There is one aspect when dealing with malware on a GNU/Linux that is far superior to Windows.
By keeping my /root and /home directories on separate partitions I can reload (or change) my entire OS in an hour or so without losing my settings, data or custom tweaks.
I have no clue how much time I've spent in my life reinstalling Windows installations because of infections or whatnot and then having to find and reinstall every program I use again, but it's definitely time I could have spent on more productive endeavors.
So you really, truly don't accept that anyone else's actions can have a detrimental effect on a person, no matter what they do to them?
That's not what I said at all. All sorts of things have detrimental effects on people all the time. I'm just not going to jump up on the Blame Game Bandwagon for an individual's personal decision.
Solicitation of suicide has a pretty high legal bar. It needs (I believe, IAMAL) to involve specific instructions to a specific individual. Just saying "you should kill yourself" wouldn't pass the sniff test. I'm not sure about the case of the anonymous woman, but I can guarantee the ADA in Swartz's case didn't do anything like that.
My argument is, creating the conditions for a crime (or self-harming event) to take place is equivalent to criminal solicitation and should be treated as such. Let that slide and you have all sorts of crazy stuff going on and the people responsible getting away with it.
I disagree. That slope is way, way too slippery. What's next? Blaming the victims in a school shooting because they were once said something mean to the shooter? Blaming a rapist's mother because she spanked him when he was young? I mean, seriously, isn't there enough of that shit going on already these days? Everything is someone else's fault and nobody wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
Your argument appears to be, "People live in an emotional and social vacuum. They make decisions free of outside influence, nor can any influence be brought to bear upon them." That is not true.
That's not my argument nor what I believe. I just think blame should be placed where it belongs.
I've already had this argument with Mason Wheeler. Victim-blaming is obscene. Stop it.
How is this "victim-blaming"? The final decision to commit suicide resides with the person committing suicide. Period. Full stop. Nothing anyone else does changes this fact one iota.
You are blaming those who have no say whatsoever in what is ultimately a personal decision. It's like blaming me because you went ahead and drank that expired milk this morning and got sick.
I really do question people who think the way you do. Have you REALLY never suffered so much you couldn't take it any more? Have you never seen anyone else suffer to the point of a mental breakdown? If you've never experienced real suffering, good for you. I've seen people's lives torn apart by trauma and I've seen the results.
I've had some very, very low points in my life, but suicide was never a viable options. I value life too much.
But I see time and again architects copyrighting blueprints of work already done by others century and a half earlier.
Copyright for architectural plans are for the drawings themselves, not the building. You can't stop someone from photographing a building made from your plans nor can you stop the building owner from changing or destroying the building he owns.
Kind of like how a copyright on a recipe protects that particular expression of the recipe, but nothing prevents someone from actually cooking the dish the recipe describes.
You assholes were nearly unanimous that the woman could not be held accountable for this unfortunate suicide of a CHILD.
Now you sanctimonious hypocrites want to blame the prosecutors for the suicide of an ADULT with the financial and legal resources to defend himself.
Personally, I don't blame the "bully" in either of those situations, nor do I hold them accountable per se. Bottom line is that suicide is a personal decision and the blame always resides with the individual committing the act.
Now that said, both of the "bullies" in these situations were assholes and do have some amount of moral (if not legal) culpability for the suicides, in my opinion.
There is one major distinction between the two that you are minimizing though. Some anonymous idiot on the internet does not hold the power to incarcerate you and destroy your future like an Assistant U.S. Attorney does.
With great power comes great responsibility and in my humble opinion, Mr. Stephen Heymann showed an extreme lack of responsibility in his quest for headlines and notoriety.
He was previously investigated by the FBI for a similar stunt and knew, or should have known that he was putting himself in legal peril. But he did it anyway.
He was previously investigated and was found to have nothing done illegal because the documents were all in the public domain.
If Aaron had finished downloading the JSTOR database and released ONLY the ones that were in the public domain, it would have been the exact same situation here too. (with the small exception of trespassing in the wiring closet).
You take his previous actions as evidence of wrong doing in the MIT affair. I see it as a learning experience and he knew exactly what was illegal and what wasn't.
Nor that consumers should have any right to dispute over charges, or pay fair and equitable rates.
How is Uber not doing this? Isn't the price agreed upon beforehand?
And what do you mean by equitable rates? Equitable with existing cabs services? Why should the consumer give a shit about that if they are satisfied with the price and service they are receiving and agreed to?