You are still blaming people's "greed" for something you dislike, while neither confirming nor denying (despite a direct question), that people have become greedier today, than they were 50 and/or 100 years ago.
The question, thus, is no longer why is Google doing certain things, but why is CaptainDork dodging a question. And I'm not interested...
Things aren't what they used to be. And they never were.
The buzzword for that is, "greed."
Are the people of today greedier, than they were 50 or 100 years ago? Can you substantiate such a claim?
The end.
The end? Oh, no! Clearly, what we are witnessing is a market failure — KKKapitali$m is revealed once again to be inherently incapable of providing Internet-service to the poor via solar-powered drone — which means, it should be nationalized. Then, the selflessy well-paid unionized workers, lead by the omniscient government officials will secure the human rights of the downtrodden.
Maybe, the angle is, Zuckerberg is among the Trump-haters? In particular, he is opposed to Trump's efforts to regain control of immigration:
Facebook founder, chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is also a co-founder of the immigration reform group FWD.us, which has criticized Donald Trump's immigration policies. At Facebook's F78 developer conference on April 12, 2016, Zuckerberg referenced Trump's position, saying, "I'm starting to see people and nations turning inward, against this idea of a connected world and a global community," he said. "I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as others."
His stated desire for ever more immigrants (like myself) to come here to live next to you and me seems at odds with his manifested desire to live away from the "unwashed" masses... And hypocrisy — or even appearance of hypocrisy — is always newsworthy.
Let's see... An organization's management wishes for the lower-level employees of the organization to seek the management's approval before publishing the organization's documents outside of the organization... Yes, outrageous... Impeach now!
Science. Allow me to repeat that - Science. You are apparently celebrating that when Science is not in lockstep with Policy, it must be suppressed.
There was nothing in the memo about "science" — nor about "suppression", actually. It is all your and your team's fear-mongering.
You and your team are rapidly becoming the policy equivalent of 1930's Bolsheviks [...] See Lysenkoism
Define "document". In particular, define "public-facing document", that the memo actually talks about.
Yes, it is poorly-worded, but the interpretation chosen by these critics is sensationalist and partisan. Had the same truth-twisting taken place a year ago, you would've denounced it as racist. So sad...
Very good. Now explain, how does "public-facing documents" become "publicly funded science"?
It takes a creative person with a giant "I'm with her" chip on his shoulder to turn one into the other.
the submitted headline was accurate
Nope, it was not. It reflected neither the actual state of affairs, nor the emphasis of TFA, which only referred to the "ban" on sharing scientific data with the caveat-emptor of "reportedly". Fake News. So sad...
The Trump administration just need a little time to get the alternative facts ready.
Trump's facts certainly are a welcome alternative to the Fake News publicized by the Trump-haters among Slashdotters. The original submission, for example, claimed, in its very title:
US Government Employees Banned from Sharing Publicly Funded Science
when the truth is:
the gag order specifically applies to policy-related statements in press releases and interviews, which need to be vetted with the secretary of agriculture
Interesting links, but I don't see how it constitutes a "big lie". The Gallup blog's title seems strikingly sensationalistic—especially considering it's from the Gallup CEO.
Maybe, this explanation will help you understand, what Gallup's CEO was trying to say. In particular (emphasis mine):
if you are so hopelessly out of work that you’ve stopped looking over the past four weeks — the Department of Labor doesn’t count you as unemployed
and:
Say you’re an out-of-work engineer or health care worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work a week and are paid at least $20 you’re not officially counted as unemployed in the much reported 5.6 percent.
But, hey, maybe, the government has always counted things this way — and Obama is simply continuing the misleading practice?
No, employees of the Census Bureau were actually faking data, and the Bureau knew it.
The lesson here is that no one should be trusted with statements, that benefit him. When there is a conflict of interest — be it a President lauding his achievements, a Climate Scientist defending his discipline's grave importance to humanity, or a salesman hawking his product, the spin and "alternative facts" are the matter of course.
I personally remember when government data back early in the Reagan presidency went from reporting nearly 15% unemployment nationwide to well under 6% by redefining what "unemployed" meant.
Why go back to Reagan — a hateful RethugliKKKan — (with an uncited "drive-by" accusation) when a beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner did just such a big liein 2010?
And, if we are searching for the first such lie, we ought to go to, at least, F.D. Roosevelt — another beloved Democrat — and his redefining the price of gold and silver.
You claimed, the victim never contacted police. Not before, not after. Your precise words were:
I do note that at no time he said he approached the police.
See? "At no time". Your inability to read fed back to you, you now claim — as if it mattered — that, because he only did it after his own investigation (contrary to your earlier claim, he never did it at all), it is Ok for him to never receive his stolen property back...
I wish, all America-haters were as obviously dishonest as you... I'm done here.
I do note that at no time he said he approached the police
Wow... Let's see (emphasis mine):
The Slashdot write-up says:
turned over all the information to the police
TFA says:
Gale did take all the information to Cochrane RCMP who says they are confident an arrest will follow.
The rest of the world does not have the same fucked relationship as you do with your police.
And yet, for some reason, the victim in TFA does not expect to see his laptop ever again anyway... Maybe, in his country the relationship between police and the policed is even worse than in the US, uhm?..
"I'm realistic. I'm not going to see that computer again"
From what anecdotal evidence I have myself, he is right. Even if police do find the asshole-thief and take the laptop from him, the victim is not going to receive it. They'll keep it "for the duration of the investigation" and then it might just "disappear" from the evidence room.
And the next asshole-thief (this one with a police ID) will be smart enough to wipe it so as not get caught the same way. And, even if he does not, calling police again will not be fruitful — police protect their own, "because no one else would".
Oh, and the original thief will not do any actual time either (much less have his hand chopped-off) — unless, maybe, this is his third offense in a "three strikes" state.
While it may seem petty, theft costs humanity immensely — if you count the things we all have to do to keep it under control...
Without the Capitalism in general and the greedy KKKorporation$ in particular, how would the gentle and human-faced Socialism even know, what to mandate?
From flush toilets, to personal automobile, to "EpiPen" — wonderful things get made and offered for sale by the folks seeking to profit from the sales.
Some of these wonderful inventions are then mandated by the government — for example, in most of the US an apartment can not be offered for rent without a) refrigerator; b) stove; c) flush toilet. But without the greedy (and arrogant) corporations making those things available — and affordable — first, how would these regulators even know, what to mandate?
Tump with getting elected without the popular vote + stating negative comments towards nearly anyone who didn't fully indorse him (people, corporations and countries) + have a reputation as a a bully and in general everything wrong with America.
So, if he is whacked today before taking office (and Obama appoints the next President, as CNN helpfully advised us will happen), you'll be relieved and think — perhaps even state — the murderer has done all of a us a favor?
I ask you once again for a citation... Which law is it, which specifically makes it illegal for White men to be paid more?
Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for race to be a consideration, when making hiring or compensation decisions. As long as you don't do that, your Whites may still end up paid better. Yes, some Social Justice busy-bodies would take such statistics and claim them to be evidence of racism. They do make a lot of noise, and the current boss of the Labor Department (one more day, baby!) seems to share their persuasion, but there is no evidence supporting that position. Neither of:
Whites are paid more; nor
Blacks are incarcerated more;
are in themselves proof of racism.
if you employ a woman of child bearing age
TFA is about race. Try to keep up.
How do you form such a strong opinion and not know even the most basic facts about the subject?!
An online connected system is much more at risk than one needing an inside manual hand
Is it? Why? I can imagine a number of scenarios, when it may be easier to corrupt a human being, than to break the security software and/or encryption keys...
Mission critical should be air-gapped so that the risks can be reduced.
Iran's nuclear centrifuges were air-gapped. It did not save them... Worse, it may have made the break-in easier, while making its detection and cleanup harder.
Slashdot Mirror
You drooled...
You are still blaming people's "greed" for something you dislike, while neither confirming nor denying (despite a direct question), that people have become greedier today, than they were 50 and/or 100 years ago.
The question, thus, is no longer why is Google doing certain things, but why is CaptainDork dodging a question. And I'm not interested...
Things aren't what they used to be. And they never were.
Are the people of today greedier, than they were 50 or 100 years ago? Can you substantiate such a claim?
The end? Oh, no! Clearly, what we are witnessing is a market failure — KKKapitali$m is revealed once again to be inherently incapable of providing Internet-service to the poor via solar-powered drone — which means, it should be nationalized. Then, the selflessy well-paid unionized workers, lead by the omniscient government officials will secure the human rights of the downtrodden.
Still empty and meaningless without citations.
Claims like yours are empty and meaningless without citations. But then, again, all your claims are empty and meaningless...
No, he didn't. Alternative facts much?
The goal is energy, not employment. We don't build factories and plants to keep people busy...
Mexico's currency tumbled as a result — are you sure, it was Trump, who got embarrassed by the cancellation?
Maybe, the angle is, Zuckerberg is among the Trump-haters? In particular, he is opposed to Trump's efforts to regain control of immigration:
His stated desire for ever more immigrants (like myself) to come here to live next to you and me seems at odds with his manifested desire to live away from the "unwashed" masses... And hypocrisy — or even appearance of hypocrisy — is always newsworthy.
Because Facebook?
Is not building roads/bridges/tunnels something, only a government can do? Crazy Libertarians may disagree, but we know, they are wacko...
Let's see... An organization's management wishes for the lower-level employees of the organization to seek the management's approval before publishing the organization's documents outside of the organization... Yes, outrageous... Impeach now!
There was nothing in the memo about "science" — nor about "suppression", actually. It is all your and your team's fear-mongering.
Wait a minute. It is You and your team, that sought civil and even criminal prosecution of people disagreeing with the modern-day Lysenkos. For treason and crimes against humanity, no less. And you are telling me about Bolsheviks? See Projection.
Define "document". In particular, define "public-facing document", that the memo actually talks about.
Yes, it is poorly-worded, but the interpretation chosen by these critics is sensationalist and partisan. Had the same truth-twisting taken place a year ago, you would've denounced it as racist. So sad...
Very good. Now explain, how does "public-facing documents" become "publicly funded science"?
It takes a creative person with a giant "I'm with her" chip on his shoulder to turn one into the other.
Nope, it was not. It reflected neither the actual state of affairs, nor the emphasis of TFA, which only referred to the "ban" on sharing scientific data with the caveat-emptor of "reportedly". Fake News. So sad...
Trump's facts certainly are a welcome alternative to the Fake News publicized by the Trump-haters among Slashdotters. The original submission, for example, claimed, in its very title:
when the truth is:
Maybe, this explanation will help you understand, what Gallup's CEO was trying to say. In particular (emphasis mine):
and:
But, hey, maybe, the government has always counted things this way — and Obama is simply continuing the misleading practice?
No, employees of the Census Bureau were actually faking data, and the Bureau knew it.
The lesson here is that no one should be trusted with statements, that benefit him. When there is a conflict of interest — be it a President lauding his achievements, a Climate Scientist defending his discipline's grave importance to humanity, or a salesman hawking his product, the spin and "alternative facts" are the matter of course.
Why go back to Reagan — a hateful RethugliKKKan — (with an uncited "drive-by" accusation) when a beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner did just such a big lie in 2010?
And, if we are searching for the first such lie, we ought to go to, at least, F.D. Roosevelt — another beloved Democrat — and his redefining the price of gold and silver.
You claimed, the victim never contacted police. Not before, not after. Your precise words were:
See? "At no time". Your inability to read fed back to you, you now claim — as if it mattered — that, because he only did it after his own investigation (contrary to your earlier claim, he never did it at all), it is Ok for him to never receive his stolen property back...
I wish, all America-haters were as obviously dishonest as you... I'm done here.
Wow... Let's see (emphasis mine):
The Slashdot write-up says: turned over all the information to the police TFA says: Gale did take all the information to Cochrane RCMP who says they are confident an arrest will follow.Fake News much?
And yet, for some reason, the victim in TFA does not expect to see his laptop ever again anyway... Maybe, in his country the relationship between police and the policed is even worse than in the US, uhm?..
From what anecdotal evidence I have myself, he is right. Even if police do find the asshole-thief and take the laptop from him, the victim is not going to receive it. They'll keep it "for the duration of the investigation" and then it might just "disappear" from the evidence room.
And the next asshole-thief (this one with a police ID) will be smart enough to wipe it so as not get caught the same way. And, even if he does not, calling police again will not be fruitful — police protect their own, "because no one else would".
Oh, and the original thief will not do any actual time either (much less have his hand chopped-off) — unless, maybe, this is his third offense in a "three strikes" state.
While it may seem petty, theft costs humanity immensely — if you count the things we all have to do to keep it under control...
Without the Capitalism in general and the greedy KKKorporation$ in particular, how would the gentle and human-faced Socialism even know, what to mandate?
From flush toilets, to personal automobile, to "EpiPen" — wonderful things get made and offered for sale by the folks seeking to profit from the sales.
Some of these wonderful inventions are then mandated by the government — for example, in most of the US an apartment can not be offered for rent without a) refrigerator; b) stove; c) flush toilet. But without the greedy (and arrogant) corporations making those things available — and affordable — first, how would these regulators even know, what to mandate?
No, actually, I haven't. Maybe, because there were very few, and the idiots got promptly prosecuted?
So, if he is whacked today before taking office (and Obama appoints the next President, as CNN helpfully advised us will happen), you'll be relieved and think — perhaps even state — the murderer has done all of a us a favor?
I ask you once again for a citation... Which law is it, which specifically makes it illegal for White men to be paid more?
Anti-discrimination laws make it illegal for race to be a consideration, when making hiring or compensation decisions. As long as you don't do that, your Whites may still end up paid better. Yes, some Social Justice busy-bodies would take such statistics and claim them to be evidence of racism. They do make a lot of noise, and the current boss of the Labor Department (one more day, baby!) seems to share their persuasion, but there is no evidence supporting that position. Neither of:
are in themselves proof of racism.
TFA is about race. Try to keep up.
How do you form such a strong opinion and not know even the most basic facts about the subject?!
Is it? Why? I can imagine a number of scenarios, when it may be easier to corrupt a human being, than to break the security software and/or encryption keys...
Iran's nuclear centrifuges were air-gapped. It did not save them... Worse, it may have made the break-in easier, while making its detection and cleanup harder.