SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Multiple reports suggest that Impact Team has leaked around 9.6 to 10 gigabytes of data from the "cheating/affair website" Ashley Madison onto Tor sites (now available via BitTorrent). According to Ars Technica:
A 10-gigabyte file purportedly containing e-mails, member profiles, credit-card transactions and other sensitive Ashley Madison information became available as a BitTorrent download in the past few hours. Ars downloaded the massive file and it appeared to contain a trove of details taken from a clandestine dating site, but so far there is nothing definitively linking it to Ashley Madison. User data included e-mail addresses, profile descriptions, addresses provided by users, weight, and height. A separate file containing credit card transaction data didn't include full payment card numbers or billing addresses.
Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security, said the dump also included user passwords that were cryptographically protected using the bcrypt hashing algorithm. That's among the most secure ways to store passwords, because bcrypt is extremely slow, a trait that requires crackers to devote vast amounts of time and computing resources. Still, it's highly likely a large percentage of the hashes will be cracked, given rampant use of weak passwords.
Ashley Madison officials have stopped short of confirming the published information was extracted from the breach.
"We have now learned that the individual or individuals responsible for this attack claim to have released more of the stolen data," they wrote in an e-mail to Ars. "We are actively monitoring and investigating this situation to determine the validity of any information posted online and will continue to devote significant resources to this effort. Furthermore, we will continue to put forth substantial efforts into removing any information unlawfully released to the public, as well as continuing to operate our business."
Previously: Adult 'Extracurricular Activity' Website AshleyMadison.com Hacked
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:32AM
The divorce is a gravy train for women. There is a reason why men take the risk of infidelity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday August 19 2015, @03:58AM
Exactly. And when I point out the most personally relevant real-life example where a pre-nup would have helped, that of my parents, women still tell me that I'm "just planning on divorce". Courts take infidelity as some great moral offense, but partner alienation, disparagement, lack of sex, or simply getting excessively fat are not considered on the same realm. If a man loses his job, he's failing to provide for the family, if the woman loses hers, it is viewed as a secondary income, even if she makes more. Other than paternity rights and some tax benefits, there's very little upside to marriage for men.
I'm simply not willing to take a bad deal to maybe get laid regularly for the first two years, that is if the moon is in alignment with Saturn and no one has looked at her the wrong way today.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:44AM
This is sexism at its finest. This is the kind of shit feminism seeks to end by pushing for gender equality (equality, not inequality in the other direction like extremist nutjobs of both genders push for).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:12AM
Oh lay it off. Feminism doesn't fight for equality and has never fought for equality, from its inception in the minds of aristocratic bored house-wives of eighteen hundreds to this day. This lie comes from exactly two types of people: 1. Men who are too blind to see their own disadvantage or 2. Women who are just bullshitting to keep the status quo. Feminism has done exactly one thing - made personal relationships more and more political by demanding more and more involvement of state. It is Marxism for women riding over the labors of men.
Now I will leave this conversation because feminism-anti-feminism is already too political (literally) and doesn't solve any purpose here on SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:30PM
Yes, both men and women are disadvantaged in many cases and that is a problem. Historically, it was much worse for women and feminism has done a lot to fix that.
There is still a lot left to do to fix sexism, whichever way it swings. It would probably be better to be pro-father or pro-husband equality instead of being anti-feminism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22 2015, @11:31PM
Feminism predates marx.
In it's modern form, it's from England and America.
It's about men being restricted to old cunts, and paying for it.
First thing they did was ban men marrying girl children.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:56PM
Would you please point me in the direction of a feminist who is arguing for gender equality in divorce or gender equality in general? It would be helpful if it would be somebody who has some say in the direction the movement is headed instead of somebody who simply calls themselves a feminist but doesn't really have much involvement with the movement.
I'm thinking either we've encountered two vastly different kinds of feminist or we have radically different definitions of equality. (I suppose you might also be Rip van Winkle.) These are examples of what I'd consider progress towards gender equality. I have never heard a feminist taking up any of these positions (neither the ones I prefer nor the suggested alternative), not after around 1980–1990-ish or so anyway. Further down the list when I get into issues that are more social and less legal/policy, I've even seen feminists pushing for positions that are outright oppressive towards men.
There's more on my mind, but I didn't want to spend too much time trying to come up with alternatives for them that would result in gender equality.
Oddly, my preferences seem to align fairly well (but not 100%) with positions taken by men's rights activists I've come across. Generally, the alternatives I thought up have troubles or are otherwise just simply inhumane (especially in the case of genital mutilation) so I don't see why anybody would support those (and nobody does, except perhaps mikeeusa).
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @08:01PM
> Oddly, my preferences seem to align fairly well (but not 100%) with positions taken by men's rights activists I've come across.
Anyone who has read your rants over the last year+ will not find that odd at all.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 20 2015, @01:49AM
Anywhere I can look to find these contemporary feminists who want gender equality? I really want to broaden my horizons. Especially after recent experience. Things are getting grim. I've already mentioned folks I know who have no access to healthcare despite being compelled by the government to purchase health “insurance.”
Disclaimer: I find your typical MRA to be incorrect due to his (or her) rejection of trans women.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday August 20 2015, @05:34AM
I don't know the stand of MRAs on trans women, personally. If I have to make a guess I will say it has something to do with pointing out gender differences (which feminists only point out towards when it involves holding historical rights that are biased against men). MRAs are actually Men's Rights Activists so they take extreme point of views as a negotiating tool.
Anyway, could you please point out some link to me about MRAs position on trans-women?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 21 2015, @01:57AM
I eternally hold out hope that the MHRM (Men's Human Rights Movement) will come around as concerns trans women. Doing some Googling (directed at AVFM), things may be changing, or not. It's clear feminism has no intention of accepting trans women who don't toe the social justice bully line; that would be too dangerous. The MHRM denies itself by rejecting redpill trans women merely because of a misguided belief that they are failed men.
Here's something. [avoiceformen.com] Maxx's post is in line with what I'd seen briefly a few years ago when I was interested in it. A trans friend of mine pointed my way there and wanted to know what I thought. Was financially backing AVFM advisable? Before I could get back to her, her account was banned, and there was a message on the front page explaining that some feminist/communist accounts had been banned for attempted recruiting. That was too bad. Like me, my friend is a Libertarian (card carrying member, in fact), most certainly not communist.
However, Maxx does not seem to speak for the movement, as evinced by the replies.
AVFM came back into my consciousness while I was Googling something completely unrelated and happened upon From Woman to Man to Red Pill [avoiceformen.com]. It's an interesting read.
Yet, Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism [avoiceformen.com] remains a depressing read. While I'm not certain AVFM is giving the trans man in From Women to Man to Red Pill authenticity as a man, it's absolutely certain after reading Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism that the trans woman remains denied her authenticity as a woman.
Other observations: it's clear that the MHRM is absolutely not misogynist. Indeed, many cisgendered women, even former radfems have “seen the light.”
All of this in my mind speaks to the utter lack of research about transgendered folks. Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism does have a valid criticism of existing studies as having woefully small sample sizes.
I would like to make a contrast. From Male/Female Discrepancies in Transsexualism:
It is simply implausible that a child that associates with the opposite sex label has any real understanding of what that means, but unfortunately, such associations often stick.
How many times, especially on the other site, when gender issues come up, has somebody needed to make the obvious point that boys and girls are different and point to evidence of toy preference even in the crib? We have AVFM joining the gender feminists and social engineers in the assertion that gender is socially constructed and psychologically malleable for a child.
This is one point that is in stark contrast to the rest of the platform of logic and evidence upon which the MHRM stands.
To summarize, my friend SMSed me the other day, “Ma'amed at Jimmy John's again.” Even while obviously presenting as a man, she get's “ma'amed.” Who is she to argue with somebody who believes she is a woman? Only feminism and the MHRM. (The answer key to why this happens to her is found in Julia Serano's book Whipping Girl, but don't read that! It might turn your sons gay!)
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 21 2015, @02:00AM
get's
Argh! *throws a knife at the greengrocer's apostrophe!*
Flyover country is getting to me!
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday August 23 2015, @07:19AM
The only thing I can say is that western MRAs are stupid. They are a rag-tag group of people with very diverse thoughts and no leadership or organization. After decades they have yet to get anything done when in fact they could have changed the face of the world considering any law that gets accepted in the west becomes the 'obvious greatness' to be imposed all over the world. Instead, you can think of anything and find an MRA saying that. They are too focused on some definition of masculinity and not at all on real men. In front of them the world changed from 'free love' to 'I am illogical and irrational because I am a woman so I should not be held accountable for any lies I say as that is my right. "Woman's rights are human rights"', and they have stood there watching. They have let conservatives the center stage in father's rights' issue, when in fact it have always been the conservatives who have made most men's lives hell. They have let old staunch feminists of 70s to infiltrate both Republicans and Democrats and they have let them narrate abortion as a my-body-my-choice issue when it is not. In their jest to save marriages they have let oxymoron like martial rape to become a law, while at the same time divorce rates have been skyrocketing. They have stood-by and watched while violent rape became synonymous with having sex while drunk in a college. The only group I see doing anything within a structure is AVfM, and they are just too small and even they have let a lot of people with differing ideologies to use their platform, ultimately confusing normal populace. Seriously, they are defined by a list of patently false allegations from feminists who can't let men have a voice. Seriously, after so many DECADES, this their achievement:
This is "IRAQ HAS WMD" level of bullshit, considering that biggest Men's Rights Movements are situated in 3rd world countries. Because of their level of laziness and intellectual dishonesty men of rest of the world will end up suffering under Hilary Clinton.
This is not a rant, really. The amount of incompetence from MRAs in countries like UK, USA, Spain and Germany is the root cause why suicide rates of men in these countries have been skyrocketing. The suicide ratio of men vs women in Sweden is 16:1. And the whole western world wants to imitate Sweden. For every 1000 men 950 women are born - the natural ratio. In Sweden the ratio is 1000:1050, i.e., 905:950. That means every 1 in 10 man is committing suicide. And UN and World Economic Forum's gender equality report [weforum.org] list these 5 countries as the best:
They are too focused on saving masculinity and not much on men, as far I could understand.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday August 23 2015, @07:22AM
*zest or jest, though both fit.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:09AM
> And when I point out the most personally relevant real-life example where a pre-nup would have helped, that of my parents,
And the award for today's most unintentionally revealing post goes to the gugginator. That explains sooo much of the world view expressed in your posting history.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Wednesday August 19 2015, @01:49PM
Prenuptial is an excellent idea. It protects both people. That "it's just planning for divorce" thing is said from people who habitually lie to themselves even in the face of final outcomes. People change and everyone has to realize that. What could be perfect now could be very toxic later. On the other hand what is perfect now you'll find out wasn't all that great because it got even better, lol.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @04:42AM
Huh? Why do men risk infidelity, aside from just being dishonest scumbags? And whats so "gravy train" about divorce?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @05:24AM
Because they don't see why they should live a compromised life of not getting what they want, not doing what they want but instead spend time working and earning in a cut-throat world and give that money to another human being who is just as capable (and cannot legally be called otherwise) but whose only talent is to pretend to be miserable.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:16AM
Oh, shut up! Don't you dare remind me about my migraine... oh, my head.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:31AM
Oh kay.