Lawtonfogle

Since distribution and even possesion are crimes because they hurt children this argument does not hold up.

What is the problem with equalizing physical differences using a tool if we assume that fighting back is the right course of action? Personally I think physical attacks using the human body is using a deadly weapon.

What about all the pain caused by alcohol? From liver damage to its use as a date rape drug to drunk driving. The liver damage is personal, so that might get a pass, but the rest hurts people who don't choose to drink. Is there evidence showing antibacterial soap does more harm than alcoholic drinks?

Would you say good to a ban on alcoholic drinks? They do a great deal of damage directly and indirectly.

Education, not prohibition, is needed.

Imagine this being used on homosexuals in the middle east. Or imagine it being used on the modern day equivalents who most view similar to how homosexuals are viewed in the middle east. To take away the ability to pass is extremely dangerous for at risk minorities.

And everyone should fear because such tech could also be abused to falsely accuse you of being in some hated group. Police lie about drugs often enough to be a threat to liberty; they need less tools they can lie about, not more.

Why should anyone have to support them at all? It comes down to they and their supporters convinced society we should care about them and we decided those profiting off the majority to be the ones bearing the cost of the minority.

Why do I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding if I do such for straight weddings? Because the people who want that requirement have won the level of support needed to have legal support.

Do disabled people actually bring in profit once you account for building code changes needed to support them at any brick and mortar location?

You don't give the enemy a heads up. The fact the media is now an enemy is a nightmare in and of itself.

The problem is secrets get massively abused on every level. From governments classifying evil to parents teaching their children to keep their abuse secret. While there are benefits for privacy, at least for the government, they do not outweigh the costs.

Given no other information I would agree. But given other information both about Github and about the kind of processes that seek you out to tell you that you are being offensive, I understand. Maybe this was a one time thing, maybe it will be another donglegate. If it is easy enough to move, why wait and find out?

The thing that makes this sad, not funny, is the rate that children are still being sexualy abused today. Instead of doing things to actually help children they are busy passing completely pointless laws to make it look like they are doing something.

As for the impact of the wealthy... I don't see any new issue here worth worrying about. The only thing that changed is we see someone pretty wealthy getting crushed by someone extremely wealthy. There is a level of the rich that have found themselves the prey of an even larger predator, and only now do they start caring who gets preyed upon. If anything I'll enjoy watching them fall to a larger version of their own sword.

If social skills can be learned by practice, then we can share by teaching. Maybe force 15% of one's time socializing is done so with those considered socially awkward. Socializing, not sex.

My actual point is that society says we should help those who wasted an education by giving up part of our lives (income tax is a time tax on the average worker), but society says that someone who wasted their teen years not developing social skills is just a loser. This is a troubling view.

If one considers a concept of social wealth then there seems to be a resource transfer from the financially well off to the socially well off without a response in kind.

In the worst case consider a child who was bullied and turned to tech, who gained financially useful tech skills but missed out on social skills. Once they grow into an adult they are then taxed to support those who picked on the 'geeks and nerds' and who scorned education in favor of social standing among their peers. So the bullies get to enjoy financial support and the dividends of their social skills while the 'geeks and nerds' get only the dividends of their financial skills. Seems we should either provide relevant welfare for both or neither... but if one side is going to be better at pushing a position that is to their advancement I can guess which.

And of course this doesn't account for millions of nuances in each individual life that are exceptions, like the child who couldn't learn because they were too focused on their hunger.

Maybe we can start by considering those without social skills as socially poor instead of just losers.

Yet how would I be viewed if I applied the same logic to acquiring goods and services? If you aren't able to earn a living then you should focus on improving yourself. If you can't then you are SOL.

It's funny how high production skills are forcefully shared but there is little effort to even try to share social skills. If anything, being socially awkward is met with scorn. Maybe we should swap the name to socially poor and people would have some pity

The reason is due to the difference between necessary and suficient. Hard work is necessary to get to the stop and stay there for any significant length of time, but it is not sufficient to do so. The Just World fallacy treats it as being suficient. This is probably why it is so popular, because it is kinda close to the truth.

And the current framework hands out almost no punishments at all. Given the theory that social norms and laws are not what is written but what is enforced, then the current framework only supports limited cases of copyrights that apply generally between financially very well endowed entities.

If the current framework written was fully applied, it would not last two full election cycles.

Problem with the British system is that in practice race, gender, and SES are just as relevant as context and motivation.

Is it? That might only apply in some jurisdictions and is likely something many will keep making laws against until one sticks. If it is protected under the first amendment is something that could easily switch, being so many loop holes have since been created for it.

Any chance the one who ran this exploit can sue for the money they were due?

If the code IS the contract, then by the contract they are owed this money, no?

Or does this mean the code isn't the contract?

That it is hard isn't an excuse. That the customers don't pay for security is. And by pay I mean not only the paycheck but also funding and giving prestige and power to doing so. Government IT security is often seen as a necessary evil and most troubles stem from that view.

If you buy a cheap knockoff don't complain when it turns out to not be as good.

Now apply this logic to other things traded on the darkweb.

This sounds very close to "Brexit supporters are racist." There seems to be a growing trend of people labeling anything they don't like with some -ist to shut down discussion.

He has a special case because they have been treating this as a special case from the start. Had he not been wanted for something beyond the official claim then he wouldn't have been treated as he is

Already mentioned, but deserving to be mentioned again: in a normal criminal law case you don't have multiple nations deny airspace to a prime minister's plane on a hunch the suspect is on board.

We have to come to terms that we have built an abstraction on nature and it has leaks. Let's move away for a moment from this issue and consider the issue of some animal being of a given species. A highly scientific classification with little political nature (at least if we stay away from our own species).

Reality is that species as a concept is an abstraction placed on nature. It works well for most cases. A cat is not a dog. A cat is not a lion. Pretty clear. But even without considering past species, we see instances such as ring species. Are they one species or not? And we see animals that can breed but who almost always have infertile offsprings.

In the same way, sex is an abstraction we place on our world. It works in most cases with a few errors. Incorrectly classifying a testosterone immune man as a woman, failing to classify someone born intersexed, failing to differ the XX from the XXX or the XY from the XYY, and sometimes failing to account for cases where the brain might not match the phenotype.

Sticking to our abstractions even in these cases is as I'll advised as sticking to programming abstractions when they leak, if not even more so.

(Bonus round: are there X and Y chromosomes or are those an abstraction as well?)

And our descendants will call us bigots. And when they explain why we will be filled with revulsion. Will we really be any less wrong than our ancestors?

If you care about free speech as it relates to porn, then this is nothing compared to some of the other limits put on free speech. Consider the Australian guy who was convicted for having sexualized drawings of the Simpsons.

Edit: grrrrr autocorrect

As to point 3, your question is still too narrow. We should ask if even self funding of legal matters should be allowed. Even if we say this case should have happened because of funding, we are left with two major issues.

First, we are left saying that this outcome would have been fine if Hulk had the money to do scorched earth. Second, we directly admit that the outcome of this case is the result of the money spent. Both of these, especially when taken together, are a death blow to any notion of justice in regards to law. And I don't even see this as a question, but a reality that we seem unable to admit to ourselves.

My biggest concern is the direct benefit off the death of others causing a perverse incentive to kill. There are people who will mug and risk killing you over the money in your wallet, so I could definitely see people being killed over the money in one of these.

The existing inequality caused by not working as much and choosing lower paying fields? You can bet if men benefitted from this instead it would be considered institutional sexism that would be targeted and dismantled.