With the difference being that you'll live in that walled garden, whether you like it or not. There will be no alternative allowed, even if you knew one.
The open internet where everyone can create, publish and share, even if he can't afford throwing more money than a honest person can make in a lifetime at ISPs, that will be lost.
But then, who needs that, right? As long as we still have Facebook and Instagram and the other bullshit for the masses to keep them entertained, who needs anything else?
It worked for religion, why shouldn't it work for robots? The whole "don't kill" part in most religions that have it comes with a huge asterisk, usually reading "unless it's some foreigner" in the fine print.
I cannot be everywhere. And I know that I won't convince any hardcore bigoted asshole, but at least I can set the record straight. When I hear it. Not using such a practice, though, instantly debunks the argument completely. It still won't convince the bigot, but at least everyone can plainly see that he is one. Because such an argument would simply be ridiculous and verifiably bullshit.
People are not stupid. You can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced with flimsy, threadbare arguments, and they won't fall for arguments that are easily proven to be false. It's a completely different matter if those arguments can actually be true.
All I can do is make sure that the arguments of bigots don't work. If hiring and promotion hinge only on personal merit independent of any group membership, a bigot's arguments are completely toothless and everyone can plainly see that he's full of shit.
Oddly I didn't say it in this subthread yet, so here's my usual statement: If you want equality, you will have no bigger ally than me, if you try to get preferential treatment, you will have no bigger enemy. Because I've seen it time and again that the latter actually devalues any achievement someone from a disadvantaged group reaches. Plus it would make you exactly to what you claim to fight: Someone who thinks that you deserve something solely based on your gender, age, race, sexual orientation or some other innate trait and not your education, your achievements or your experiences.
I had to witness it a few times in a couple different companies now, as soon as companies start to give preferential treatment to disadvantaged groups, the achievements of people who are from such groups suddenly get seen in a different light, and everything is suddenly no longer this person's achievement but it's only due to being the (pardon the word) "quota ni..er". The word around the water cooler is suddenly no longer that he got the job or the promotion because he's the right person for the job but because he's (insert fitting slur here).
And that really bugs me when I know that he DID deserve that promotion exactly because he was the right person for it.
Do you see what's going on here? Instead of giving disadvantaged groups a leg up, you give the racist, misogynist and homophobe assholes a reason to reinforce their world view that someone "like this" couldn't make it on their own but only got where they are because they get freebies.
And THAT really bugs me. Because I did deserve the position that I have. I didn't get it by fucking the CEO.
I spend more time speaking German than French, if I have to speak either, so I knew that phrase from German, but thank you for providing the original source.
It comes down to the CISOs job. But I guess you never played at that level, else you'd know that not all C's are created equal. And unfortunately in most companies, the CISO is one of the lower tier C's, and certainly in no position to tell the likes of the CEO or CFO what they can or cannot do.
Yes, it would be his job to lay down the security rules. But as soon as it affects them personally, C[E|F]Os quickly start to forget their ISO9001 sheets...
With net neutrality in place, they would not even be theoretical.
Do you have fire insurance? If so, why? The risk of a fire in your house is merely theoretical, or is it on fire already? Are you wearing seat belts when driving, despite the merely theoretical chance of an accident?
It is called avoiding a risk. An unnecessary one, even.
The "pay me later" is a far greater cost, and may cost us our country. However, the idea of looking at consequences or long term thinking is not a Randian ideal, so maybe it should get thrown out. Five Year Plans are socialist, and all that jazz...
Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.
I tried to talk sense into you, I tried to leave your kids a world that they can live in. I honestly don't care anymore. I just really, really hope that all these assholes and idiots that prefer to believe what corporations with a vested interest in pumping pollution out instead of having to pay for your kids' clean future told them about those climate weenies trying to take away of life, I hope that your way of life leads straight into hell.
I just want to live long enough to see you cry over your kids not being able to grow up because there is no place for them to grow up in because of your ignorance and outright stupidity. No tears will have tasted sweeter ever.
Nope. By now, the whole thing has become a "real" investment item. And it IS the exactly same shit as in the 1920s, just WAY faster.
In the 1920s, you had a similar situation. An economy that was not worth investing in because there was simply not enough demand to warrant investing in "real" businesses. Any business was a risk, and ROI was mediocre. So investors were looking for something that would promise a better ROI. They found it in stock. Unregulated and a fairly reliable way to "park" your money. Stock was a pretty safe bet, too, it was an investment that simply couldn't go wrong. Sure, you could in theory lose it all, but compared with banks, it was actually more sensible to rely on large corporations than on your money being safe in banks.
What happens with stock if you pump more and more money into it? It rises. And soon the price of stocks had nothing to do anymore with the value of the underlying company. The stock price was supposedly representing a share of a company and representing that share of its value. That went out of the window in the middle of the 1920s. Stocks were bought and sold completely independent of the company that issued it. It was like back in the dot.com era. Just even more crazy.
What you dealt with were investors desperately looking for something to pump their investment money into. Resulting in a HUGE bubble.
Couple that with an interest rate that bordered on negative interest and you soon had "normal" people following suite. Average Joes that never touched stocks before in their life, ever, but hey, you just couldn't go wrong. You bought, and the price went up. So you bought more, using your stock as security for the loan you needed. And banks were more than happy to give you the money, one of the reasons interest rates were on the floor was that nobody wanted to take out loans for investment.
Soon the train of thought was "mortgage interest rates are WAY lower than what stock revenue gets me, I can easily cover the mortgage rates with the stock revenue".
That was September 1929.
The jig was up in October.
I think we're in for a very interesting year 2019.
Again, unless it HAS TO be split equally between both parents, there is still an incentive for employers to prefer men, simply because it's more likely that women take the leave rather than or at the very least longer than the men.
YOU tell a C-Level that he's not going to get administrative privileges on his machine, I dare you. And while you're at it, tell him he has to use the company proxy with the content filter.
Slashdot Mirror
Y...yeah, because ... Afghanistan was hellbent on removing internet access from the US...
That ... makes a lot of sense.
Security is simply no sales argument and can't compete with OHHH SHINY!!!!!
I feel like downloading it so we can reupload it in a few months. There's a meme in the making, I can feel it.
With the difference being that you'll live in that walled garden, whether you like it or not. There will be no alternative allowed, even if you knew one.
The open internet where everyone can create, publish and share, even if he can't afford throwing more money than a honest person can make in a lifetime at ISPs, that will be lost.
But then, who needs that, right? As long as we still have Facebook and Instagram and the other bullshit for the masses to keep them entertained, who needs anything else?
It worked for religion, why shouldn't it work for robots? The whole "don't kill" part in most religions that have it comes with a huge asterisk, usually reading "unless it's some foreigner" in the fine print.
In your position I wouldn't use Kaspersky Software either... ;)
And you think the SVR cares what you in the US do on your computer?
I cannot be everywhere. And I know that I won't convince any hardcore bigoted asshole, but at least I can set the record straight. When I hear it. Not using such a practice, though, instantly debunks the argument completely. It still won't convince the bigot, but at least everyone can plainly see that he is one. Because such an argument would simply be ridiculous and verifiably bullshit.
People are not stupid. You can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced with flimsy, threadbare arguments, and they won't fall for arguments that are easily proven to be false. It's a completely different matter if those arguments can actually be true.
All I can do is make sure that the arguments of bigots don't work. If hiring and promotion hinge only on personal merit independent of any group membership, a bigot's arguments are completely toothless and everyone can plainly see that he's full of shit.
Pretty much this.
Who can kick down your door for searching "questionable material" on the net? The FBI or the FSB?
If you don't let our spooks install backdoors into your software, no government contracts for you.
To what? Oh, to "Twitter Officially Launches 'Threads,' a New Feature For Easily Posting Tweetstorms"?
Oddly I didn't say it in this subthread yet, so here's my usual statement: If you want equality, you will have no bigger ally than me, if you try to get preferential treatment, you will have no bigger enemy. Because I've seen it time and again that the latter actually devalues any achievement someone from a disadvantaged group reaches. Plus it would make you exactly to what you claim to fight: Someone who thinks that you deserve something solely based on your gender, age, race, sexual orientation or some other innate trait and not your education, your achievements or your experiences.
I had to witness it a few times in a couple different companies now, as soon as companies start to give preferential treatment to disadvantaged groups, the achievements of people who are from such groups suddenly get seen in a different light, and everything is suddenly no longer this person's achievement but it's only due to being the (pardon the word) "quota ni..er". The word around the water cooler is suddenly no longer that he got the job or the promotion because he's the right person for the job but because he's (insert fitting slur here).
And that really bugs me when I know that he DID deserve that promotion exactly because he was the right person for it.
Do you see what's going on here? Instead of giving disadvantaged groups a leg up, you give the racist, misogynist and homophobe assholes a reason to reinforce their world view that someone "like this" couldn't make it on their own but only got where they are because they get freebies.
And THAT really bugs me. Because I did deserve the position that I have. I didn't get it by fucking the CEO.
Yes. Yes, this is exactly the joke. Thank you for pointing it out. It sure gets a lot more funny when it is explained.
I spend more time speaking German than French, if I have to speak either, so I knew that phrase from German, but thank you for providing the original source.
You needn't choose a country. This is America, you get them delivered right to your doorstep. For free.
Well, technically it's going to be more like your ISP. You cannot choose. The choice will be made for you, and you can like it or go to hell.
It comes down to the CISOs job. But I guess you never played at that level, else you'd know that not all C's are created equal. And unfortunately in most companies, the CISO is one of the lower tier C's, and certainly in no position to tell the likes of the CEO or CFO what they can or cannot do.
Yes, it would be his job to lay down the security rules. But as soon as it affects them personally, C[E|F]Os quickly start to forget their ISO9001 sheets...
With net neutrality in place, they would not even be theoretical.
Do you have fire insurance? If so, why? The risk of a fire in your house is merely theoretical, or is it on fire already?
Are you wearing seat belts when driving, despite the merely theoretical chance of an accident?
It is called avoiding a risk. An unnecessary one, even.
The "pay me later" is a far greater cost, and may cost us our country. However, the idea of looking at consequences or long term thinking is not a Randian ideal, so maybe it should get thrown out. Five Year Plans are socialist, and all that jazz...
Hopefully that's gonna be postponed 'til I'm dead. As the Germans say, "hinter mir die Sintflut" (it loses a bit in translation, basically it means "for all I care, the deluge may follow when I'm gone"). Literally.
I tried to talk sense into you, I tried to leave your kids a world that they can live in. I honestly don't care anymore. I just really, really hope that all these assholes and idiots that prefer to believe what corporations with a vested interest in pumping pollution out instead of having to pay for your kids' clean future told them about those climate weenies trying to take away of life, I hope that your way of life leads straight into hell.
I just want to live long enough to see you cry over your kids not being able to grow up because there is no place for them to grow up in because of your ignorance and outright stupidity. No tears will have tasted sweeter ever.
Fine by me.
We let the unwashed masses in once. They brought corporations and the feds along.
We will not make that mistake again.
Are we talking about the same feminists? I wouldn't exactly consider what the current batch of feminists are calling for "equality".
Nope. By now, the whole thing has become a "real" investment item. And it IS the exactly same shit as in the 1920s, just WAY faster.
In the 1920s, you had a similar situation. An economy that was not worth investing in because there was simply not enough demand to warrant investing in "real" businesses. Any business was a risk, and ROI was mediocre. So investors were looking for something that would promise a better ROI. They found it in stock. Unregulated and a fairly reliable way to "park" your money. Stock was a pretty safe bet, too, it was an investment that simply couldn't go wrong. Sure, you could in theory lose it all, but compared with banks, it was actually more sensible to rely on large corporations than on your money being safe in banks.
What happens with stock if you pump more and more money into it? It rises. And soon the price of stocks had nothing to do anymore with the value of the underlying company. The stock price was supposedly representing a share of a company and representing that share of its value. That went out of the window in the middle of the 1920s. Stocks were bought and sold completely independent of the company that issued it. It was like back in the dot.com era. Just even more crazy.
What you dealt with were investors desperately looking for something to pump their investment money into. Resulting in a HUGE bubble.
Couple that with an interest rate that bordered on negative interest and you soon had "normal" people following suite. Average Joes that never touched stocks before in their life, ever, but hey, you just couldn't go wrong. You bought, and the price went up. So you bought more, using your stock as security for the loan you needed. And banks were more than happy to give you the money, one of the reasons interest rates were on the floor was that nobody wanted to take out loans for investment.
Soon the train of thought was "mortgage interest rates are WAY lower than what stock revenue gets me, I can easily cover the mortgage rates with the stock revenue".
That was September 1929.
The jig was up in October.
I think we're in for a very interesting year 2019.
Same shit. Different unregulated speculation object.
In case you're wondering: NOW is the time to get out.
Again, unless it HAS TO be split equally between both parents, there is still an incentive for employers to prefer men, simply because it's more likely that women take the leave rather than or at the very least longer than the men.
YOU tell a C-Level that he's not going to get administrative privileges on his machine, I dare you. And while you're at it, tell him he has to use the company proxy with the content filter.