Morality certainly influenced my most recent job move.
I had recruiters from both Google and Facebook reaching out to me, but it's clear from their corporate culture that conservatives - even moderates - are not welcome at those companies. I feel the "progressive" movement is the most dangerous and harmful political force since the Wall fell, and I don't want to have on my conscience contributing to that in any way.
Fortunately, you no longer need to work at the Big 5 to get great pay, at least if you're past mid-career (they probably still pay college hires the best, though I hear MS is falling off).
Not that the company I landed at isn't quite liberal internally, but they don't inflict it on their customers.
Gee, how could better imaging technology help out medicine, I wonder? MRIs and CAT scans and the like rely on digital imaging technology invented by JPL. There's tons of stuff like that, as you'd know if you were a nerd instead of a troll. Solving difficult engineering problems that push the limits of human technology will always have civilian payoff. Now slink back to your bridge! (or to your non-trolling account, whichever).
Tinkering with the genome is not akin to sapping a video card, but to rebuilding one while it's running. Pure trial and error is a fine approach, if the cost of errors is low, but we don't even begin to understand what we're doing. We don't even really understand protein folding. Thinking we could predict the unintended side effects of genetic alteration is nonsense - today we're stuck with tinkering and observing the consequences.
The space program is some 4-chan political ideology in your damaged brain?
It you can't see that space program technology could make e.g. medical care cheaper or better, then, yes, GTFO. This is supposed to be a nerd site, dammit.
ICBMs are designed to hit a target anywhere in the world, which in general means they can put a payload into low orbit if needed. And the payloads are all several times the mass of the nuclear warheads, due to countermeasures against interceptors. You could easily launch a warhead in a package that let you choose when to de-orbit.
So, yeah, sure, you might have some 'splainin to do if you did something that simple, but we certainly have the rockets.
It doesn't take much fuel to de-orbit if you're not very concerned about impact velocity, though it would be a large satellite. Beyond the size of the sat, theres very little else you can tell about what's actually under the skin. The USSR had some suspiciously large sats in orbit. So do we (or at least, we did during the cold war, anything this century is hard to get info on).
Now, if we wanted moder, high-efficiency nukes, there's a bit of a problem: they use tritium. and that means they would need to be serviced every few years. Heck, to make that practical, we'd need some sort of re-usable "space bus" with an arm to grab a sat and maybe an internal bay designed for servicing it. What an awkward thing that would be to launch and recover. We'd never build anything that silly.
The US doesn't even have the rockets to launch anything like a nuke.
So, like an ICBM? Yeah, we totally don't have those.
You know there used to be nuclear mortars, right? I'm not sure that smaller nukes have any real point as space-based armament (given the energy of anything just dropped form orbit without a warhead), but we probably have some up there anyhow.
What makes it hard to hide nukes in orbit? Plenty of RTGs in orbit, and that lump of plutonium in my sat is absolutely an RTG, not a bomb. You can trust me, because I'm a politician.
It that wrong, though? Should each citizen be able to spend as much as he likes to support the politics of his choice? How is that "corruption"?
You can bet that quid pro quo corruption is very common, and cracking down on that would make a huge difference to US politics without infringing on anyone's rights. Sadly, there's almost no enforcement.
Info wars and Alex were the first, then Candace went, then Tommy. The rest will follow and all these leftist valley run companies will paint a completely twisted picture of reality for their remaining leftist users who will again be shocked and suffer further bouts of explosive diarrhea as they continue to lose elections and be utterly confused by this (and blame Putin) because they dont know anyone who voted conservative.
Alex Jones was the canary. He was unpeopled in a very Stalin style, being removed from almost everything resembling social media in one day, in a coordinated effort across a dozen companies. They even nuked his linkedin page. (For some reason, Twitter of all places didn't ban him, which I find quite confusing).
He certainly won't be the last.
I think it's time for a Digital Bill of Rights, protecting freedom of speech, religion, and free assembly on corporate sites, not just government. Living with most of the worlds communication platforms controlled from a few square miles near SF will end in tears.
Well, then reality hits. (Almost) every software developer in Amazon is in an oncall rotation, and even if yo're not oncall you can still be called in if you're the expert on whatever's broken. This sounds more like "managers can have better work-life balance, engineers still have the pager go off at 3AM every night.
There's still an opportunity cost. Any botnet an attacker may control could be rented out or used to mine altcoin. Or, for a government attacker, there are always competing priorities.
My point was just that anyone these days can grab may thousands of servers to crunch anything parallelizable, and it's not even that expensive. Supercomputers are no longer exotic.
And of course anything that depends on SHA-256 is even easier - you can pick up a box that can do 1 trillion hashes per second for ~$200, thanks to bitcoin.
Exactly, unless you have thousands of super computers at hand.
How important is cracking that password? It's quite easy to get 10000 cores working in parallel for $80 per core-year.
If you're satisfied with it costing more to crack your password than it would cost for the attacker to just get his own Internet service, a medium-strong password is fine.
Yes, AmiMoJo, we already know from hundreds of posts about the topic that you don't support freedom of speech. So of course you'd say it's not OK to buy a newspaper and use it for political advocacy. Here in the USA we're attached to our hard-won freedom from Brits telling us we shouldn't have freedom of the press. We won that war, so kindly bugger off.
Why should there be any such limits on individual spending?
So Jeff Bezos buys the Post and uses it for political advocacy. That's it precisely centered on "freedom of the press". Running your own newspaper for political advocacy is exactly what "freedom of the press" means.
So, again, is it OK for Bezos, but not OK for me to buy a $5k ad in the Post? You think that's a good thing?
most campaign finance laws no longer hold up post CU
Correlation, causation, etc. CU is not the basis for the problem. The government policing itself it the problem.
And, again, it's not clear that "PAC money", in a general sense, is in any way unconstitutional. The Constitution in no way put a limit on the amount of your personal resources you devote to political advocacy. There are actually some laws against normal corporations donating directly to PACs, but they don't accomplish anything with the fox guarding the henhouse and all.
I'm not sure how we un-fuck the current situation, but I don't think the SCOTUS can do it, even if they have the will. It's a case of "how many divisions does the Pope have?" Elections have been extremely anti-incumbent for 20 years now, but throwing the bums out doesn't stop the machine.
Slashdot Mirror
They're all immoral, but Facebook and Google have both the desire and ability to inflict their ... particular morality on the world at large.
Morality certainly influenced my most recent job move.
I had recruiters from both Google and Facebook reaching out to me, but it's clear from their corporate culture that conservatives - even moderates - are not welcome at those companies. I feel the "progressive" movement is the most dangerous and harmful political force since the Wall fell, and I don't want to have on my conscience contributing to that in any way.
Fortunately, you no longer need to work at the Big 5 to get great pay, at least if you're past mid-career (they probably still pay college hires the best, though I hear MS is falling off).
Not that the company I landed at isn't quite liberal internally, but they don't inflict it on their customers.
Gee, how could better imaging technology help out medicine, I wonder? MRIs and CAT scans and the like rely on digital imaging technology invented by JPL. There's tons of stuff like that, as you'd know if you were a nerd instead of a troll. Solving difficult engineering problems that push the limits of human technology will always have civilian payoff. Now slink back to your bridge! (or to your non-trolling account, whichever).
This work is on embryos only, or did you miss that????
They weren't catfish embryos.
Tinkering with the genome is not akin to sapping a video card, but to rebuilding one while it's running. Pure trial and error is a fine approach, if the cost of errors is low, but we don't even begin to understand what we're doing. We don't even really understand protein folding. Thinking we could predict the unintended side effects of genetic alteration is nonsense - today we're stuck with tinkering and observing the consequences.
The space program is some 4-chan political ideology in your damaged brain?
It you can't see that space program technology could make e.g. medical care cheaper or better, then, yes, GTFO. This is supposed to be a nerd site, dammit.
ICBMs are designed to hit a target anywhere in the world, which in general means they can put a payload into low orbit if needed. And the payloads are all several times the mass of the nuclear warheads, due to countermeasures against interceptors. You could easily launch a warhead in a package that let you choose when to de-orbit.
So, yeah, sure, you might have some 'splainin to do if you did something that simple, but we certainly have the rockets.
It doesn't take much fuel to de-orbit if you're not very concerned about impact velocity, though it would be a large satellite. Beyond the size of the sat, theres very little else you can tell about what's actually under the skin. The USSR had some suspiciously large sats in orbit. So do we (or at least, we did during the cold war, anything this century is hard to get info on).
Now, if we wanted moder, high-efficiency nukes, there's a bit of a problem: they use tritium. and that means they would need to be serviced every few years. Heck, to make that practical, we'd need some sort of re-usable "space bus" with an arm to grab a sat and maybe an internal bay designed for servicing it. What an awkward thing that would be to launch and recover. We'd never build anything that silly.
Where do you get off proclaiming careful genetic manipulation is being done without understanding or thought?
Manipulation of embryos at this stage is necessarily done without adequate understanding or thought. Too new to use on humans.
Why are you posting this when you could be curing cancer!
People who don't see the value in going to space should just leave Slashdot; this is a site for nerds.
Military in space is less good than science in space, but it's still good.
The US doesn't even have the rockets to launch anything like a nuke.
So, like an ICBM? Yeah, we totally don't have those.
You know there used to be nuclear mortars, right? I'm not sure that smaller nukes have any real point as space-based armament (given the energy of anything just dropped form orbit without a warhead), but we probably have some up there anyhow.
I look forward to increased funding for space programs around the world, with the accompanying new consumer technology.
What makes it hard to hide nukes in orbit? Plenty of RTGs in orbit, and that lump of plutonium in my sat is absolutely an RTG, not a bomb. You can trust me, because I'm a politician.
Prove there aren't.
It that wrong, though? Should each citizen be able to spend as much as he likes to support the politics of his choice? How is that "corruption"?
You can bet that quid pro quo corruption is very common, and cracking down on that would make a huge difference to US politics without infringing on anyone's rights. Sadly, there's almost no enforcement.
Their motto has always been "Don't, be evil".
Info wars and Alex were the first, then Candace went, then Tommy. The rest will follow and all these leftist valley run companies will paint a completely twisted picture of reality for their remaining leftist users who will again be shocked and suffer further bouts of explosive diarrhea as they continue to lose elections and be utterly confused by this (and blame Putin) because they dont know anyone who voted conservative.
Alex Jones was the canary. He was unpeopled in a very Stalin style, being removed from almost everything resembling social media in one day, in a coordinated effort across a dozen companies. They even nuked his linkedin page. (For some reason, Twitter of all places didn't ban him, which I find quite confusing).
He certainly won't be the last.
I think it's time for a Digital Bill of Rights, protecting freedom of speech, religion, and free assembly on corporate sites, not just government. Living with most of the worlds communication platforms controlled from a few square miles near SF will end in tears.
Well, then reality hits. (Almost) every software developer in Amazon is in an oncall rotation, and even if yo're not oncall you can still be called in if you're the expert on whatever's broken. This sounds more like "managers can have better work-life balance, engineers still have the pager go off at 3AM every night.
There's still an opportunity cost. Any botnet an attacker may control could be rented out or used to mine altcoin. Or, for a government attacker, there are always competing priorities.
Pedantic much?
My point was just that anyone these days can grab may thousands of servers to crunch anything parallelizable, and it's not even that expensive. Supercomputers are no longer exotic.
And of course anything that depends on SHA-256 is even easier - you can pick up a box that can do 1 trillion hashes per second for ~$200, thanks to bitcoin.
Exactly, unless you have thousands of super computers at hand.
How important is cracking that password? It's quite easy to get 10000 cores working in parallel for $80 per core-year.
If you're satisfied with it costing more to crack your password than it would cost for the attacker to just get his own Internet service, a medium-strong password is fine.
Yes, AmiMoJo, we already know from hundreds of posts about the topic that you don't support freedom of speech. So of course you'd say it's not OK to buy a newspaper and use it for political advocacy. Here in the USA we're attached to our hard-won freedom from Brits telling us we shouldn't have freedom of the press. We won that war, so kindly bugger off.
Why should there be any such limits on individual spending?
So Jeff Bezos buys the Post and uses it for political advocacy. That's it precisely centered on "freedom of the press". Running your own newspaper for political advocacy is exactly what "freedom of the press" means.
So, again, is it OK for Bezos, but not OK for me to buy a $5k ad in the Post? You think that's a good thing?
most campaign finance laws no longer hold up post CU
Correlation, causation, etc. CU is not the basis for the problem. The government policing itself it the problem.
And, again, it's not clear that "PAC money", in a general sense, is in any way unconstitutional. The Constitution in no way put a limit on the amount of your personal resources you devote to political advocacy. There are actually some laws against normal corporations donating directly to PACs, but they don't accomplish anything with the fox guarding the henhouse and all.
I'm not sure how we un-fuck the current situation, but I don't think the SCOTUS can do it, even if they have the will. It's a case of "how many divisions does the Pope have?" Elections have been extremely anti-incumbent for 20 years now, but throwing the bums out doesn't stop the machine.
It checks 3 of the four boxes of the "four factor test", which is generally enough to be considered fair use.