or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by AaronJ

 Among other things, taking something from someone's account and publishing it is no different than someone breaking into your home and taking a picture you took.  Now imagine that you took a picture (no matter the content) and someone took it from your house or your wallet.  Would the argument, "Well, if you didn't want someone else to have it you shouldn't have taken it in the first place," really fly -- with anyone? As was pointed out earlier in this very thread, the...
 *headdesk*
 Thank you.
 Good point.
 While I completely agree with you on the education issue, this is also a problem that is caused by people simply never believing that "it could happen to them."  So many people make so many mistakes with that sort of thinking -- well, that and alcohol.
 All sorts of people, not just celebrities, do these sorts of things as I'm sure you know.  And AFAIK, kids ARE already often told not to do these sorts of things.  But then again, we all do stupid stuff -- when we're told not to.  
 Yep, that pretty much sums it up perfectly.
1) Yes, the Jennifer Lawrence pics are real.  And apparently the Mary Elizabeth Winstead ones are too, judging by her response.   2) As hot as I find J-Law, I have no interest in seeing these pics, and taking part in a crime.  Her privacy and beyond, and that of anyone else who was legitimately hacked, was violated and the people who did it are pond scum.  I really hope that J-Law uses some of her extensive (~$40M at last count) resources to hunt this disgusting sleaze...
 True  enough. :) I have to admit that I had no idea whatsoever what it meant before.
I'm still not sure what the utility of of this would be for me, but I am interested in seeing what they produce.     If it's a nice-looking product, and it actually has some good functionality, I don't see how $399 is a lot.
New Posts  All Forums: