First, H1-B reform isn't going to happen under Cruz (or Clinton). Last I heard, Trump was actually in favor of doing something about the H1-B problem, though he changes his mind so much it's hard to know what he'd really do.
Anyway, these IT employees might finally have gotten the right idea: unionizing. Yeah, right now, if you refuse to train your replacement, then you can just be terminated and not get that juicy severance package. That works just fine when you're eliminating only part of the workforce. When you're replacing them all, and then they decide to unionize and none of them will train their replacements, that strategy doesn't work: those IT employees have all the institutional knowledge, and the company is just going to fail without it being passed on. The company can certainly just terminate them all and have the replacements try to figure it out on their own, but good luck with that. It'd be funny as hell to see a big news report about a company like this doing just that, and then having to declare bankruptcy shortly after when the whole thing collapses.
The discussion here is about whether it's acceptable or legal for Facebook to censor political posts, and someone brought up Common Carrier status. That's a US legal term that applies to ISPs and telecoms. Facebook is not a telecom or an ISP here in the US, they're merely an online service. What they do as a side project in some other country is irrelevant to this discussion.
If we were talking about Google, this would be a good point, because Google is indeed an ISP here (with Google Fiber in some locations).
Part of the problem with the "white man saves the day" plot is that it's insulting to indiginous peoples, that they can't save themselves and need some white savior who simultaneously assauges "white guilt". But they didn't have to go this way. They could have merely taken an easy copout and not cast some G.I. Joe clone for the lead role, maybe someone asian or hispanic. Or they could just have fixed the plot and made it realistic: that it's not due to Sully's great skill and bravery that he becomes Toruk Makto and "saves the day" (the natives are surely far better at doing "native stuff" than him); that it's the will of Eywa.
I think you're not giving the white guy enough credit. Any time you're fighting an enemy, especially if that enemy is very different from you, any intelligence (inside information) you can get on that enemy is extremely valuable. The Na'vi aren't stupid, but they're also not a technological species (and arguably because they didn't need to be; they have a great lifestyle as they are as they haven't overpopulated and outgrown their food supply as we humans did before we invented agriculture; basically they live in paradise). They don't have the kind of experience with warfare and combat that we do, and they sure as hell don't have the weaponry we do. But they do have real skills and talents, and then got themselves the most valuable asset of all: a defector from their enemy. There's a big reason the US encouraged defection from the USSR during the cold war: there's no better source of information. And not only did the white guy defect and join their cause, he became like them so he could understand them and communicate with them, so he knew about both sides and was able to use that to the Na'vi's advantage.
The same applies to where the natives seem to care most about what happens to all of the white people rather than their own. Such as after the battle when large numbers are dead or wounded and clustered around the Tree of Souls, but the whole tribe stops everything to hold a big ceremony to try to save Dr. Augustine.
Here again, it's a pretty powerful thing when someone from your enemy's side crosses over to your side, and then sacrifices their life for your cause in battling their own people. Any intelligent tribal species would understand just how significant this is, and accord such a person great respect.
Ok, but like every discussion of HTTPS-everywhere, you have failed to explain why this is important.
Why do I care if people can see what I read on a site? To give you an example, suppose you go to someinformationalsite.org, a completely static HTML site. Someone intercepting your traffic, HTTPS or not, will see that you've gone to someinformationalsite.org. With HTTPS, they can't easily read the actual content, with HTTP they can. But with HTTPS, they can just go to someinformationalsite.org by themselves, and see exactly why you're seeing. So why is it important for someinformationalsite.org to bother using HTTPS? They don't have anything to hide, in fact they cannot hide anything, because they're using plain ol' static HTML.
Since when do they have "common carrier" status? They're not an ISP, they're an online content platform. They have about as much responsibility to carry dissenting views as stormfront. No one depends on Facebook to get internet access.
I'd prefer they didn't at least not in any obnoxious way. Frequently getting support from someone can result in blowback from people who don't like them: for instance, getting an endorsement from the KKK is likely to hurt a political candidate, not help them.
Yes, it IS acceptable. In fact, if they decide to outright censor any pro-Trump postings, or any postings at all, that is also acceptable!
You know why? Because it's their system. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. If you don't like it, you can stop using it and use something else.
I disagree. Facebook is a private company, and not owned by the users. They should do whatever the hell they feel like. If users don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
Similarly, I think it'd be great if Microsoft forcibly inserted political ads in Windows 10. If users don't like it, they can stop using Windows.
The idea of using a private company's platform and then complaining when they don't give you the freedom to use it the way you want seems really naÃve to me.
That's completely different than the polls I've seen, which show Hillary polling much worse than Sanders among the general population. Sanders is having trouble among the Democrats because the party itself is corrupt and is trying to force Hillary on everyone, but when you poll the population at large he's the least disfavored of them all. I'm not so sure Hillary would win against Trump, but Sanders definitely would; Trump is just too disfavored. Hillary is highly disfavored too; Trump would have no shortage of ammunition to use against her in the general election, from her warmongering to all the blatant corruption with the Clinton Foundation, arms deals, etc.
If HTTPS is easily broken into, then why exactly should everyone bother using it? Not everyone is running an e-commerce site; if you're just running a small informational site, why should you care about HTTPS?
This is something that I've never seen explained. The whole HTTPS-anywhere trend these days just seems like a dumb bandwagon that people are jumping on to make them look like they're clued-in and knowledgeable.
From what I've read, the really young people (18-25) are abandoning Facebook in droves (or just not using it, and basically maintaining an account there so they can talk to their parents). It's the Gen-Xers and Millenials who are stupidly posting every detail of their lives to Facebook.
Exactly: if people are stupid enough to post their private data for the whole world to see it, the government has every right to "spy" on them by looking at it.
Yep, that's why I'm not too worried about this stuff. I have a FB account, so I don't look too suspicious, but I don't actually do anything with it.
I think FB's days are numbered, though: people are starting to figure out that putting their private stuff on there where the whole world can see it is not a smart move, and after enough people get fired from their jobs because of stuff they posted there, people are going to abandon it.
I'm using Ting, which is a similar company that uses Sprint and T-Mo (but not Verizon). I like it; it's pretty cheap and their customer service is good. I guess they can afford lower prices since they don't have to support thousands of retail shops...
And yes, Carlos Slim is a telecom billionaire in Mexico, one of the richest men in the world IIRC.
You still need a transmitter, and something the size of even a cellphone does not have enough power to send a signal from Pluto let alone across an interstellar distance (even if you're relaying it).
Secondly, the floor gaps in particular allow toilet paper to be passed around without having to open the door.
WTF? Who actually does this? Most decent restrooms these days have the toilet paper locked up in a dispenser anyway.
For my law, I'd first consult with the construction companies to make sure they don't get too swamped, but I do like the idea of them charging very high rates because of the huge demand and the likely need for long overtime hours. If construction workers have to work their asses off until midnight every night for a few months, but they get paid enough to take a 3-month vacation to Europe, send their kids to college, and pay their mortgages off on all the money they make, that sounds great to me. If all the businesses don't like it because it's going to cost a fortune, they can buy themselves some power tools and put their useless managers and executives to work doing it themselves, otherwise too bad: they shouldn't have been cheap-asses.
And airflow can be fixed with fans and vents: put some vents in at the floor (which pass air, but can't be seen through because of baffling) and put some exhaust fans in. Too many public restrooms don't have adequate ventilation anyway, and those gaps don't make up for it.
I disagree: that's doing it wrong too. Why should you be able to easily see the feet of the person sitting in a stall? Who came up with that utterly stupid idea anyway? Does it really save that much money to not extend the partition all the way to the floor?
But yeah, those gaps in the doors are stupid too.
Instead of passing laws about who can go in which bathroom, the NC legislature should pass a law banning shitty bathroom partitions. I'd be all in favor of that. And make it retroactive too: require ALL public bathrooms to install proper partitions within 3 months, or face heavy fines. It was their own stupid idea to install those cheap-ass partitions, so no, they don't deserve a break or to be "grandfathered". Fuck 'em. As a bonus, this would spur a lot of economic activity and support for blue-collar workers, as it'd force countless businesses to have to hire people to redo their bathrooms in very short order. Imagine the huge rates construction crews could charge for this, with the giant demand.
I thought we were supposed to hate microsoft, no apple, no google, no php, no ruby. Gosh I can't keep up with you kids with what to hate these days.
I'm really old-fashioned: I just really hate Microsoft, though I've grown a big dislike for Apple now too, and am becoming distrustful of Google. I haven't gotten around to hating all that other stuff yet.
Slashdot Mirror
First, H1-B reform isn't going to happen under Cruz (or Clinton). Last I heard, Trump was actually in favor of doing something about the H1-B problem, though he changes his mind so much it's hard to know what he'd really do.
Anyway, these IT employees might finally have gotten the right idea: unionizing. Yeah, right now, if you refuse to train your replacement, then you can just be terminated and not get that juicy severance package. That works just fine when you're eliminating only part of the workforce. When you're replacing them all, and then they decide to unionize and none of them will train their replacements, that strategy doesn't work: those IT employees have all the institutional knowledge, and the company is just going to fail without it being passed on. The company can certainly just terminate them all and have the replacements try to figure it out on their own, but good luck with that. It'd be funny as hell to see a big news report about a company like this doing just that, and then having to declare bankruptcy shortly after when the whole thing collapses.
The discussion here is about whether it's acceptable or legal for Facebook to censor political posts, and someone brought up Common Carrier status. That's a US legal term that applies to ISPs and telecoms. Facebook is not a telecom or an ISP here in the US, they're merely an online service. What they do as a side project in some other country is irrelevant to this discussion.
If we were talking about Google, this would be a good point, because Google is indeed an ISP here (with Google Fiber in some locations).
Part of the problem with the "white man saves the day" plot is that it's insulting to indiginous peoples, that they can't save themselves and need some white savior who simultaneously assauges "white guilt". But they didn't have to go this way. They could have merely taken an easy copout and not cast some G.I. Joe clone for the lead role, maybe someone asian or hispanic. Or they could just have fixed the plot and made it realistic: that it's not due to Sully's great skill and bravery that he becomes Toruk Makto and "saves the day" (the natives are surely far better at doing "native stuff" than him); that it's the will of Eywa.
I think you're not giving the white guy enough credit. Any time you're fighting an enemy, especially if that enemy is very different from you, any intelligence (inside information) you can get on that enemy is extremely valuable. The Na'vi aren't stupid, but they're also not a technological species (and arguably because they didn't need to be; they have a great lifestyle as they are as they haven't overpopulated and outgrown their food supply as we humans did before we invented agriculture; basically they live in paradise). They don't have the kind of experience with warfare and combat that we do, and they sure as hell don't have the weaponry we do. But they do have real skills and talents, and then got themselves the most valuable asset of all: a defector from their enemy. There's a big reason the US encouraged defection from the USSR during the cold war: there's no better source of information. And not only did the white guy defect and join their cause, he became like them so he could understand them and communicate with them, so he knew about both sides and was able to use that to the Na'vi's advantage.
The same applies to where the natives seem to care most about what happens to all of the white people rather than their own. Such as after the battle when large numbers are dead or wounded and clustered around the Tree of Souls, but the whole tribe stops everything to hold a big ceremony to try to save Dr. Augustine.
Here again, it's a pretty powerful thing when someone from your enemy's side crosses over to your side, and then sacrifices their life for your cause in battling their own people. Any intelligent tribal species would understand just how significant this is, and accord such a person great respect.
Only a complete moron would think that Denmark is a communist country.
"Common carrier status" is a term out of US law.
India is not subject to US law. It's a separate country.
Ok, but like every discussion of HTTPS-everywhere, you have failed to explain why this is important.
Why do I care if people can see what I read on a site? To give you an example, suppose you go to someinformationalsite.org, a completely static HTML site. Someone intercepting your traffic, HTTPS or not, will see that you've gone to someinformationalsite.org. With HTTPS, they can't easily read the actual content, with HTTP they can. But with HTTPS, they can just go to someinformationalsite.org by themselves, and see exactly why you're seeing. So why is it important for someinformationalsite.org to bother using HTTPS? They don't have anything to hide, in fact they cannot hide anything, because they're using plain ol' static HTML.
Since when do they have "common carrier" status? They're not an ISP, they're an online content platform. They have about as much responsibility to carry dissenting views as stormfront. No one depends on Facebook to get internet access.
I'd prefer they didn't at least not in any obnoxious way. Frequently getting support from someone can result in blowback from people who don't like them: for instance, getting an endorsement from the KKK is likely to hurt a political candidate, not help them.
Yes, it IS acceptable. In fact, if they decide to outright censor any pro-Trump postings, or any postings at all, that is also acceptable!
You know why? Because it's their system. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. If you don't like it, you can stop using it and use something else.
I disagree. Facebook is a private company, and not owned by the users. They should do whatever the hell they feel like. If users don't like it, they can go elsewhere.
Similarly, I think it'd be great if Microsoft forcibly inserted political ads in Windows 10. If users don't like it, they can stop using Windows.
The idea of using a private company's platform and then complaining when they don't give you the freedom to use it the way you want seems really naÃve to me.
That's completely different than the polls I've seen, which show Hillary polling much worse than Sanders among the general population. Sanders is having trouble among the Democrats because the party itself is corrupt and is trying to force Hillary on everyone, but when you poll the population at large he's the least disfavored of them all. I'm not so sure Hillary would win against Trump, but Sanders definitely would; Trump is just too disfavored. Hillary is highly disfavored too; Trump would have no shortage of ammunition to use against her in the general election, from her warmongering to all the blatant corruption with the Clinton Foundation, arms deals, etc.
If HTTPS is easily broken into, then why exactly should everyone bother using it? Not everyone is running an e-commerce site; if you're just running a small informational site, why should you care about HTTPS?
This is something that I've never seen explained. The whole HTTPS-anywhere trend these days just seems like a dumb bandwagon that people are jumping on to make them look like they're clued-in and knowledgeable.
From what I've read, the really young people (18-25) are abandoning Facebook in droves (or just not using it, and basically maintaining an account there so they can talk to their parents). It's the Gen-Xers and Millenials who are stupidly posting every detail of their lives to Facebook.
Exactly: if people are stupid enough to post their private data for the whole world to see it, the government has every right to "spy" on them by looking at it.
Yep, that's why I'm not too worried about this stuff. I have a FB account, so I don't look too suspicious, but I don't actually do anything with it.
I think FB's days are numbered, though: people are starting to figure out that putting their private stuff on there where the whole world can see it is not a smart move, and after enough people get fired from their jobs because of stuff they posted there, people are going to abandon it.
What company is this?
I'm using Ting, which is a similar company that uses Sprint and T-Mo (but not Verizon). I like it; it's pretty cheap and their customer service is good. I guess they can afford lower prices since they don't have to support thousands of retail shops...
And yes, Carlos Slim is a telecom billionaire in Mexico, one of the richest men in the world IIRC.
You still need a transmitter, and something the size of even a cellphone does not have enough power to send a signal from Pluto let alone across an interstellar distance (even if you're relaying it).
I'll elect Trump over Hillary, because again, I'd take GW Bush over Hitler.
Secondly, the floor gaps in particular allow toilet paper to be passed around without having to open the door.
WTF? Who actually does this? Most decent restrooms these days have the toilet paper locked up in a dispenser anyway.
For my law, I'd first consult with the construction companies to make sure they don't get too swamped, but I do like the idea of them charging very high rates because of the huge demand and the likely need for long overtime hours. If construction workers have to work their asses off until midnight every night for a few months, but they get paid enough to take a 3-month vacation to Europe, send their kids to college, and pay their mortgages off on all the money they make, that sounds great to me. If all the businesses don't like it because it's going to cost a fortune, they can buy themselves some power tools and put their useless managers and executives to work doing it themselves, otherwise too bad: they shouldn't have been cheap-asses.
And airflow can be fixed with fans and vents: put some vents in at the floor (which pass air, but can't be seen through because of baffling) and put some exhaust fans in. Too many public restrooms don't have adequate ventilation anyway, and those gaps don't make up for it.
I live in a swing state. I'm so disgusted by Hillary (and her supporters) that I'm going to vote for Trump if the race is between her and him.
-1 Stupid.
Why aren't you complaining about how Windows is "so hard to adapt to"? After all, to run Excel in Windows, you can type Win+R and type "excel" there.
I disagree. I live in a small town, and T-mo was basically unusable, whereas Sprint is almost OK, but still very problematic.
But it's a lot better than Verizon because I don't have to trade my car in for a beater and move into a shack to pay the phone bill.
I disagree: that's doing it wrong too. Why should you be able to easily see the feet of the person sitting in a stall? Who came up with that utterly stupid idea anyway? Does it really save that much money to not extend the partition all the way to the floor?
But yeah, those gaps in the doors are stupid too.
Instead of passing laws about who can go in which bathroom, the NC legislature should pass a law banning shitty bathroom partitions. I'd be all in favor of that. And make it retroactive too: require ALL public bathrooms to install proper partitions within 3 months, or face heavy fines. It was their own stupid idea to install those cheap-ass partitions, so no, they don't deserve a break or to be "grandfathered". Fuck 'em. As a bonus, this would spur a lot of economic activity and support for blue-collar workers, as it'd force countless businesses to have to hire people to redo their bathrooms in very short order. Imagine the huge rates construction crews could charge for this, with the giant demand.
and yet so many continued to use and support the ReiserFS file system
They do? I don't think I've heard of anyone using resierfs for ages, especially after ext4 took over and then btrfs started getting some uptake.
I thought we were supposed to hate microsoft, no apple, no google, no php, no ruby. Gosh I can't keep up with you kids with what to hate these days.
I'm really old-fashioned: I just really hate Microsoft, though I've grown a big dislike for Apple now too, and am becoming distrustful of Google. I haven't gotten around to hating all that other stuff yet.