Slashdot Mirror
'They'll Squash You Like a Bug': How Silicon Valley Keeps a Lid on Leakers (theguardian.com)
The public image of Silicon Valley's tech giants is all colourful bicycles, ping-pong tables, beanbags and free food, but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy. From a report: They rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk publicly, even if it's about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within the company. While Apple's culture of secrecy, which includes making employees sign project-specific NDAs and covering unlaunched products with black cloths, has been widely reported, companies such as Google and Facebook have long put the emphasis on internal transparency.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
Your employer is paying you for a service. Don't help the competition and screw up their business. Don't blab about your employer on social media or anywhere else.
If you're too stupid to realize that, you'll have a hard time at life
oh the hyperbole, come the fuck on.
Fuck off and die.
I suggest gasoline. That would be an appropriate death for you.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You start a comment with "fuck you and your daughter" and you're surprised at the response you got?
Hope fantasizing about some stranger's kids getting murdered helps you get your rocks off. I bet you've even convinced yourself you're not the asshole here.
Go ahead and try to stop a criminal with your knife. Better yet, get rid of the knife and just give him a big condescending speech, then he'll just give you his gun. Or use your fucking "karate". Idiot.
Are there companies that treat leakers well? I would think most (successful) companies put a lot of work into keeping their secrets secret.
But, robbery and rape are many times more frequent than murder. Somehow, you imaginary world just doesn't match up with the real one.
In the real one, the CDC studies of gun violence have consistently show the same thing: Private gun ownership prevents about 1.5 million crimes per year. Minimum 500,000, max 2.5 million. Most of those would-be victims are women and elderly.
But you'd rather see more women beaten, robbed, and raped than see someone allowed to protect themselves. That makes you an asshole.
I am privy to new features, bugs, big initiatives/deliverables, ship dates, financial data, methodologies, long term vision, etc at my company. Management is very clear this kind of stuff is confidential until the official software is released, or should never be released since it is considered proprietary, confidential, or may slip a release if the project doesn't work out for some reason. It happens. We do share certain information with partners, big customers, etc, but all under NDA and with similar disclaimers (e.g. "this is planned for this release but it is never guaranteed").
If I decided to blab this stuff somehow I would 100% expect to be fired if I was found out. I can read and comprehend the "CONFIDENTIAL -- DO NOT RELEASE" thing that's on all documents and presentations like this.
You know what else doesn't help in a mugging or a robbery? Gun control. Because, surprise, they're already breaking the law.
So what's your point? The guy's daughter doesn't deserve a gun because it probably won't stop her from being raped? So the fuck what?
Your right to defend yourself is not predicated on your ability to do so successfully. Stop trying to strip the rights away from others by projecting your own feelings of ineffectiveness onto the rest of the world.
Yeah, notice the two companies shown positively (google and facebook) are SJW havens?
If it was a CDC study, you'd link to the CDC. It says right in your link that what actually happened was that the CDC contributed funding to study problems related to gun violence, and the thing you're linking to is a policy paper that outlines objectives of the people who received that funding.
Notice the bait-and-switch?
Yes, the CDC has spent money to study gun violence. Yes, the people who wrote that policy paper received some of that money. No, that does not mean that the CDC supports their agenda, and no it does not imply that the things those people hope to prove were already proved by the CDC. LOL
I really pity you. What kind of cesspool are you guys forced to live in that forces your daughter to carry a gun for self-defense? I have lived in several countries, but have never, ever, lived in places anywhere nearly as dreadful as all that, even when I was a poor student. What kind of broken, dysfunctional Third World country are we talking about here? My heart goes to you and your misfortune.
At the end of the day, Facebook is an ad-supported self-publishing platform, nothing more or less in the end. Whether news about a new feature comes out today or in two weeks isn't going to make or break their business model. The witch-hunting smells of inflated senses of self-importance.
Random car and personal searches? Access to personal email and phone calls written into contracts? We're not talking about Los Alamos in the 1940s, where they designed weapons capable of killing millions, yet security is on that level. Why? Inflated egos of management of a company that thinks it's more important to the world than it actually is.
Remember MySpace? AOL? No? Good. That's where FB will be in 15 years.
Interesting.. Lets compare this with the current left wing narrative.
1. nationalist jingoism: no. They're 180 degrees out, usually saying how the incumbent culture/country does not deserve to exist or have an 'identity.'
2. human rights: this depends on what you mean by human rights. If you mean rights such as equal opportunity, free speech, self-defense, innocence until proven guilty, etc, then both the left and the right are failing here.
3. Enemies as unifying cause: Again, both have been guilty of this in the past, but right now, it's the left targeting the evil white and/or straight and/or male. Patriarchy 'theory' is a perfect example, as is the whole "non-whites can't be racist" routine. The whole 'power+privilege' thing is pretty obvious about it.
4. supremacy of the military: Sorry, but both extremes love their military (and militarized police!). There's plenty of historical evidence to back this up (was the iron curtain built by fascists or socialists? was it meant to keep people out or in?). How else are they going to keep citizens in line?
5. Rampant sexism? You mean like campus rape tribunals modeled after their Soviet counterparts? Insufferably anti-male HR department 'harassment' policy? Sexist hiring policies at google? The left is the current leader these days. They've become what they claim to fight.
6. Controlled mass media? The vast majority of the mainstream media is center-left at the very least. Who's getting banned from social media? It's not the SJWs. It's their critics. Who's calling everyone who doesn't agree with them 'fascists' every day on TV? Does Colbert make fun of hillary or trump?
7. here in the US, corporate power is protected, but people are still free to unionize and protest. Sometimes they win, sometimes not.
8. Disdain for intellectuals/arts: well that's also subjective. If you're talking about the so-called 'intellectuals' on ivy league campuses babbling about new gender pronouns and 'social justice', I have little sympathy.
9. Obsession with crime/punishment: Both sides win here. Plenty of history backs that up. Was it America or the Soviet Union who had the gulag system? (the answer today is arguably both).
10. Cronyism.. Cronyism happens in every government, tyrannical or not. As in crony capitalism goes? That's a left wing thing.
11. fraudulent elections: Again, plenty of examples on both sides. Tyrants don't like citizens choosing who rules.
I've had my ass whooped about 5 or 6 times
But have handed out double that amount in ass whoopings.
You're too much of a snowflake to even log into Slashdot, where someone might associate your ideas with an email address. Given how easy it is to get a free email account, that's exceptionally pathetic. I'm thinking you're about thirteen years old, and the only ass you've ever kicked has been your own.
Run along, child. We can have banal arguments without you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
CA where they let illegals off for murdering citizens.
You know what happens to people who carry knives?
They get shot.
The NAP is the National Academies Press, and is the US Government official publication arm for things like the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, Medicine, and the like. The study presented stems from President Obama's 2013 executive order that the CDC and related Government agencies study causes for gun violence and devise strategies to minimize it. The research shows that for every violent use of a firearm, there are approximately 5+ uses for defensive purposes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
Probably not, as long as she can show she had definite fear of loss of her life. After all, a single punch can kill. If she's 110 pounds, and up against someone much larger than her, then use of a firearm will NOT be murder at all, but a reasonable means of self-defense.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
When she returns to a population center larger than Seneca, Nebraska, maybe she won't need the gun so much.
The largest regulating influence on physical confrontation is the social environment. On average, woman slightly outperform men in best exploiting their social environment.
Bottom line: step away from the bathroom scale, and consider some of the other crucial factors.
No, they keep the bugs in and squash the staff.
Table-ized A.I.
Honestly though, if you're in the habit of plugging random USB thumb-drives you found into your regular computer, you're probably not the sharpest cookie in the first place. It's such a common vector for nefarious actors to inject malware that it's almost a cliche at this point. It shouldn't be an "instantly escorted out of the building" offense. But a very stern talking to on the part of the infosec team would definitely be in order.
Imagine all the people...
How bout a knife, instead of arming your CHILD with an INDUSTRIAL SCALE KILLING MACHINE.
Because some of the thugs out there are industrial scale killers. You need something that will impress them with your will to live.
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
Not here in Arizona she wouldn't.
No Puppet. No Puppet. You’re the Puppet!
https://youtu.be/UaVWRetR4jg
You are welcome on my lawn.
- "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." Institute of Medicine and . 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18319.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
All of it is mostly based on self reporting and anecdote.The problem is that there is no clear definition and evidence for DGU - depending on how you count them (some guy in the street speak to you, you show your concealed firearm, they go away, was it because it was a banger and he wanted to rob you or was it a fine citizen shocked and afraid you showed your weapon so freely ? Some study count this as DGU because they rely on the gun owner chosing option 1. Other do not as it can clearly be option 2). All in all if you limit to what is evidenceable you get around 80K DGU per year. And comapred to gun murder alone this may be a bit bigger, but comapred to gun violence (which include being threatened with a gun to get robbed) this is a DROP in the sea. And while DGU do indeed exists , it is pretty clear they are a side effect of having so much firearm, the same proxy with murder. Lower the firearm reach ability, this lower the DGU and lower the incident and murder. There is a reason dis-arming worked in some countries and it showed to be effective.
Now you may have a Philosophical reason to have gun so readily available, that is fine, but DGU is not a good reason, you are only contributing to the problem. The solution is to lower availability and lower frequency of shooting versus reload for civilian weapon. I have hunted, and even for boar hunting we never had a 15 or even 30 rounds magazine - it was all manually reloaded either 2 sided chevrotine riffle (think shotgun) or bolt loaded. Semi auto and machine gun are for war, not for hunt. IMO basically all civilian weapon should be manual type and have at most 2 or 3 for riffle, and at most 6 for guns, no semi auto allowed. If you need more than that for *normal* usage you are doing it wrong - as a society.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Re: SJWs are the Worst (Score:2)
by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on 03-16-18 14:48 (#56272251) Homepage Journal
[...]
You're too much of a snowflake to even log into Slashdot,
Drinkypoo? You might as well have not logged in. I lmao at dumbshits who have essentially anonymous logins who criticize others for real anonymous logins.
I lmao at dumbshits who can't read. Your parents must be real proud of you.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The police tend to show up after the start of the commission of a crime. They cannot be everywhere, and in fact multiple Court decisions explicitly state the police have no requirement to protect you unless they are present at the time of the crime.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, you waved your hands and claimed n blah blah for every blah.
That's not what any of the linked studies (there were none) said. It did say that people wanted to study if such a thing were true, using methodology that would actually prove something totally different.
Right, but using "one punch can kill" as an excuse for why you shot somebody doesn't describe self defense, it describes admitting to murder.
This is not theory, don't be an idiot. Self defense isn't based on making a promise that you were really super-duper scared even though the threat was only with fists. That's daft. There is an actual process to measure it. And "oh a punch can kill" are not magic words that make it legal to use a deadly weapon to defend against a minor assault.
No, it doesn't. You are allowed to protect yourself from imminent danger and threats. It's not a murder, it's self-defense. It is actually defined to what you claim it isn't, and has a legal standard which fits. If you believe you are imminent mortal danger, and can reasonably prove that your belief was valid, then it's self-defense and not murder. And being half the size of an attacker can easily grant that. You do not need to be armed to be deadly...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Don't be a moron. Instead of posting those links and asserting that you are Right, fucking read them.
Somebody punching you is a low level misdemeanor, not even a felony. The link explains if you can use deadly force or not. (not) You can't even use a weapon. Simply displaying the weapon when the threat is a misdemeanor actually is likely to be a felony itself; a bystander might even legally shoot you in defense of the person you're threatening with the weapon!
What a maroon. Read your own fucking links, asshole.
Login status actually means a lot in an age when any given commenter may not actually be posting their opinion but instead what they're paid to write.