"but it looks like their tax department is even more innovative than their product designers."
That's their job. Change your laws.
Taking advantage through bullshit loopholes and questionable interpretation done blatantly and flagrantly to a system that has little capability to audit and hold abusers accountable is not easily resolved with "change your laws", unless you're talking about making ethics a matter of legality.
Done properly and ethically, the tax systems of the world would generate billions more in benefits to society. Instead, we watch the chasm of wealth grow and divide the elite from the rest of the "poor" world, who's apparently too stupid to understand the benefits of unethical and/or illegal behavior when it comes to tax obligations. It's so blatant these days that companies would much rather skirt tax obligations to get a slap on the wrist fine later, because it's worth it.
...If you think any legislative solution won't be perverted by mega corps to fuck people over even more your a delusional tool.
Even more delusional is you thinking you still have a chance at winning.
When 99% of the population is being tracked and you choose "not to play", you will be playing by default as the anomaly. You will be easily tracked because you will stick out and it will be rather obvious.
Many people have already accepted this fact, which is why attempting to regulate some constraint around it is the next logical step. If you must live with a monster, then you'll at least try and put it on a leash.
It's probably just the local police trying out their stingrays. You need to experiment a bit to learn how to intercept phone calls without a warrant.
Experiment? Yeah right.
The People no longer give a shit about privacy, security, or their Rights, so exactly zero education or experimentation is required in order for law enforcement to understand just how far above the law they are today.
If the situation were otherwise, the entire IMSI-catching product line would have been shut down by now.
Nobody sensible would consider that a meaningful comparison either.
Second the Martian made a profit, and the mars mission hasn't. So the Mars mission actually had a much higher net cost.
I would sincerely hope that any space mission will net a far better return for the entire human race than 2 hours of fictional bullshit on the big screen, so I think we can stop with this rather silly comparison now.
No, twentysomethings do not usually have parents who are 60 and have a life expectancy of further 20 years. They talk more about children perhaps in their 50 who will now take care of their parents at the same time as taking care of their twentysomethings.
I was kind of making light of the fact of just how much this study will change once today's generation of caregivers are the ones who need caring for, but you managed to sum that up quite nicely to reflect on this compounding issue that will grow well beyond the bounds of viable solutions.
And no, I am not scratching my head, I guess I am that 0.001 percent... loneliness is a real killer, or if you want this in more romantic words, love gives life:)
Again, I was reflecting on the early years of parenting, across many sleepless nights. Cannot argue with your latter statement though. Love does give life.
I must say that was my exact reaction to reading it, whoever wrote that really needs to get some perspective, perhaps a nice car analogy.
Perspective?
We still shove hundreds of horses under a car hood to measure it's power, and we love to get hopes up when discussing habitable planets that are "only" a few light years away, while describing an object traveling 8 million miles per hour using a metric invented in the 18th century.
To cheer up people with a realistic view on life I'd say:
It's not all gloom an doom
No, but it's pretty damn consistent.
The environment will be fixed. Even if it doesn't look that way right now.
Tell China or India that.
Crackpot world leaders will eventually be replaced
Cause that's worked out so well for North Korea.
Education leads to less kids that on average are brought up better
Corporate Greed will ensure that automation and AI essentially eliminate any justification to educate a human, and it will lead to far less jobs.
Kids will teach a nerd one or two things about social stuff. Much like reading a chapter in life's manual.
Teaching nerds how to save Instagram videos to YouTube isn't exactly teaching things worthwhile. And we just discussed here how that social media "stuff" tends to create more issues and problems in the long run, so perhaps nerds would be better off not learning how to be social media narcissists.
Allow your kids to decide for them selves on "the world we have today"
Tell those twentysomethings still living with their parents that kids used to be able to move out on their own, and afford things like a new car. See what they decide about the world we have today.
We need people concerned about the world. You seem to be one. Multiply so we have more of them!
There's only a handful of people who still care in a meaningful way. Everyone else is knitting pink pussy hats to riot over the important issues.
"...researchers who believe the effect could be down to children helping with care and support...
By helping with care and support, are you referring to all the twentysomethings who still live with their parents? Just curious how this study takes into account the fact that the young generation can hardly afford to take care of themselves today, much less care for aging parents.
Also, having kids helps you live longer? Did they take into account the physical, mental, and financial strain that parenthood can bring? I'm willing to bet 99.999% of parents are scratching their heads over this one too.
No the job is VERY FUCKING relevant. The question is did the conditions make it impossible to fulfil the duties as described in his job description. If no, then he was given a very shitty deal, if yes then he was the one with unrealistic expectations in turning up on the first day of a job and expecting to be able to redefine the job requirements.
Regardless of when it was redefined, the terms were approved with the direct supervisor, who likely holds the most experience and ability to discern if someone is able to perform their assigned duties or not, taking everything into account. I sure as shit don't expect HR to have an educated or experienced grasp of that for every single position within a company, which is also why almost no one reports directly to HR.
Bottom line is terms were found agreeable by the relevant parties, even on day one. Unless HR has a legal reason for doing so, it's pretty clear who overstepped the mark to shit all over someone's employment opportunity. Justified or not, this move will cast a negative light on the organization as a whole, and will likely cost them in the long run by losing out on potential hires because of this treatment.
Do you really think the distinction between a cryptographer and a cryptanalyst is going to survive from actual job requirements though to the publication of this article? Besides, isn't an applications heavy firm going to put some crypt-analytic duties on any actual cryptographers they do have?
I mean, they're not inventing the next Twofish, AES, or elleptical encryption scheme, they're just implementing and adapting existing technology for the most part.
Let's cut the semantics already. Anyone having to deal with being fired within hours of starting a new job for little or no reason is facing a shitty deal, and is likely to feel a bit wronged in the situation. The job itself in this particular scenario is rather irrelevant.
As we don't know the job title let alone job requirements or description how the fuck can you say this won't be an impedement? what if he was hired for oncall cyber security incident support for secure environments? At this point there is zero evidence to say whether it was BAE who were arseholes or Davis himself. I am sure we will hear more but the story he has spun sounds more than a little sus.
The title of this story states a Cryptographer was fired.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't fucking mean he was gonna be tasked with manning the 24-hour IT support line, and my original point stands. He wasn't even afforded an opportunity to prove or disprove the agreed-upon impediment was actually going to interfere with his job. Kind of tends to make the entire concept of a probationary period rather pointless.
How many occupations have health side-effects? Thousands. You are just one of many, bub. Get in line. You aren't special.
Hardly any of those occupations put someones life at risk in order to further humanity. And considering there are billions of humans and less than 1,000 of them have ever left the confines of our atmosphere, I'd say that makes them rather special.
Oh, and good luck with that bedside manner of yours. You're going to need it when caring for your loved ones who hold the occupation of aging human.
Given what consumers happily give up, I'd love to see some proof of this. If they don't care about a capitalist corporation following their every click and move, I find it hard to believe they would care about their government doing the same.
Turn on the news. People generally care a bit more about the government, and don't give a shit about e.g. Facebook. They don't storm the capital, but they do care a bit more.
Speaking of not giving a shit, there have been plenty of government shutdowns due to budget issues, and yet no rioting in the streets. To compare, imagine what would happen if you shut down Facebook and all other social media for a week. The masses would lose their fucking minds, which tends to speak volumes as to what they care about.
And you continue to sell unfiltered access to reverse engineering your brain to Facebook every single fucking day for zero payback. So what?
This is the 21st century. You don't own your data, your body, or your mind. Get over it already.
Not that I don't think astronauts shouldn't get free health care. You just picked the wrong argument.
Did you just compare voluntary participation in the global narcissist experiment (a.k.a. social media) to a highly-trained astronaut who continues to suffer from injuries sustained while risking life and limb to further our understanding of space?
Give me a fucking break. You accuse me of picking the wrong argument when you can't even make one.
If you can't meet the requirements a specific job needs, the employer has a right to not hire you or to fire you. Promises of work-life balance are subjective, and it's up to the employer to decide their policy. It's up to the employee to decide whether or not they like the company. It's definitely not up to the government to decide. I feel bad for the guy, but he hasn't really been wronged. He might have a case, though, if he can show damages from thinking he had a job, and lost time looking for another job.
He applied for a job.
He was hired based on his qualifications.
He explained very clearly specific limitations upon being selected for said job, which his supervisor agreed to those terms.
He was wronged because after ALL that, he was fired from said job because he was not afforded an opportunity to work long enough to prove the specific limitation was even going to be an issue for the employer. This might be different if he was still in the probationary period and growing demands at home started interfering with his ability to work or deliver. That was certainly not the case since he was fired within hours of all parties accepting all terms.
Wikileaks? Privacy? You lost me there. That's an organization who subscribes to wholesale, uncurated and often irrelevant doxing, and has repeatedly come under fire for not protecting the privacy of people or data that is not relevant to the "point" attempted to be made.
Wikileaks may be guilty of collateral damage, but I was mainly speaking of them being host to things like "Vault 7", and the utter inability of those types of revelations to change public behavior regarding privacy. No matter what is leaked or revealed, consumers will never change.
Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.
Exactly. The hardest part about damages to ones reputation or career after something like this happens is proving it, so your only other option is to assume it will damage you for life, and settle for a life-altering amount up-front. And $73K sure as shit ain't it.
This also hopefully sends a message that police fuck-ups will ultimately cost a lot, and it should, since a typo can change someones life forever.
To be clear, people care about their privacy, but they are happy to sell it when deemed not important.
To be clear, people are cheap as hell, and don't buy or sell anything anymore. They happily give it away for free in exchange for using a "free" product. And much like a drug dealer giving out free samples, product addiction plays a part too.
A government pinpointing and knowing details about a specific person is frowned upon even by a person with the most Things connected to the Internet.
Given what consumers happily give up, I'd love to see some proof of this. If they don't care about a capitalist corporation following their every click and move, I find it hard to believe they would care about their government doing the same.
A private organisation knowing some details about a random account number, that is anonymised in a database, sold in exchange for a discount on a product (e.g. Facebook), and used within a defined scope (anonymous targetted advertising) on the other hand is very different.
Ironically, targeted advertising is exactly what it implies. They don't "kind of" know about you. They know you, and when I browse to a completely unrelated website and find the last products *I* looked at on Amazon being served up in ads, it becomes very clear just how targeted and not anonymized data collection is.
People generally accept someone knowing something about them as long as they don't know *them* directly. Wikileaks and Snowden did change the behaviour but only in relationship to the government for this very reason.
People don't have a fucking clue as to what they "generally accept". That would be buried in that EULA they never read and blindly accept.
So, Windows 10 is nothing more than a "vehicle for ads", riddled with telemetry that spies on you? That's funny, I thought that was exactly what the fuck you turned the entire internet into.
You love your always-on listening devices in your home. You love your telemetry-riddled smart phones, smart cars, and IoT. You love your "free" products and services, and your addiction to social media narcissism. A EULA never stopped you from clicking "I Agree", and you don't care about your entire online identity being bought and sold.
You're proud to let the world know everything about you because you don't give a shit about security or privacy anymore. You haven't for years.
Anyone who assumes otherwise at this point is an idiot. I don't give a shit how many comments show up in some "revealing" article. Nothing will change. If Wikileaks and Edward Snowden couldn't change public perception, you can bet your ass Microsoft won't either.
...is the fact that we supposedly have all these methods of forcing users to create more secure passwords, and yet those "top 10 worst passwords" lists that come out every year haven't really changed in fucking decades.
Obviously neither has the mentality towards online security.
Why you ask? I don't know. Ignorance? Stupidity? Don't give a shit? Doesn't even matter why anymore. Rather obvious nothing will change.
Slashdot Mirror
...If you go to college for the right reason (knowledge).
The problem with this bullshit is we soon won't need just a reason. We'll need 500,000 of them. And 30 years to pay for it.
Personally, I hope the entire concept of paying an "institution" a fucking obscene amount of money for knowledge is what truly becomes obsolete.
"but it looks like their tax department is even more innovative than their product designers."
That's their job. Change your laws.
Taking advantage through bullshit loopholes and questionable interpretation done blatantly and flagrantly to a system that has little capability to audit and hold abusers accountable is not easily resolved with "change your laws", unless you're talking about making ethics a matter of legality.
Done properly and ethically, the tax systems of the world would generate billions more in benefits to society. Instead, we watch the chasm of wealth grow and divide the elite from the rest of the "poor" world, who's apparently too stupid to understand the benefits of unethical and/or illegal behavior when it comes to tax obligations. It's so blatant these days that companies would much rather skirt tax obligations to get a slap on the wrist fine later, because it's worth it.
...If you think any legislative solution won't be perverted by mega corps to fuck people over even more your a delusional tool.
Even more delusional is you thinking you still have a chance at winning.
When 99% of the population is being tracked and you choose "not to play", you will be playing by default as the anomaly. You will be easily tracked because you will stick out and it will be rather obvious.
Many people have already accepted this fact, which is why attempting to regulate some constraint around it is the next logical step. If you must live with a monster, then you'll at least try and put it on a leash.
It's probably just the local police trying out their stingrays. You need to experiment a bit to learn how to intercept phone calls without a warrant.
Experiment? Yeah right.
The People no longer give a shit about privacy, security, or their Rights, so exactly zero education or experimentation is required in order for law enforcement to understand just how far above the law they are today.
If the situation were otherwise, the entire IMSI-catching product line would have been shut down by now.
Perhaps the best thing to do when using this metric we call "time" is to constrain it within the boundaries of its inventors.
Hell, I'm surprised that the concept of time is universally accepted on the planet, when we can't even come to an agreement on the metric system.
Nobody sensible would consider that a meaningful comparison either.
Second the Martian made a profit, and the mars mission hasn't. So the Mars mission actually had a much higher net cost.
I would sincerely hope that any space mission will net a far better return for the entire human race than 2 hours of fictional bullshit on the big screen, so I think we can stop with this rather silly comparison now.
For the ten people who use Allo to chat with other people.
...a service that is owned and operated by Google. Also known as that not-so-small company.
Gee, I can't wait to see more examples of don't-be-evil capitalism. Sure is a good thing they've got such an ethical motto to follow.
No, twentysomethings do not usually have parents who are 60 and have a life expectancy of further 20 years. They talk more about children perhaps in their 50 who will now take care of their parents at the same time as taking care of their twentysomethings.
I was kind of making light of the fact of just how much this study will change once today's generation of caregivers are the ones who need caring for, but you managed to sum that up quite nicely to reflect on this compounding issue that will grow well beyond the bounds of viable solutions.
And no, I am not scratching my head, I guess I am that 0.001 percent... loneliness is a real killer, or if you want this in more romantic words, love gives life :)
Again, I was reflecting on the early years of parenting, across many sleepless nights. Cannot argue with your latter statement though. Love does give life.
I must say that was my exact reaction to reading it, whoever wrote that really needs to get some perspective, perhaps a nice car analogy.
Perspective?
We still shove hundreds of horses under a car hood to measure it's power, and we love to get hopes up when discussing habitable planets that are "only" a few light years away, while describing an object traveling 8 million miles per hour using a metric invented in the 18th century.
Hope that helps.
To cheer up people with a realistic view on life I'd say:
No, but it's pretty damn consistent.
The environment will be fixed. Even if it doesn't look that way right now.
Tell China or India that.
Crackpot world leaders will eventually be replaced
Cause that's worked out so well for North Korea.
Education leads to less kids that on average are brought up better
Corporate Greed will ensure that automation and AI essentially eliminate any justification to educate a human, and it will lead to far less jobs.
Kids will teach a nerd one or two things about social stuff. Much like reading a chapter in life's manual.
Teaching nerds how to save Instagram videos to YouTube isn't exactly teaching things worthwhile. And we just discussed here how that social media "stuff" tends to create more issues and problems in the long run, so perhaps nerds would be better off not learning how to be social media narcissists.
Allow your kids to decide for them selves on "the world we have today"
Tell those twentysomethings still living with their parents that kids used to be able to move out on their own, and afford things like a new car. See what they decide about the world we have today.
We need people concerned about the world. You seem to be one. Multiply so we have more of them!
There's only a handful of people who still care in a meaningful way. Everyone else is knitting pink pussy hats to riot over the important issues.
"...researchers who believe the effect could be down to children helping with care and support...
By helping with care and support, are you referring to all the twentysomethings who still live with their parents? Just curious how this study takes into account the fact that the young generation can hardly afford to take care of themselves today, much less care for aging parents.
Also, having kids helps you live longer? Did they take into account the physical, mental, and financial strain that parenthood can bring? I'm willing to bet 99.999% of parents are scratching their heads over this one too.
No the job is VERY FUCKING relevant. The question is did the conditions make it impossible to fulfil the duties as described in his job description. If no, then he was given a very shitty deal, if yes then he was the one with unrealistic expectations in turning up on the first day of a job and expecting to be able to redefine the job requirements.
Regardless of when it was redefined, the terms were approved with the direct supervisor, who likely holds the most experience and ability to discern if someone is able to perform their assigned duties or not, taking everything into account. I sure as shit don't expect HR to have an educated or experienced grasp of that for every single position within a company, which is also why almost no one reports directly to HR.
Bottom line is terms were found agreeable by the relevant parties, even on day one. Unless HR has a legal reason for doing so, it's pretty clear who overstepped the mark to shit all over someone's employment opportunity. Justified or not, this move will cast a negative light on the organization as a whole, and will likely cost them in the long run by losing out on potential hires because of this treatment.
Do you really think the distinction between a cryptographer and a cryptanalyst is going to survive from actual job requirements though to the publication of this article? Besides, isn't an applications heavy firm going to put some crypt-analytic duties on any actual cryptographers they do have?
I mean, they're not inventing the next Twofish, AES, or elleptical encryption scheme, they're just implementing and adapting existing technology for the most part.
Let's cut the semantics already. Anyone having to deal with being fired within hours of starting a new job for little or no reason is facing a shitty deal, and is likely to feel a bit wronged in the situation. The job itself in this particular scenario is rather irrelevant.
As we don't know the job title let alone job requirements or description how the fuck can you say this won't be an impedement? what if he was hired for oncall cyber security incident support for secure environments? At this point there is zero evidence to say whether it was BAE who were arseholes or Davis himself. I am sure we will hear more but the story he has spun sounds more than a little sus.
The title of this story states a Cryptographer was fired.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't fucking mean he was gonna be tasked with manning the 24-hour IT support line, and my original point stands. He wasn't even afforded an opportunity to prove or disprove the agreed-upon impediment was actually going to interfere with his job. Kind of tends to make the entire concept of a probationary period rather pointless.
How many occupations have health side-effects? Thousands. You are just one of many, bub. Get in line. You aren't special.
Hardly any of those occupations put someones life at risk in order to further humanity. And considering there are billions of humans and less than 1,000 of them have ever left the confines of our atmosphere, I'd say that makes them rather special.
Oh, and good luck with that bedside manner of yours. You're going to need it when caring for your loved ones who hold the occupation of aging human.
Given what consumers happily give up, I'd love to see some proof of this. If they don't care about a capitalist corporation following their every click and move, I find it hard to believe they would care about their government doing the same.
Turn on the news. People generally care a bit more about the government, and don't give a shit about e.g. Facebook. They don't storm the capital, but they do care a bit more.
Speaking of not giving a shit, there have been plenty of government shutdowns due to budget issues, and yet no rioting in the streets. To compare, imagine what would happen if you shut down Facebook and all other social media for a week. The masses would lose their fucking minds, which tends to speak volumes as to what they care about.
And you continue to sell unfiltered access to reverse engineering your brain to Facebook every single fucking day for zero payback. So what?
This is the 21st century. You don't own your data, your body, or your mind. Get over it already.
Not that I don't think astronauts shouldn't get free health care. You just picked the wrong argument.
Did you just compare voluntary participation in the global narcissist experiment (a.k.a. social media) to a highly-trained astronaut who continues to suffer from injuries sustained while risking life and limb to further our understanding of space?
Give me a fucking break. You accuse me of picking the wrong argument when you can't even make one.
If you can't meet the requirements a specific job needs, the employer has a right to not hire you or to fire you. Promises of work-life balance are subjective, and it's up to the employer to decide their policy. It's up to the employee to decide whether or not they like the company. It's definitely not up to the government to decide. I feel bad for the guy, but he hasn't really been wronged. He might have a case, though, if he can show damages from thinking he had a job, and lost time looking for another job.
He applied for a job.
He was hired based on his qualifications.
He explained very clearly specific limitations upon being selected for said job, which his supervisor agreed to those terms.
He was wronged because after ALL that, he was fired from said job because he was not afforded an opportunity to work long enough to prove the specific limitation was even going to be an issue for the employer. This might be different if he was still in the probationary period and growing demands at home started interfering with his ability to work or deliver. That was certainly not the case since he was fired within hours of all parties accepting all terms.
just because you flew into space. You're one of the plebs, capisce? Now, resume your shopping and stop complaining. Everything is fine.
"...he still travels to Houston, Texas once per year to allow the agency to gather data about his health...
Just because we few into space doesn't mean we're gonna be your guinea pig for life. You want something from us space plebs? Then fucking pay for it.
Wikileaks? Privacy? You lost me there. That's an organization who subscribes to wholesale, uncurated and often irrelevant doxing, and has repeatedly come under fire for not protecting the privacy of people or data that is not relevant to the "point" attempted to be made.
Wikileaks may be guilty of collateral damage, but I was mainly speaking of them being host to things like "Vault 7", and the utter inability of those types of revelations to change public behavior regarding privacy. No matter what is leaked or revealed, consumers will never change.
Maybe this is the lawsuit happy American in me talking, but $73,500 sounds like chump change for a mistake that could quite literally ruin your life even after a retraction.
Exactly. The hardest part about damages to ones reputation or career after something like this happens is proving it, so your only other option is to assume it will damage you for life, and settle for a life-altering amount up-front. And $73K sure as shit ain't it.
This also hopefully sends a message that police fuck-ups will ultimately cost a lot, and it should, since a typo can change someones life forever.
To be clear, people care about their privacy, but they are happy to sell it when deemed not important.
To be clear, people are cheap as hell, and don't buy or sell anything anymore. They happily give it away for free in exchange for using a "free" product. And much like a drug dealer giving out free samples, product addiction plays a part too.
A government pinpointing and knowing details about a specific person is frowned upon even by a person with the most Things connected to the Internet.
Given what consumers happily give up, I'd love to see some proof of this. If they don't care about a capitalist corporation following their every click and move, I find it hard to believe they would care about their government doing the same.
A private organisation knowing some details about a random account number, that is anonymised in a database, sold in exchange for a discount on a product (e.g. Facebook), and used within a defined scope (anonymous targetted advertising) on the other hand is very different.
Ironically, targeted advertising is exactly what it implies. They don't "kind of" know about you. They know you, and when I browse to a completely unrelated website and find the last products *I* looked at on Amazon being served up in ads, it becomes very clear just how targeted and not anonymized data collection is.
People generally accept someone knowing something about them as long as they don't know *them* directly. Wikileaks and Snowden did change the behaviour but only in relationship to the government for this very reason.
People don't have a fucking clue as to what they "generally accept". That would be buried in that EULA they never read and blindly accept.
Dear 21st Century Society,
So, Windows 10 is nothing more than a "vehicle for ads", riddled with telemetry that spies on you? That's funny, I thought that was exactly what the fuck you turned the entire internet into.
You love your always-on listening devices in your home. You love your telemetry-riddled smart phones, smart cars, and IoT. You love your "free" products and services, and your addiction to social media narcissism. A EULA never stopped you from clicking "I Agree", and you don't care about your entire online identity being bought and sold.
You're proud to let the world know everything about you because you don't give a shit about security or privacy anymore. You haven't for years.
Anyone who assumes otherwise at this point is an idiot. I don't give a shit how many comments show up in some "revealing" article. Nothing will change. If Wikileaks and Edward Snowden couldn't change public perception, you can bet your ass Microsoft won't either.
"I don't trust these newfangled vehicles! Those computers will crash and cause accidents!"
...says the human ranting on social media, texting behind the wheel while driving on the freeway...
...is the fact that we supposedly have all these methods of forcing users to create more secure passwords, and yet those "top 10 worst passwords" lists that come out every year haven't really changed in fucking decades.
Obviously neither has the mentality towards online security.
Why you ask? I don't know. Ignorance? Stupidity? Don't give a shit? Doesn't even matter why anymore. Rather obvious nothing will change.