News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We are sorry by jxcole on Wednesday February 08, 2012 @05:23PM (#3568838)
You seem to define a mistake as 'an error in the code'. However, their use of the term mistake to be 'an error in judgement' or 'an error in the value of user's privacy', is also valid. When someone does something immoral, saying that it was a mistake because they didn't think it was immoral at the time (but now they realise it is) can, in many situations, be a good response.

Of course, there are some things for which no amount of apology could ever bring about true forgiveness (think godaddy). I personally don't feel this is one of those times, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

EDIT: Switching "amoral" to "immoral"

Re:We are sorry by Kuiper on Wednesday February 08, 2012 @06:05PM (#3569012)
Sorry to pick on semantics, but wanted to clarify this because I initially was confused when reading your post: you meant "immoral," correct? "Amoral" does not mean "morally wrong," but rather refers to things which are morally agnostic. It actually seems to me that Path believed their actions were amoral, that is, not registering anywhere on the moral spectrum (neither right nor wrong).
Re:We are sorry by Tossrock on Wednesday February 08, 2012 @07:05PM (#3569187)
Well, as long as we're picking on semantics, that's not what amoral means. Amoral means lacking _regard for_ morality. You use it to describe a person or other entity that is unconcerned with the morality of their actions. Which fits Path pretty well.
Re:We are sorry by Kuiper on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:03AM (#3569907)
Both uses of "amoral" are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoral

"Amorality, the absence of morality; for example, a stone, a chair, or the sky may be considered amoral",

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoral

"not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral."

Re:We are sorry by Tossrock on Thursday February 09, 2012 @01:56AM (#3570122)
I think Wikipedia is in the wrong here. In fact, if you read the article linked from the disambiguation page, it strongly supports the definition shown in all dictionaries, and makes no mention of rocks or chairs being 'amoral'. Regardless, none of this bears out the idea of 'amoral' meaning morally agnostic, ie actions having no moral component, and your initial semantic nitpick was itself incorrect.
Re:We are sorry by astine on Thursday February 09, 2012 @12:08PM (#3571894)
If by "all dictionaries" you mean no dictionary I've ever read, nor the one quoted for you right here. You're wrong.
Re:We are sorry by Tossrock on Thursday February 09, 2012 @01:10PM (#3572202)
Dictionary.com: having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

Merriam-Webster: lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral> | being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>

Apple dictionary: lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something : an amoral attitude to sex.

thefreedictionary.com: Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.

Admittedly, some of these do mention definitions along the lines of "having no moral component", so it looks like everyone was wrong. Hurray!