When I first visited /b/ I felt like finally having found my virtual home. It is just no limits, do whatever you like, without consequences and as long as it is original and twisted enough you will find others to play along.
It is so rare to find such a place which is willing to challenge any conventional, good / bad thinking but instead is completely unafraid of offending anyone. Other than clearly illegal stuff there seemed never any intentional censorship in place. Chris seemed to have an incredible backbone to stand for that principle - until Gamergate happened.
I understand why they did it this way, and I'm glad that this issue getting more publicity. But that does not mean that the means they chose are justified by the end of greater publicity. They simply did not have the right to endanger the other people on that road without their consent.
Calling the police was completely inappropriate, but downvoting the comment as a way to signal your disapproval with his action in the real world isn't helpful. The comment itself is well written, on topic, and leading to good discussion.
I agree with what others have already said: Since nobody was actually hurt he should have contacted the researchers to make his point.
One problem with this reasoning is that the researchers really didn't know what they were doing with 100% certainty. Their code could have accidentally affected the stability control subsystem that most cars have nowadays -- the one that's designed to apply full braking to a single wheel to recover from a skid. In fact, just corrupting the data from the steering-wheel angle sensor could have had that effect (which I personally find rather terrifying in itself.) Good job, guys, now you've caused a 70 MPH rollover in traffic.
The right way to do this would have been for the researchers to call the police up front and arrange a demonstration on a closed road with police escort. That would have lent the video more credibility and shielded the researchers from liability, while addressing any concerns about safety or ethics.
Firing a gun at someone is dangerous. A car slowing down and/or with reduced visibility on a busy highway is dangerous. Then either of these situations happen by accident, we understand that there's not a lot to do about them because there was no intentional behavior that needs correction. When they are purposefully done, that's endangering people, and is unacceptable behavior that needs correcting. In this respect, they are no different.
It is a never ending discussion around here but my take away is that votes express opinion as well as quality of the posting.
We are here not an intellectual debate club were people take pro and contra sides and points are distributed based on the rigor of the argument, but discussions around here are about real world problems.
And somebody calling the cops on security researchers just because he read an article on the intern is in my view highly questionable behavior for somebody familiar with the tech community.
I don't. It is one of very few platform that don't bother me with all the clutter other websites have. No log-ins, subscribe-me, buy-premium, click-this-ad bs. It just delivers relevant information straight to the point.
42floors is killing the commercial rental category.
OKC/Tinder killed the personals category.
There are three main categories keeping it alive: apartments, jobs and for sale. Each of those categories are under attack from semi-successful startups but no homeruns...yet.
If either For Sale or Jobs categories get an airbnb-like competitor, it will be a massive blow for CL. The former is its largest category. The latter makes it all the revenue. My hunch is that its Jobs category is already under attack and they are having a harder time making revenue resulting in their aggressive legal battles.
And Operation Earnest Voice wouldn't be targeting US Citizens. Yes I understand they would still end up being part of it, but that isn't the primary goal, it also isn't being used in the same expressly political manner.
> Whenever a story appears to be such clear cut black and white with one evil villain
Whoever said there was one evil villain? Note that while Blatter may be implicated in the corruption investigation, one of the specific schemes already charged was an attempt to use bribes to motivate people to vote for Blatter's opponent in a previous FIFA election.
This doesn't look as much like a hierarchical conspiracy with one bad actor at the top, as a whole nest of -- sometimes cooperating, sometimes competing -- bad actors.
Blatter's strategy was usually too go against the UEFA, the European soccer confederation and the most powerful continental confederation. For example, he championed the South African World Cup bid for 2010. ( After the UEFA managed to get the 2006 cup for Germany.) And he presides over a remarkable increase in the importance of soccer.
So he gets reelected, because he is actually quite successful and has a clearly defined voter base. This base may or may not like the corruption, but that is simply not their main concern.
I suspect he was at least complicit. One other side of the story is this: Why does the US care? The answer is that if getting the World Cup essentially requires bribes then that makes it impossible for the US to compete, because bribery is prosecuted in the US. So this is less about justice than economic benefit.
I wish that were the case in the places I am having lunch at - do you actually mean by bar some past 9pm location etc? But I am frequently at coffee shops and met so many really interesting people. Definitely a great way to connect with people outside ones established social circle.
Would love to hear some thoughts on that too. I remember watching quite a while ago some really fascinating documentary movie on Fujimori. Really interesting situation, e.g. highly corrupt but without the public questioning their support of him.