>I know it's hard to believe, but women don't usually get sent to coding summer camp as teenagers. Our parents don't usually encourage us to take AP computer science, and our best friends aren't in CS and don't refer us for sweet internships at Microsoft and Google.
The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.
Is Asperger's really a valid excuse for this sort of thing? People on the autism spectrum aren't incapable of understanding that actions can lead to consequences and that some things are wrong. Otherwise there would be an epidemic of autistic bank-robbers and murderers.
I will agree that it is bullshit thaw you can get extradited to a country you've never even been to and tried under their laws for committing a cyber-crime, though. He should remain in Britain for that reason alone. It's also pretty disgusting how if he had committed the exact same crime under the employment of the government they wouldn't have even filed charges.
In this case there wasn't even a real security vulnerability, just a spear-phishing attack. Organizations need to hold employees accountable for their own stupidity if they want to prevent this from happening. Any sane organization would fire an employee who gave a stranger keys to the office; falling for a phishing scam is the online equivalent of that.
Yeah and in North Korea I can't call Kim Jong Un a fat piece of shit, but I guess that's just a reasonable limit to North Korea's freedom of speech.
> In a German cinema you can't shout "The holocaust never happened"
This is a legitimate example of why Germany does not have freedom of speech. Regardless of how verifiable the Holocaust is or how offensive it is to deny that it happened, disagreeing with the government's version of history should not be a crime in a free society.
> In a US cinema you can't shout "Fire" if there is no fire
A fraudulent statement designed to disrupt society. You don't get arrested because what you said is untrue, you get arrested because you're legitimately trying to hurt people by causing a stampede and desensitizing them to fire warnings.
>"Kill all muslims"
A specific incitement of violence.
> "I just got a national security letter"
I don't like that this is illegal either, but it's a far cry from making it illegal to express certain opinions. And at least there's a fair amount of disagreement within the US as to whether it should be illegal, different jurisdictions have taken either side of this issue.
Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan aren't the only people whose privacy has been violated by Gawker, they're just the first ones to bite back. Thiel is a hero in my book.
TBH it sounds like they're just using reverse psychology to get their brand trending and it's working really well because now I'm reading about them on HackerNews.
How susceptible is this Signal Protocol to a man-in-the-middle attack? Because if Facebook is going to be the man in the middle, then this feature is pointless.
This sounds like an odd question, but I honestly need somebody to explain this to me...what is the motivation behind the modern trend to put everything on the web? Is there something you get by running your program from a browser that you don't get from downloading and running an elf or a text file, or is this entire trend based around appealing to users who don't actually know how to use their computers?
The entire study is a pun. The joke is that since in most mathematical notations AB is a shorthand for A * B, then all words are actually products of their component letters; based on this assumption it can be proven algebraically that the value of every letter is 1. I don't think there's supposed to be any serious meaning to it at all.
Also, aside from listing the names of the alleged authors, the article doesn't actually cite the study it's based on. This is another indication that it's just trolling.
This is about Chromium, not Chrome. A lot of people assume that Chromium is safer because things like this should get caught by the community.
I think the lesson to be learned here is that FOSS can be just as dangerous as commercial software if not enough people are inspecting the code and following development. It seems there are a lot of people who unconditionally trust anything that's open-source.
The implication is that this must be true for men; otherwise this is a complete non-sequitur.