hack. Take these statistics and multiply them by 3.2 million.

Furthermore, Wired reports that a PI firm has created a site which permits anyone to search the AM data easily, without having to know how leaked data dumps are usually shared.

And if you were in the slightest hearing me as suggesting that would be good thing, then I've got it badly wrong.

I appreciate your straightforwardness, and lack of hostility. Looking back in the thread I see something like "AM hack response == puritan lynch mob" >> "It's OK for us to challenge people [like this]." Though not written explicitly, the [like this] seemed like a clear implication, which is why I did hear it as a suggestion the hack/doxxing is acceptable.

But suppose this hack had been of the identities of people watching child pornography?

Having reviewed the AM user statistics linked above, it's pretty clear the vast majority of users were never able to realize an affair, or even to communicate with a potential partner. 90% of the users are men, suggesting 81% are heterosexual men and 9% are heterosexual women (~10% of people are gay). That gives a 9:1 ratio. In light of that, the analogy ought to be "people who registered potential intent to consider watching child pornography." Creating an Ashley Madison account is apparently tantamount only to admitting the potential intent to consider an affair, which (most likely) never occurred.

Nevertheless, assuming the direct analogy is valid, the result of such a leak would be to make criminal convictions for those people extremely difficult to obtain. The mob cannot deliver justice - no matter the crime - because mob justice is arbitrary and irrevocably severe. Thus, I say that the extralegal doxxing of child porn watchers is also likely to result in a worse overall outcome than allowing the legal system to proceed by its usual means.

And yet, it is arguable, that a WATCHER of child porn is less destructive to real children - especially if that porn is CGI generated - than an adulterer who destroys a family.

Maybe so (if and only if your 'especially' become 'only'), but then again you've intentionally chosen to compare the least and most extreme cases of child porn and adultery, respectively.

The fact is, a large plurality of men and women do commit adultery. A large plurality of marriages also end in divorce, which is almost always quite traumatic for children. Sexual frustrations are often cited as contributing to both adultery and divorce. A more sexually flexible society would probably exhibit greater family stability when compared to our rigid one.

Overt racism will probably get you booted out of most dismiss my treatment of an adulterer as the behaviour of a lynch mob but condone similar treatment for an overt racist shows a failure to think.

You now say you're treatment of an adulterer is considerably more mild than the remedy forced upon us by the AM hackers, in which case your point is somewhat valid. I say 'somewhat' because the scourge of racism, which is mathematically guaranteed to result in inferior group performance*, has been enormously more impactful on modern civilization than adultery.

However, the actual, real life treatment of "adulterers" (actually, potential attempted adulterers) that is occurring is doxxing without regard for circumstance, followed by a multifacted mob reaction against arbitrary victims singled out from their 32 million counterparts. That is not comparable to excluding your local racists from conversation.

*Consider two partially overlapping Gaussian distributions. The number of samples greater than a set value in the sum of these distributions is always greater than the number above the threshold in either distribution taken alone, for any finite differences in mean and standard deviation.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

Given that mutual fidelity is an assumed if not explicit part of the marriage contract, why shouldn't adultery factor into divorce proceedings?

No one has said that it shouldn't in this thread, which was about so-called alienation of affection, and by extension the criminalization of adultery (and government enforcement of civil/financial remedy) rather than the bearing of adultery to divorce proceedings.

Nice touch with the whole "it's your fault if your partner cheats" thing though.

I first explicitly wrote "responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse." Then I only implied that the other spouse could share some responsibility as well. As you say, the third party didn't sign anything.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

And that's if you can afford insurance (and perhaps legal representation), police take your complaints seriously, and the lost property doesn't severely affect your life.

Getting robbed sucks no matter what, but imagine how bad it would be if you were poor and lost something critical to your career.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

The one thing you can't accuse the law of is being biased against women.

Lawyers familiar with the application of the law disagree with you, but even if we stipulate the extraordinarily dubious idea that men have no advantages over women in our legal system, alienation of affection laws arise from common laws which were explicitly or implicitly targeted against women, who were/are viewed as nothing more than property with no decision making capacity. That's why the laws hold the third party financially responsible.

Comment Re:Lynch mob? (Score 1) 705

I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children.

The position seems to be that sex and especially extramarital sex are so inherently bad, that these kids will be ruined by a form of spooky action at a distance. (I am giving Bruce66423 the benefit of the doubt, that he doesn't actually discuss sexual conquests with children).

Comment Re:Lynch mob? (Score 1) 705

Ah - the joys of straw man argumentation.

There's no strawman here. TFA and this entire comment thread are about mob justice as applied to adultery.

The idea that it might possibly be appropriate to challenge behaviour that is objectively damaging to society.

Do you realize what you're saying here? Aside from your assertion that you are objectively superior to others, you are saying that it's good for malicious hackers to compromise the personal information of random nobodies who might have engaged in extramarital affairs and then share that information with everyone from stalkers and violent exes to reporters and bosses.

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

As long as the government is bothering to regulate marriage, it seems like it has to mean something.

I think that's pretty flimsy, but the shocking thing about the 'alienation of affection' laws under discussion is that they hold the third party liable, essentially for 'stealing' the (historically female) spouse, who is themselves viewed as a piece of property with no decision making capacity. That's the definition of marriage the government is supposed to uphold using force of law?

Comment Re:Very sad - but let's get legislation in place N (Score 1) 705

Alienation of affection laws misplace responsibility because the third party with whom an affair is conducted is held financially liable, even though personal responsibility lies with the unfaithful spouse.

I get that you want the government to protect you from your own bad decision making and inability to form meaningful relationships, but such things have no place in a free society.

Comment Re:Puritans are scum (Score 1) 705

forcing their beliefs on others

how is that forcing anybody to do anything

These things are different. Intentionally or unintentionally, you changed the subject.

If someone's beliefs lead them to antagonize me, they are forcing their beliefs on me without necessarily forcing me to do anything (besides suffer).

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker