This is a consequence of one of the best design decisions Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues made. For decades some of the brightest people in the world had been struggling to perfect a distributed hyperinformation system suitable for general everyday use - but no one had succeeded. Then along came the CERN crew, and pulled it off almost immediately. Their secret? Leaving stuff out!
As a result, the Web has no standard mechanisms for cleaning up. We get broken links. We get cobweb sites that haven't changed for years, and - much worse IMHO - we get valuable pages that vanish because the funding dried up, the maintainer moved to a new post, or for a thousand other reasons.
Early versions of Netscape Communicator had two options for emailing a Web page: send just the URL, or send the whole page. After a while the second option was discontinued - presumably on legal grounds, as it was a tragedy on practical grounds. There are still add-ons that include the whole page, but presumably that's sufficiently arms-length that no one with any serious money is exposed to lawsuits. Or you could write your own. If you really need to refer back to material years or decades later, you just have to keep a copy of your own.
The employees are rewarded with shares that keep increasing in value. Why are the shares increasing in value? Because Amazon's expenses are so low. Why are Amazon's expenses so low? Because it skimps on employee salaries. How does it manage that? By giving the employees shares.
Ponzi scheme n noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
ORIGIN
named after Charles Ponzi, who carried out such a fraud (1919–20).
Strictly speaking, the practices described are not "corruption". To speak of corruption implies that a system has been subverted and is not working as intended and designed.
In the case of Western "democratic" political systems, that is untrue. Those systems were intended and designed to work they way they do. It is only the naively igenuous who believe that election rigging and similar practices are "corrupt".
"In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".
... that it were only The Grauniad that would pretend to be shocked that employees starting paid work later tend to earn less after a given time.
But sadly it's the entire Western mainstream media. When not peddling lies about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela - well, foreigners in general - they resort to "shocking" stories like this.
As a foreigner, I don't really see much point in the screaming and roaring between Democrats and Republicans. It all seems a lot like arguing over the placing of the deckchairs as the Titanic sinks below the waves. To me, it looks very much as if the artificial differences between the parties, and the intense rancour that flows from them, have been deliberately created to keep the people at one another's throats and prevent them from seeing that EVERYONE in Washington is working against their interests.
The root problem with voting systems is that, fundamentally, they can only be as reliable as the people who operate them. If those people really honestly want to conduct fair, unbiased, honest elections then, on the whole, that is what will ensue. There may be glitches and little pockets of unfairness, but if the people who vote AND the people who run the system all want an honest result, they will get one.
The trouble arises when a critical fraction of those involved in running an election do not want an honest outcome. Frankly, there are so many ways of cheating that it would be tedious to list them. Just imagine what a highly-trained, experienced security specialist would make of any democratic voting system. They are so full of holes that there are more holes than solid material.
Sure, voting machines can be hacked. But if you run a system without any machine more complicated than a pencil, there are still ample opportunities for massive cheating. Anyone familiar with the history of elections could write down dozens of examples. As one of the most often-quoted remarks on the subject tells us, it's not who votes that counts - it's who counts the votes. (And who look after the actual ballots in the long watches of the night, and who has control of the totals once they have been written down).
The situation is just the same as with the US Constitution. Admirable in principle, well-intentioned, and carefully designed to preserve freedoms. But... no piece of paper, in and of itself, can stop people doing bad things. That's obvious. So the missing piece of the puzzle must be that the people who rule choose to act in accordance with the piece of paper. For years now, they haven't.
In a country where the Supreme Court can solemnly declare that bribery is free speech, and that corporations are people, no statement or declaration of principle is safe. Powerful people can simply "interpret" it to mean something entirely different.
'The committee "is concerned that Kaspersky Lab is susceptible to manipulation by the Russian government, and that its products could be used as a tool for espionage, sabotage, or other nefarious activities against the United States..."'
Lunar Smith may not have noticed that Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, HP and many other US corporations are susceptible to manipulation by the US government, and that their products could be used as a tool for espionage, sabotage, or other nefarious activities against the rest of the world.
In fact, I am sure that they are. Maybe Lunar Smith doesn't think that matters. But I do.
'The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules'.
That doesn't really change anything. The would-be employee is then in the position of a man in a secure cell awaiting execution in the morning. He knows what's going to happen, but he can't change it. If you could change your social media postings in retrospect, that might make some difference - but of course you can't.
'Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job'.
As determined by the employer, of course. I have enough experience with corporations - big and small - to understand that this kind of clause is nothing more than window dressing. It makes things look better, but changes nothing in practice.
The key issue is not about reading a person's online profile - anyone can do that. It's about forming judgments about someone's suitability for employment based on the profile.
It seems to me that the US and European views of the matter differ very markedly. Americans, as far as I can gather, tend to think that the employer should have full discretion to hire and fire at will. Europeans, rightly or wrongly, look for some kind of standards of fairness. You shouldn't be turned down for employment because someone disliked the way you look, or speak, or the colour of your skin or your religion. Or because you wrote something online that the employer found annoying.
It all depends on whether you believe people should have a right to employment on decent terms. If not, all this legislation should be repealed.
"... there was a recent high-profile alleged rape case in Germany which was not a fake story and revealed much about the way some news is presented in the western media in bias against the admirable Ms Merkel."
See the word "admirable" there? That's absolutely unnecessary and unacceptable for a news story. Just tell me the facts, and let me decide whether Angela Merkel is "admirable" or not, and your "unbiased" source is not doing that. That single word tells me that the author of the piece is not politically unbiased, but has an agenda, and I need to be aware of that if I'm going to use his writing as a basis for my forming an opinion.
I am glad you raised that point. The main thing you have missed is that the article in question has no pretence at all to be a "news story". Indeed, it is obviously and unmistakeably opinion. Brian Cloughley has had a long and distinguished military career; the very first time I came across his name was in 2003 when Tony Blair had asserted that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons that could be ready to attack us within 45 minutes. Mr Cloughley wrote an article stating that he had been an officer in charge of NATO tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and it took his highly-trained men several hours to do such a job. Thus Blair's claims were shown to be ridiculous. However, no mainstream newspaper or magazine or Web site would publish Mr Cloughley's article.
One other thing: when I read the article you cite, I boggled at the description of Frau Merkel as "admirable". My opinion of her is entirely different. But Mr Cloughley's praise gave me pause; I thought that if he thought her admirable, my judgment might be premature and ill-informed.
That is the thing about a world in which speech is free. Many different people express their various opinions, and we may agree strongly with some while disagreeing with others. That provides a system of checks and balances that helps us to moderate our views and get gradually closer to the truth.
You [Americans] (assuming you are), are always proud of your system. In fact you're so proud that you at one time shed blood in trying to "export" it to other parts of the world.
If only "science advisers" were honest, up-to-date working scientists willing to say exactly what they think without fear or favour.
However, most government "science advisers" are chosen by politicians and civil servants, on mainly political grounds, from the ranks of the "great and the good". In other words, they are likely to be elderly, dignified, wealthy, highly regarded by all - and not to have done any actual research, or read any current papers, for a good many years.
They are the kind of people who fall easily into line with government policies and politically correct views. They are the kind of people who agree that solar power (for instance) is far cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear, and who have a remarkable ability not to notice things like this: https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Slashdot Mirror
'... spokeswoman Heather Nauert told reporters it was not "any external action or interference."'
So just incompetence, then.
This is a consequence of one of the best design decisions Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues made. For decades some of the brightest people in the world had been struggling to perfect a distributed hyperinformation system suitable for general everyday use - but no one had succeeded. Then along came the CERN crew, and pulled it off almost immediately. Their secret? Leaving stuff out!
As a result, the Web has no standard mechanisms for cleaning up. We get broken links. We get cobweb sites that haven't changed for years, and - much worse IMHO - we get valuable pages that vanish because the funding dried up, the maintainer moved to a new post, or for a thousand other reasons.
Early versions of Netscape Communicator had two options for emailing a Web page: send just the URL, or send the whole page. After a while the second option was discontinued - presumably on legal grounds, as it was a tragedy on practical grounds. There are still add-ons that include the whole page, but presumably that's sufficiently arms-length that no one with any serious money is exposed to lawsuits. Or you could write your own. If you really need to refer back to material years or decades later, you just have to keep a copy of your own.
fuck failing slashdot, i don't need to read this crap.
So why do you read it?
Last I heard, reading Slashdot was voluntary. Clue: you can even read some threads and not others! 8-)
Come on, don't be so harsh, BeauHD did the best he can. Give him a prize for trying, instead, so he doesn't feel left out.
Ah, I see what you did!
"...left out..."
Quite droll.
The employees are rewarded with shares that keep increasing in value. Why are the shares increasing in value? Because Amazon's expenses are so low. Why are Amazon's expenses so low? Because it skimps on employee salaries. How does it manage that? By giving the employees shares.
Ponzi scheme
n noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
ORIGIN
named after Charles Ponzi, who carried out such a fraud (1919–20).
Serious question: Was it Damore's job to write this ten page memo?
Serious question: was it your job to write that comment?
Strictly speaking, the practices described are not "corruption". To speak of corruption implies that a system has been subverted and is not working as intended and designed.
In the case of Western "democratic" political systems, that is untrue. Those systems were intended and designed to work they way they do. It is only the naively igenuous who believe that election rigging and similar practices are "corrupt".
"In additional screenshots, one Google employee declared his intent to quit if Damore were not fired, and another said that he would refuse to work with Damore in any capacity".
Those are the people who should be fired.
... that it were only The Grauniad that would pretend to be shocked that employees starting paid work later tend to earn less after a given time.
But sadly it's the entire Western mainstream media. When not peddling lies about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela - well, foreigners in general - they resort to "shocking" stories like this.
As a foreigner, I don't really see much point in the screaming and roaring between Democrats and Republicans. It all seems a lot like arguing over the placing of the deckchairs as the Titanic sinks below the waves. To me, it looks very much as if the artificial differences between the parties, and the intense rancour that flows from them, have been deliberately created to keep the people at one another's throats and prevent them from seeing that EVERYONE in Washington is working against their interests.
The root problem with voting systems is that, fundamentally, they can only be as reliable as the people who operate them. If those people really honestly want to conduct fair, unbiased, honest elections then, on the whole, that is what will ensue. There may be glitches and little pockets of unfairness, but if the people who vote AND the people who run the system all want an honest result, they will get one.
The trouble arises when a critical fraction of those involved in running an election do not want an honest outcome. Frankly, there are so many ways of cheating that it would be tedious to list them. Just imagine what a highly-trained, experienced security specialist would make of any democratic voting system. They are so full of holes that there are more holes than solid material.
Sure, voting machines can be hacked. But if you run a system without any machine more complicated than a pencil, there are still ample opportunities for massive cheating. Anyone familiar with the history of elections could write down dozens of examples. As one of the most often-quoted remarks on the subject tells us, it's not who votes that counts - it's who counts the votes. (And who look after the actual ballots in the long watches of the night, and who has control of the totals once they have been written down).
The situation is just the same as with the US Constitution. Admirable in principle, well-intentioned, and carefully designed to preserve freedoms. But... no piece of paper, in and of itself, can stop people doing bad things. That's obvious. So the missing piece of the puzzle must be that the people who rule choose to act in accordance with the piece of paper. For years now, they haven't.
In a country where the Supreme Court can solemnly declare that bribery is free speech, and that corporations are people, no statement or declaration of principle is safe. Powerful people can simply "interpret" it to mean something entirely different.
https://www.wired.com/1999/01/...
I don't know why, but I find the parent amusing. Normally I hate irrelevant off-topic nonsense, but this is just so totally surreal.
Hence:
https://www.andysinger.com/ima...
Less than one would be better.
And you can trust him, because no CEO has ever told a lie.
'The committee "is concerned that Kaspersky Lab is susceptible to manipulation by the Russian government, and that its products could be used as a tool for espionage, sabotage, or other nefarious activities against the United States..."'
Lunar Smith may not have noticed that Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, HP and many other US corporations are susceptible to manipulation by the US government, and that their products could be used as a tool for espionage, sabotage, or other nefarious activities against the rest of the world.
In fact, I am sure that they are. Maybe Lunar Smith doesn't think that matters. But I do.
Well, to be absolutely precise, mobile phones contain computers.
Good point. Thanks for mentioning that!
'The rules require employers to issue a disclaimer before they check applicants' online accounts, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and LinkedIn. If applicants don't see the warning, the company could be in breach of European Union data protection rules'.
That doesn't really change anything. The would-be employee is then in the position of a man in a secure cell awaiting execution in the morning. He knows what's going to happen, but he can't change it. If you could change your social media postings in retrospect, that might make some difference - but of course you can't.
'Employers are also barred from compiling social media data as part of the hiring process unless it is "necessary and relevant" for a particular job'.
As determined by the employer, of course. I have enough experience with corporations - big and small - to understand that this kind of clause is nothing more than window dressing. It makes things look better, but changes nothing in practice.
The key issue is not about reading a person's online profile - anyone can do that. It's about forming judgments about someone's suitability for employment based on the profile.
It seems to me that the US and European views of the matter differ very markedly. Americans, as far as I can gather, tend to think that the employer should have full discretion to hire and fire at will. Europeans, rightly or wrongly, look for some kind of standards of fairness. You shouldn't be turned down for employment because someone disliked the way you look, or speak, or the colour of your skin or your religion. Or because you wrote something online that the employer found annoying.
It all depends on whether you believe people should have a right to employment on decent terms. If not, all this legislation should be repealed.
The US armed forces have been fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan for 16 years. Many people in Afghanistan hate them and wish they were gone.
Military robotics is a leading-edge field.
Hmmmmm.
https://www.amazon.com/Gone-To...
From https://www.counterpunch.org/2... :
"... there was a recent high-profile alleged rape case in Germany which was not a fake story and revealed much about the way some news is presented in the western media in bias against the admirable Ms Merkel."
See the word "admirable" there? That's absolutely unnecessary and unacceptable for a news story. Just tell me the facts, and let me decide whether Angela Merkel is "admirable" or not, and your "unbiased" source is not doing that. That single word tells me that the author of the piece is not politically unbiased, but has an agenda, and I need to be aware of that if I'm going to use his writing as a basis for my forming an opinion.
I am glad you raised that point. The main thing you have missed is that the article in question has no pretence at all to be a "news story". Indeed, it is obviously and unmistakeably opinion. Brian Cloughley has had a long and distinguished military career; the very first time I came across his name was in 2003 when Tony Blair had asserted that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons that could be ready to attack us within 45 minutes. Mr Cloughley wrote an article stating that he had been an officer in charge of NATO tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, and it took his highly-trained men several hours to do such a job. Thus Blair's claims were shown to be ridiculous. However, no mainstream newspaper or magazine or Web site would publish Mr Cloughley's article.
One other thing: when I read the article you cite, I boggled at the description of Frau Merkel as "admirable". My opinion of her is entirely different. But Mr Cloughley's praise gave me pause; I thought that if he thought her admirable, my judgment might be premature and ill-informed.
That is the thing about a world in which speech is free. Many different people express their various opinions, and we may agree strongly with some while disagreeing with others. That provides a system of checks and balances that helps us to moderate our views and get gradually closer to the truth.
You [Americans] (assuming you are), are always proud of your system. In fact you're so proud that you at one time shed blood in trying to "export" it to other parts of the world.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/...
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization".
Are you Jerry Weinberg? No, I thought not.Otherwise you would have got the quotation right:
"If builders built houses the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization".
You might at least acknowledge Weinberg as the author.
If only "science advisers" were honest, up-to-date working scientists willing to say exactly what they think without fear or favour.
However, most government "science advisers" are chosen by politicians and civil servants, on mainly political grounds, from the ranks of the "great and the good". In other words, they are likely to be elderly, dignified, wealthy, highly regarded by all - and not to have done any actual research, or read any current papers, for a good many years.
They are the kind of people who fall easily into line with government policies and politically correct views. They are the kind of people who agree that solar power (for instance) is far cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear, and who have a remarkable ability not to notice things like this: https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
A government of the idiots, by the idiots and for the idiots.
More accurately: a government of the people, by the employees of the super-rich, for the super-rich.
In one word, a plutocracy.