It was never supposed to be a sensible search engine. It was supposed to be a tool they could point to in their next lawsuit to pretend that legal sources don't change the behaviour or people.
Unfortunately for them the other, real, legal sources proved pretty much this.
Yet what remains is that "playing it safe" increasingly means that the opposite of what is wanted will be achieved. Legal departments are a pragmatic folk. How to avoid sexual harassment suits? By making sexual harassment impossible. How do you make it impossible? By not having men and women in the same department.
What you get that way is an odd kind of company policy of not mixing sexes, without it being written down (because then it could become a discrimination issue) but instead one of those "do it the way we say or we'll find some other reason to fire you" issues.
When you hear people say "I like working here, no women means no minefields", you know that something is going in a VERY wrong direction.
It isn't. But it's one more nail in the coffin, I hope.
You won't convince people to ditch something harmful if you have one huge story about how it fucks up lives. But if you keep the stories coming and if you can give them something else to read about it every day, eventually they'll catch on.
My right to my picture. Yes, such a thing exists in European law: Your face is yours, and only yours, and anyone wanting to take a picture of it needs your permission to do so. There are some exceptions like for celebrities, or when the picture taken is about, say, a building and you just happen to be in the picture and not in focus, but in general, if you want to do ANYTHING with a picture that has me on it, you need my ok.
Which is a pity, considering that he's more computer savvy and qualified for the job than the useless cunt that created the system. Who is, by the way, the one who should be thrown in the slammer and forbidden to ever come closer than a lightyear to a computer.
Government prosecutors actually think Hollywood produces documentaries.
Part of my job is to help law enforcement with computer related crimes. I really, really wish I could make at least half of the utter stupidity that drools out of some of the requests public.
They got lucky because he's in the same country and they can actually charge him. If he had been a, say, Russian hacker...
Ok, then we would probably not even hear about it because then they'd have to admit they fucked up and there's nothing they can blame but themselves for criminal neglect.
In other words, who says it didn't already happen exactly that way, too?
This isn't what I mean. What I mean is people chasing fairy tales and coming up with harebrained ideas about how the universe works to make their little fairy tale land "work". I'm not talking about someone not wanting to know everything. Nobody knows everything. I'm talking about people willfully and deliberately believing nonsense for the sake of not being "mainstream".
One thing, many things... in the end, it could well again have one single reason, or even many different ones. Maybe us looking for a single reason is the fault here. I don't know. I'm just certain that we'll get answers eventually. Maybe I'll even be still around when it happens.
We're living in times when our knowledge and understanding is jumping ahead at a pace unmatched by history. What you learned in school about the universe is most likely obsolete by now. And yes, that's scary to many people because they want to have certainty, and certainty is unfortunately unavailable in natural science.
We should side with competition. Capitalism preaches that competition in the market is good, monopolies are bad. Why should it be different for spying?
This would've been the moment for me where version 2.91 follows 2.89, with the patchnotes reading "2.90: Patch skipped because company (name) is too stupid to display it correctly".
Slashdot Mirror
So, the more you pay, the later you have to install their software.
Odd. In most other markets, you'd pay a premium to be first.
...which is usually a sign of faulty hardware and/or drivers.
When I part with money, it's on my terms, at least with a product that I can do without.
You want my money. So earn it by offering me something I want to buy.
It was never supposed to be a sensible search engine. It was supposed to be a tool they could point to in their next lawsuit to pretend that legal sources don't change the behaviour or people.
Unfortunately for them the other, real, legal sources proved pretty much this.
Like canaries or something.
You should not compare women to birds, it could be seen as objectification or worse.
yours,
legal department
We could treat sex as what it is, a hormone-filled expression of joy, lust, love, fun and a lot in between.
Nobody who knows anything about security would allow anything like this near his network. Let alone spend money on it.
Yet what remains is that "playing it safe" increasingly means that the opposite of what is wanted will be achieved. Legal departments are a pragmatic folk. How to avoid sexual harassment suits? By making sexual harassment impossible. How do you make it impossible? By not having men and women in the same department.
What you get that way is an odd kind of company policy of not mixing sexes, without it being written down (because then it could become a discrimination issue) but instead one of those "do it the way we say or we'll find some other reason to fire you" issues.
When you hear people say "I like working here, no women means no minefields", you know that something is going in a VERY wrong direction.
It's kinda sad when the only sweet words you get to hear is from a stalker who wants to sell you to the highest bidder.
It isn't. But it's one more nail in the coffin, I hope.
You won't convince people to ditch something harmful if you have one huge story about how it fucks up lives. But if you keep the stories coming and if you can give them something else to read about it every day, eventually they'll catch on.
And if music is for sale, it's already public too. You think the RIAA thinks it's ok if I start using it in the way I want to?
If you're running the algorithm on data you have no right to run it on, yes.
My right to my picture. Yes, such a thing exists in European law: Your face is yours, and only yours, and anyone wanting to take a picture of it needs your permission to do so. There are some exceptions like for celebrities, or when the picture taken is about, say, a building and you just happen to be in the picture and not in focus, but in general, if you want to do ANYTHING with a picture that has me on it, you need my ok.
Could they also be pissed enough to forbid accessing them from here?
Pretty please?
Which is a pity, considering that he's more computer savvy and qualified for the job than the useless cunt that created the system. Who is, by the way, the one who should be thrown in the slammer and forbidden to ever come closer than a lightyear to a computer.
Government prosecutors actually think Hollywood produces documentaries.
Part of my job is to help law enforcement with computer related crimes. I really, really wish I could make at least half of the utter stupidity that drools out of some of the requests public.
They got lucky because he's in the same country and they can actually charge him. If he had been a, say, Russian hacker...
Ok, then we would probably not even hear about it because then they'd have to admit they fucked up and there's nothing they can blame but themselves for criminal neglect.
In other words, who says it didn't already happen exactly that way, too?
If your government is too stupid to secure their databases, you go to jail.
This isn't what I mean. What I mean is people chasing fairy tales and coming up with harebrained ideas about how the universe works to make their little fairy tale land "work". I'm not talking about someone not wanting to know everything. Nobody knows everything. I'm talking about people willfully and deliberately believing nonsense for the sake of not being "mainstream".
One thing, many things... in the end, it could well again have one single reason, or even many different ones. Maybe us looking for a single reason is the fault here. I don't know. I'm just certain that we'll get answers eventually. Maybe I'll even be still around when it happens.
We're living in times when our knowledge and understanding is jumping ahead at a pace unmatched by history. What you learned in school about the universe is most likely obsolete by now. And yes, that's scary to many people because they want to have certainty, and certainty is unfortunately unavailable in natural science.
Yup. It just takes another Einstein, then we're gonna make another leap forwards.
We should side with competition. Capitalism preaches that competition in the market is good, monopolies are bad. Why should it be different for spying?
That one's easy, you just kick out the other rootkits and install your own.
But what really makes me angry is when someone else is doing that with boxes I have already "set up".
I mean, who enjoys competition in their core business?
This would've been the moment for me where version 2.91 follows 2.89, with the patchnotes reading "2.90: Patch skipped because company (name) is too stupid to display it correctly".