I think the ethics of counter hacking depends on how it is done. If the goal is to destroy any net the attack is coming from, as others have pointed out that can just harm innocent victims, who have unwittingly become part of a hacker botnet. But what if the goal of the counter hack is not to harm the botnet target in any way, but to embed detection ability and counter hacking ability there so you can find out the ultimate director of that botnet. Then just keep going up the botnet chain until you reach the system that ultimately directs everything, and destroy them. That way, you are not actually denying any service to any innocent 3rd parties, and are only destroying legit targets.
To Jay. "First of all, what in the hell caused you to think the game allows you to rape people?" Well, duh, the article we were all reading did, with the following quote: "The incentive is to commit sexual violence against women, then abuse or kill them to proceed or get 'health' points. " But if you are telling me the game actually does not do that, and the SJW types who provided that quote were spouting nonsense, I am perfectly willing to take your word for it, since I am well aware that leftist SJW types like them constantly lie.
"Second, there are consequences to your actions as the police come to try to take you down as your wanted meter goes up.". That is good. So there are at least some consequences in the game for committing criminal acts. But are there also rewards for doing violent criminal acts. Do those rewards greatly outweigh the consequences, if so then the game is still teaching an unrealistic lesson, that crime is rewarding over the long run. Then again, it is a fantasy game, not the real world. But I prefer even fantasy games to have real world consequences for bad actions that outweigh the enjoyment you get from doing them, not because I want to impose any morality, but because I prefer games that are realistic, or at least realistic within the constraints of their universe. Any game that rewards mayhem with little consequence, while providing little reward for doing anything good, is not very realistic.
"This is just nonsense. Stop thinking in absolutes." Why the hostility. Its a pretty basic truism, from a long line of both history and fiction, that the evil overlord is normally just as bad for his own followers as to his enemies. There should be some incentive in the game for you to look for a gang that has at least some sense of ethics, not to impose moral lesons, but to make the game realistic.
"Great. Now go make that game or mod this one." Well yes, obviously its their game, and they can do as they wish with it. I am not one of those fanatic SJW types who wants to censor anything. I am just making a suggestion for more realism. Whether the makers of the game, or the fans of the game, are interested in injecting that type of realism, is their business.
"Or maybe you could look at the game and see what people are playing instead of going Professor Umbridge on everyone..." Again why the hostility, that is why I was asking the questions in my comment, to honestly find out. Then again, I know that gamers have been fighting the extreme leftie SJW censor types (and sometimes the moral majority types as well)for a long time now, so perhaps that is the reason for your hostility. I assure you I am not one of them, the way a game manufacturer makes their game is between them and the fans of the game, or if those fans are minors their parents as well.
The problem with your last comment is the one demanding expensive action, in this case the pro global warming people, have the burden of proof. And we, not demanding any change, have the right to ask all the questions we want, and you should answer them. So you cant just be asking questions, you are the one that must meet the burden of proof, that: 1. Global warming definitely exists. 2. Proof that the warming comes mainly from increased CO2 and not from natural climate variation. 3. Proof that the warming will continue unless action is taken to stop it. 4. Proof that gobal warming will definitely cause great net harm, and not just be mainly benign, or have harm balanced with benefits. 5. Proof that the proposed action is less expensive than than any harm that might come from global warming.
From what I have seen, you only have proof for point 1, and that only for an 18 yr period, from 1980-1998, otherwise the climate has been stable. I see no scientific proof for any of the other crucial points.
I have a question for the GTA fans here. It is pretty clear that GTA allows players to engage in all kinds of violence, and I see no problem with that, since violence is a part of life. The question I have is does this violence have any consequences. For example, if you beat up or rape some inncoent, do any other charachters in the game try to arrest you or kill you for it, and do you attract enemies as a result. And does doing the right thing, like saving a crime victim, have any kind of reward. If you have good allies, are they more likely to look out for your back than really evil allies. If so, the game would not only be realistic, but even useful for teaching real life moral lessons. But if not, I think it should add that element, so young people are not taught that they can indulge in any mayham they wish without negative consequences arising from it. It would even make for a better game, since being good is sometimes less fun, and even more difficult, and should therefore deserve more rewards and less risk for doing it.
I had a similar memory of D&D. Good charachters had a lot of rulebook restrictions on what they could do, while evil charachters did not, so it was often easier and more fun to be evil. The better DM's compensated for that by giving subtle advantages to the good charachters, like giving players permanent enemies when they did evil acts, and making good allies more reliable than evil ones.
The Oklahoma beheader had peons to El Quaida, and the glory of beheading people for Allah, on his facebook page, and nobody pays any attention. In the mean time this guy uses a perfectly innocent expression, "going out with a bang" and they get a terror alert. Something is badly wrong here. I suppose we cant be guilty of Islamophobic profiling, and we have to distribute our police attention equally. No wonder the Jihadists are killing us.
A very simple settlement proposal. Any use of the john wayne duke brand logo that has a picture of john wayne included, and any use of the duke uiversity brand logo that has a picture of the college included, ia automatically not infringing, and will never be subject to litigation. Any consumer that could confuse those 2 is an idiot. Case settled, fairly and permanently, but then how could each sides idiot lawyers find future employment.
You have no evidence that gov walker has any more corruption than any other gov, more likely far less. Perhaps you should rephrase to say "The governor with the most malicious false charges of corruption by corrupt fanatical leftists". And ironically I suspect walker wants this decision overturned because he wants his people to use FOIA to make the phony corruption investigation used to targeted him more transparent, to investigate the corrupt dem AG, and the corrupt state agency, who first brought the phony corruption charges against his people.
On usage caps, the decider for me would be whether they were manditory or optional. For example, if they offered a regular service with no usage caps, and a special optional service, with usage caps but lower cost, I see nothing wrong with that.
I think their should be a regulation to deter this sort of forum shopping. Perhaps require that if the gov has a warrant request turned down by one judge, if they go to another with a similar warrant, they must tell the new judge about the warrant denial by the old judge, so the new judge can look at the reasons it was turned down.
In addition, the analogy to dictation is faulty, because in cases where that happens, the person saying the words and the person transcribing, will typically already have a copyright agreement, and in the case of ghostwriters, where authorship is a collaboration, the copyright is often shared, while in other cases where somebody interviews somebody else, and writes a book based on the interview, the interviewer can often get the entire copyright.
This article is nonsense. If a singer says their voice is a gift from God, are you then going to claim that they cant claim copyright on their songs and records. The words did not exist until she wrote them, regardless of what inspired her do so. The only way this argument would apply would be if somebody tried to copyright bible quotes in a book they wrote, since in that case the words were already public domain before they wrote them again.
I think the only mandatory FDA requirement should be to test for safety, not effectiveness. There should be 2 levels of FDA certification. The first should be for safety, and should be sufficient to go to market, as long as there are no serious side effects, or the side effects are outweighed by benefits in comparison to existing alternatives.
The second certification, for effectiveness, should be either optional, or conducted after the product is allowed on the market. I suspect that in most cases where a product has been certified as safe, but not yet as effective, most doctors would still be reluctant to use it, but they would have the option to, as long as preliminary indications are good, and other treatments are not working. This would prevent tragic cases where people are suffering from an untreatable disease, but cant get a new treatment because it is still undergoing double blind tests. You don't need a double blind test to certify it does no harm, you just need to give it to a bunch of people and watch for side effects, which can be completed much quicker. And in the case of a test like this, there is never a question of harm, only of wrong info, so it could be approved for use immediately, and certified for effectiveness much later.
Is it possible for the supreme court to reopen a case they have already decided, if there is evidence their decision was based on gov lies. If so, I think the best outcome might be for the court to allow amnesty international to reopen their case, so the court can issue a new decision that is not based on gov lies.
Good comment, and you made me think of something else. Proud parents are always recording their kids performance in the school play or sing along. They can probably not avoid recording other kids than theirs, and I doubt if they get releases from all of them. Does that make these parents felons.
The shocking part of this article is not that the WH tried to edit remarks after the fact, since they have repeatedly done that. The shocking part is for once the WAPO reporter did not let them get away with it. Normally most MSM reporters are total Obama lapdogs.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by richard40.