The simple fact is that realistically all it would take is a whiff of impropriety and you're fucked
Not really, no. It'd have to result in a formal complaint to HR (unlikely), HR would have to believe the best solution is to fire you (very, very, unlikely), and so on. A bad relationship? These things happen, and in most companies the people in those bad relationships tend to work it out themselves without getting the company involved. Usually that's just being professionals - we all work with people we don't like from time to time.
Note that none of the cases in the headlines are as you describe. They're not people who were in bad relationships, they're cases where a single man has groped, used his power to force sex with, or even drugged, multiple women. This story is interesting in that it's apparently one woman that made the complaint, but I bet you if you scratch below the surface you'll see that she wasn't the only victim which is why Google were so keen to get rid of him. They certainly weren't in fear of a lawsuit, as that would have cost somewhat less than Rubin's severance.
trying to fish off the company pier is probably the worst out of all of them.
It's not ideal, but it's the 21st Century, and in the US in particular with its lack of social spaces, it's the most available and common way to get hitched. It's fine as long as you're not a predator.
The men who are being #metoo'd are not being fired for bad relationships, they're being fired for multiple incidents of horrendous behavior.
Paranoia is a useful instinct, but sometimes it's whipped up by people with agendas, and harmful and needs to be overcome.
No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.
Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault. Additionally, virtually all have been corroborated in some way. Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice. Cosby admitted his behavior in a court deposition on an unrelated case. Weinstein's own staff supported the allegations of multiple victims, and other directors - such as Peter Jackson - came forward to confirm that women who didn't cooperate with Weinstein were smeared and blacklisted.
Second, virtually none of the #metoo claims (none I can think of) involve relationships that have gone wrong.
Third problem: there are multiple disincentives for making false allegations: most women who have come forward have seen negative consequences for their careers despite apparently telling the truth. Now imagine that some idiot makes a false allegation against every ex-boyfriend who she has a bad break-up with. How credible do you think she'd be?
Now, that said, remember that we're talking about here are nerds frightened to date because they think they'll be #metoo'd if they ask Karen from Accounts Receivable on a date. They're not going to be #metoo'd for asking Karen for a date. They will probably suffer an immediate hostile response if they just jump in with a date request without spending some time getting to know her, but it's not likely to go to HR. Frankly, it's not likely to go to HR if it involves a stolen kiss, however gross that might have been for the poor woman, because she's (A) had to put up with this shit for most of her life and knows there are no consequences for people who do this and (B) she'd be embarrassed and unlikely to say anything anyway.
I'm not saying that because I think you should behave that way. Of course not! (1) You'd be an asshole if you did, and (2) if you're really interested in a date with Karen then you probably want her to be happy, rather than feeling disgusting and humiliated. But the point I'm making is that women put up with rather a lot of low level shit that you'd never think would be tolerated, so the paranoia about #metoo isn't justified. Let things happen naturally. Try not to be a dork. If it's not to be, it's not to be, be prepared to let go.
You definitely shouldn't be putting your life on hold because you think the moment you ask Karen to lunch Gloria Allred's going to appear out of nowhere demanding you be fired and Karen gets paid one kagillion dollars.
If you're a paranoid Slashdotter who thinks feminism is scary, then sure. If, on the other hand, you let things happen naturally (as opposed to begging everyone in a skirt for sex), and avoid dating people who work under or over you (this isn't new, the view bosses shouldn't have sex with subordinates is something I remember learning in the 1980s, before I even gained employment myself), you'll be fine.
Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!
FWIW, I met my future wife at work. We did lunch a few times, and one thing lead to another, and, well, we're married. With a beautiful kid who's smarter than I am. In the real world, rather than Eric Raymond's blog, this is fine and normal and the way the world works. Stop worrying, just... you know... don't be an asshole and you'll be fine.
I suspect relatively few people would have heard of this if Samsung hadn't proposed suing. Even if we did, we wouldn't have thought about the implications.
But, now you're suing. You're not tearing up a contract, you're suggesting it's a REALLY BIG DEAL by suing for millions of dollars. And so we're forced to look at the story closer, and realize that, yeah, it kinda is a really big deal. I mean, most of us wouldn't care that deeply about what we use. I'm an Android user, but if I were paid to use an iPhone for a year, I'd use it, it'd be my primary phone.
It's hard to imagine a situation where I'd risk not receiving the money because of some minor quibble about the UI, or lack of user programmability, or whatever.
Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck. I mean, like really suck. I mean, why would someone actually ditch a phone they're paid to use for a friggin' iPhone? People, the iPhone's UI isn't that compelling, it's nice, but... OMG the Samsung UI must be just awful. Awful.
So now we realize why Samsung considers it a really big deal. By using an iPhone, this Russian celebrity has just told the world that the Samsung phone he was paid to use is the worst phone in the entire universe, that it's practically unusable, and you should probably avoid it.
I had a Galaxy Nexus once. I hated it. So I can sympathize.
But just think, if Samsung had just decided to quietly terminate the contract, nobody, not me, not you, would have ever gone through this thought process.
To be honest, computer networks were rare until the very late eighties, early nineties, and until the mid-nineties paper memos were more common than email. Early email clients weren't exactly office friendly, Ethernet was expensive on a per-PC basis (it cost more to add an Ethernet or ARCNet card than a printer, for the most part), and most office workers didn't even have a PC; so yeah, the GP is right, the dates don't add up. If the obesity panic started in the 1980s, then it wasn't us.
There's a bunch of theories, but one of the most convincing to me is that the diet foods fads really started pumping themselves into high gear in the 1980s. But that's because of the obesity, right? Well, could be, but there's always been a market for weight loss products.
Diet Coke came out in 1982, which was too early to be a response to the problem.
What do we know about Diet Coke? We know that recent studies have shown that sugar substitutes, such as those in Diet Coke, appear to be harmful to stomach bacteria.
What else happened in the 1980s? Well, everything went "low fat". Because fat is fattening, I mean, it's right there in the name, right? But they replaced the fat with sugar, because low fat stuff tastes awful. Have you ever had full fat yogurt? Oh my God, it's fucking delicious. Hard to get it these days because yogurt's a healthy thing, which means the only version they market heavily is the diet stuff, because people who buy yogurt want it to be low fat because they think that's healthy. But "low fat" yogurt is full of sugar.
So, no real decrease in calories, the food industry marketing stuff with an implied message of "Eat and drink as much of this shit as you want, it's low fat therefore you won't get fat!", and meanwhile Coca Cola and Pepsi are killing your digestive system.
I have a feeling that this is close to the right answer.
Reading more, including other stories and the Wikipedia article, apparently the removal is done by the security scan part of the Play Store which reports on installed apps that might be untrustworthy. Aptoide isn't curated (the default repos may be, but the entire concept is that you add repos for the software you want), I suspect that it's flagged for that reason, as a potential source of malware.
My guess is that if Aptoide didn't allow user defined repos, it probably wouldn't be being targeted by Google, because then it'd be just another curated app store, like the Amazon one.
There are numerous third party app stores, and I've never heard of Google forcibly removing any of them. I've bought quite a few phone from Amazon that include a discount in return for having the Amazon suite (including the Amazon app store) pre-installed, and none of them has had this problem.
What is it about this specific app store that's making Google feel it has the right to forcibly remove it?
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
Just a guess, but are you one of those people the flyers coming from the Republican Party delivered to my door are aimed at? The ones that say you can't vote for Jack Johnson (D) because he wants to abolish ICE? The ones that are designed to make people think (actually, they usually say it explicitly) that abolishing ICE means abolishing immigration controls and not putting anything in its place?
My sincere recommendation to you is read what the people you're arguing against are actually arguing. Relatively few are saying they don't care about citizenship or protecting our borders. What they're arguing is:
1. ICE is full of inhumane shitheads and cannot be reformed. It needs to be abolished with its responsibilities transferred somewhere else, perhaps to agencies structured as they were before 9/11.
2. Legal immigration, such as asylum, is being handled inhumanely, for example the permanent child separation policies of the current administration.
3. Illegal immigration is being handled badly and the laws don't reflect the reality on the ground. People are being deported to places that have never been their homes. Others are being encouraged to enter on the sly by one set of forces and deported by another.
4. Over-zealous enforcement of immigration laws is making it harder to enforce other laws. Women are being deported because they contacted the police after being beaten by their husbands. Entire communities are refusing to report crimes in their neighborhoods for fear of ICE attention. Local governments, with the support of local law enforcement, who have tried to overcome this by not cooperating with ICE (so-called "Sanctuary cities") have been vilified and, ironically, have been criticized as encouraging crime, when their aim was to prevent a focus on a minor crime from preventing them from taking action against serious crimes.
The Republicans, who control every branch of government, have had two years to introduce humane reforms. If they believed ICE was reformable they could have done it. If they wanted to create a solution for Dreamers et al, they could have done it. They've refused, ideologically, to do so, with those in control of the executive apparently intentionally enforcing the laws in the most inhumane way possible, and with no attempt to change executive policy by Congress.
Maybe this is what you want. Or not. But reforms that include abolishing ICE, enshrining Obama's Dreamers policy into law, and placing restrictions on the executive's ability to abuse the asylum process as a way to punish refugees are all important to us on the left.
This is Slashdot so I'm expecting a response that'll ignore what I've written above, condemn me as not wanting borders or some other BS, and so on, but, hey, at least I tried.
Your biggest worry should be that the Bear Jew is going to bring his 36" Hank Greenberg model Louisville slugger into sudden contact with your head and that you will fill your briefs with shit.
Claiming it might happen is not the same as advocating it.
The statement made was not that "people advocating bans are never worse than nazis", it was "Second, people who are trying to stop nazis will never be as bad as the nazis. It's an immutable truth." "Never" and "immutable" are very strong words.
I was following on from your logic, but yes: genocidal people are worse than people who try to stop genocidal people. I think that's a 100% reasonable statement to make. Perhaps not on Slashdot where we seem to be overridden by people who feel that Nazis get a bad rap, and anyway we shouldn't call Hitler a Nazi because don't you know that's why he became a Nazi because liberals and jews called him one checkmate, but in the real world, where real people live, yes, people who stop genocidal maniacs (and are defined as such) are better than people who are genocidal maniacs.
. Pope's "Bear Jew" trying to kill someone who thinks Jews are bad is an example of exactly the opposite.
Pope's Bear Jew is a reference to a character in the Quentin Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds, a character who literally kills genocidal Nazis. Is he a bad person? Maybe, maybe not. But is he worse than than the people he kills, whom he kills while they actively take part, at some level or other, in propping up and enabling the slaughter of millions of Jews while promoting one of the worst wars in recorded history?
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
Pope's right incidentally. You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
For all Google's faults, unlike Facebook they aren't so fraudy that they convinced every big publisher to get replace their written content with videos.
Interesting, I've actually tried pressing the buttons before and none of them did anything, but I assume from this that some pumps at least do have an escape.
This is a really weird myth. Can you provide a single example, anywhere, where someone has argued this in good faith, that we can verify?
I wonder if this is a misinterpretation of the common view that marginalized minorities can't practice "-ism", eg a black person in the US isn't being racist if he or she says something negative and unfair about white people, or discriminates against them.
That is a common view, and it's not an unreasonable view (if someone calls me a "honkey" or "cracker", where's the actual harm at the end of the day? It's not going to contribute to a culture that undermines my ability to find work, live in safety, have the police take me seriously, etc. Whereas if I use the N-word, it does prop up a culture that actively discriminates against and harms black people.)
But it's not the same as '"Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.', as the latter is far more generalized and covers acts that are more than mere discrimination or slander.
Yes, but PIP mode where the unwanted fucking video continues playing when you've left the browser to go into another application is apparently a FF exclusive feature.
So now when you open what you think is a news article, and it starts playing a massive video, and you pause it, scroll down to where there's text and then the fucking video moves to the corner and starts playing again and you say "Oh fuck this shit" and hit the home button to get out of the browser, the video will still continue to play and be overlaid over the Android UI.
Should we be surprised? I can't even fill my car with gasoline without getting an autoplaying video FFS. Yes, that's a thing people who aren't in the US right now, gas stations actually have pumps now that have the same screens that are used to confirm your payment method suddenly switch to playing full color ads.
When does this end? I think a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about walls, revolutions, and being the first comes to mind.
The only time I've ever heard anyone called themselves an SJW, it was to get a rise out of illiberal assholes. And as SJWs don't actually exist (SJWs are defined exclusively by critics of Feminism, Anti-racism, Anti-homophobia advocates, etc, who have created such a massive strawman that it can't exist because of the huge number of contradictions in the definition and the problem that no human would ever form that set of opinions), the answer to your question is no.
No, he's right, because what you're describing is what Microsoft is doing by accident, whereas what he's describing is the experience Microsoft intends you to have. We've gone from Windows 7, which, while not rock solid, could have uptimes measured in years and had a consistent, obvious, user interface, to Windows 10 which intentionally crashes (sorry, "updates") once a week, and which has UI changes that are mandatory every six months that result in users having to relearn basics like "Where in the settings do I change this?"
That's ignoring the bugs. Your files being deleted? That's an accident. Everything above, that's on purpose. That's already terrible and Microsoft needs to stop it.
He apparently pretty much knew based upon the test data he was getting who the "client" was, so it was technically insider trading - he did know.
At the same time... this seems a relatively trivial crime to spend resources on, in an environment in which pretty much everyone knows the causes of the Equifax breach will never lead to punishment. Insider trading, while damaging to the stock market and something that needs to be kept in check, isn't anything like as bad as the fuck up Equifax made which did more than reduce the value of a few pension funds by 0.01%.
...which is why we need to reduce the cost of living, and guess what, subsidizing living in remote areas while deprecating services and infrastructure in areas that are either high density or could be is almost certainly the number one reason why the cost of living is through the roof in the US.
I completely agree we need to make sure that everyone has access to telecommunications, but undermining cities and forcing everyone to live in the suburbs and/or country, and then paying through the nose to support that is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Is it? Because I can't make head or tail of the summary. It's saying that malicious Javascript can compromise a PHP server. Does this plug-in include a server side component?
Because the only way I can see that you can blame this plugin for compromising servers is if it does, and if that's the case then the actual exploit is PHP, not Javascript. If not, then WTF?
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, no. It'd have to result in a formal complaint to HR (unlikely), HR would have to believe the best solution is to fire you (very, very, unlikely), and so on. A bad relationship? These things happen, and in most companies the people in those bad relationships tend to work it out themselves without getting the company involved. Usually that's just being professionals - we all work with people we don't like from time to time.
Note that none of the cases in the headlines are as you describe. They're not people who were in bad relationships, they're cases where a single man has groped, used his power to force sex with, or even drugged, multiple women. This story is interesting in that it's apparently one woman that made the complaint, but I bet you if you scratch below the surface you'll see that she wasn't the only victim which is why Google were so keen to get rid of him. They certainly weren't in fear of a lawsuit, as that would have cost somewhat less than Rubin's severance.
It's not ideal, but it's the 21st Century, and in the US in particular with its lack of social spaces, it's the most available and common way to get hitched. It's fine as long as you're not a predator.
The men who are being #metoo'd are not being fired for bad relationships, they're being fired for multiple incidents of horrendous behavior.
Paranoia is a useful instinct, but sometimes it's whipped up by people with agendas, and harmful and needs to be overcome.
No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.
Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault. Additionally, virtually all have been corroborated in some way. Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice. Cosby admitted his behavior in a court deposition on an unrelated case. Weinstein's own staff supported the allegations of multiple victims, and other directors - such as Peter Jackson - came forward to confirm that women who didn't cooperate with Weinstein were smeared and blacklisted.
Second, virtually none of the #metoo claims (none I can think of) involve relationships that have gone wrong.
Third problem: there are multiple disincentives for making false allegations: most women who have come forward have seen negative consequences for their careers despite apparently telling the truth. Now imagine that some idiot makes a false allegation against every ex-boyfriend who she has a bad break-up with. How credible do you think she'd be?
Now, that said, remember that we're talking about here are nerds frightened to date because they think they'll be #metoo'd if they ask Karen from Accounts Receivable on a date. They're not going to be #metoo'd for asking Karen for a date. They will probably suffer an immediate hostile response if they just jump in with a date request without spending some time getting to know her, but it's not likely to go to HR. Frankly, it's not likely to go to HR if it involves a stolen kiss, however gross that might have been for the poor woman, because she's (A) had to put up with this shit for most of her life and knows there are no consequences for people who do this and (B) she'd be embarrassed and unlikely to say anything anyway.
I'm not saying that because I think you should behave that way. Of course not! (1) You'd be an asshole if you did, and (2) if you're really interested in a date with Karen then you probably want her to be happy, rather than feeling disgusting and humiliated. But the point I'm making is that women put up with rather a lot of low level shit that you'd never think would be tolerated, so the paranoia about #metoo isn't justified. Let things happen naturally. Try not to be a dork. If it's not to be, it's not to be, be prepared to let go.
You definitely shouldn't be putting your life on hold because you think the moment you ask Karen to lunch Gloria Allred's going to appear out of nowhere demanding you be fired and Karen gets paid one kagillion dollars.
If you're a paranoid Slashdotter who thinks feminism is scary, then sure. If, on the other hand, you let things happen naturally (as opposed to begging everyone in a skirt for sex), and avoid dating people who work under or over you (this isn't new, the view bosses shouldn't have sex with subordinates is something I remember learning in the 1980s, before I even gained employment myself), you'll be fine.
Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!
FWIW, I met my future wife at work. We did lunch a few times, and one thing lead to another, and, well, we're married. With a beautiful kid who's smarter than I am. In the real world, rather than Eric Raymond's blog, this is fine and normal and the way the world works. Stop worrying, just... you know... don't be an asshole and you'll be fine.
I suspect relatively few people would have heard of this if Samsung hadn't proposed suing. Even if we did, we wouldn't have thought about the implications.
But, now you're suing. You're not tearing up a contract, you're suggesting it's a REALLY BIG DEAL by suing for millions of dollars. And so we're forced to look at the story closer, and realize that, yeah, it kinda is a really big deal. I mean, most of us wouldn't care that deeply about what we use. I'm an Android user, but if I were paid to use an iPhone for a year, I'd use it, it'd be my primary phone.
It's hard to imagine a situation where I'd risk not receiving the money because of some minor quibble about the UI, or lack of user programmability, or whatever.
Which means... Samsung's phones really must suck. I mean, like really suck. I mean, why would someone actually ditch a phone they're paid to use for a friggin' iPhone? People, the iPhone's UI isn't that compelling, it's nice, but... OMG the Samsung UI must be just awful. Awful.
So now we realize why Samsung considers it a really big deal. By using an iPhone, this Russian celebrity has just told the world that the Samsung phone he was paid to use is the worst phone in the entire universe, that it's practically unusable, and you should probably avoid it.
I had a Galaxy Nexus once. I hated it. So I can sympathize.
But just think, if Samsung had just decided to quietly terminate the contract, nobody, not me, not you, would have ever gone through this thought process.
To be honest, computer networks were rare until the very late eighties, early nineties, and until the mid-nineties paper memos were more common than email. Early email clients weren't exactly office friendly, Ethernet was expensive on a per-PC basis (it cost more to add an Ethernet or ARCNet card than a printer, for the most part), and most office workers didn't even have a PC; so yeah, the GP is right, the dates don't add up. If the obesity panic started in the 1980s, then it wasn't us.
There's a bunch of theories, but one of the most convincing to me is that the diet foods fads really started pumping themselves into high gear in the 1980s. But that's because of the obesity, right? Well, could be, but there's always been a market for weight loss products.
Diet Coke came out in 1982, which was too early to be a response to the problem.
What do we know about Diet Coke? We know that recent studies have shown that sugar substitutes, such as those in Diet Coke, appear to be harmful to stomach bacteria.
What else happened in the 1980s? Well, everything went "low fat". Because fat is fattening, I mean, it's right there in the name, right? But they replaced the fat with sugar, because low fat stuff tastes awful. Have you ever had full fat yogurt? Oh my God, it's fucking delicious. Hard to get it these days because yogurt's a healthy thing, which means the only version they market heavily is the diet stuff, because people who buy yogurt want it to be low fat because they think that's healthy. But "low fat" yogurt is full of sugar.
So, no real decrease in calories, the food industry marketing stuff with an implied message of "Eat and drink as much of this shit as you want, it's low fat therefore you won't get fat!", and meanwhile Coca Cola and Pepsi are killing your digestive system.
Not hard to figure it out.
I have a feeling that this is close to the right answer.
Reading more, including other stories and the Wikipedia article, apparently the removal is done by the security scan part of the Play Store which reports on installed apps that might be untrustworthy. Aptoide isn't curated (the default repos may be, but the entire concept is that you add repos for the software you want), I suspect that it's flagged for that reason, as a potential source of malware.
My guess is that if Aptoide didn't allow user defined repos, it probably wouldn't be being targeted by Google, because then it'd be just another curated app store, like the Amazon one.
There are numerous third party app stores, and I've never heard of Google forcibly removing any of them. I've bought quite a few phone from Amazon that include a discount in return for having the Amazon suite (including the Amazon app store) pre-installed, and none of them has had this problem.
What is it about this specific app store that's making Google feel it has the right to forcibly remove it?
Just a guess, but are you one of those people the flyers coming from the Republican Party delivered to my door are aimed at? The ones that say you can't vote for Jack Johnson (D) because he wants to abolish ICE? The ones that are designed to make people think (actually, they usually say it explicitly) that abolishing ICE means abolishing immigration controls and not putting anything in its place?
My sincere recommendation to you is read what the people you're arguing against are actually arguing. Relatively few are saying they don't care about citizenship or protecting our borders. What they're arguing is:
1. ICE is full of inhumane shitheads and cannot be reformed. It needs to be abolished with its responsibilities transferred somewhere else, perhaps to agencies structured as they were before 9/11.
2. Legal immigration, such as asylum, is being handled inhumanely, for example the permanent child separation policies of the current administration.
3. Illegal immigration is being handled badly and the laws don't reflect the reality on the ground. People are being deported to places that have never been their homes. Others are being encouraged to enter on the sly by one set of forces and deported by another.
4. Over-zealous enforcement of immigration laws is making it harder to enforce other laws. Women are being deported because they contacted the police after being beaten by their husbands. Entire communities are refusing to report crimes in their neighborhoods for fear of ICE attention. Local governments, with the support of local law enforcement, who have tried to overcome this by not cooperating with ICE (so-called "Sanctuary cities") have been vilified and, ironically, have been criticized as encouraging crime, when their aim was to prevent a focus on a minor crime from preventing them from taking action against serious crimes.
The Republicans, who control every branch of government, have had two years to introduce humane reforms. If they believed ICE was reformable they could have done it. If they wanted to create a solution for Dreamers et al, they could have done it. They've refused, ideologically, to do so, with those in control of the executive apparently intentionally enforcing the laws in the most inhumane way possible, and with no attempt to change executive policy by Congress.
Maybe this is what you want. Or not. But reforms that include abolishing ICE, enshrining Obama's Dreamers policy into law, and placing restrictions on the executive's ability to abuse the asylum process as a way to punish refugees are all important to us on the left.
This is Slashdot so I'm expecting a response that'll ignore what I've written above, condemn me as not wanting borders or some other BS, and so on, but, hey, at least I tried.
Claiming it might happen is not the same as advocating it.
I was following on from your logic, but yes: genocidal people are worse than people who try to stop genocidal people. I think that's a 100% reasonable statement to make. Perhaps not on Slashdot where we seem to be overridden by people who feel that Nazis get a bad rap, and anyway we shouldn't call Hitler a Nazi because don't you know that's why he became a Nazi because liberals and jews called him one checkmate, but in the real world, where real people live, yes, people who stop genocidal maniacs (and are defined as such) are better than people who are genocidal maniacs.
Pope's Bear Jew is a reference to a character in the Quentin Tarantino movie Inglorious Basterds, a character who literally kills genocidal Nazis. Is he a bad person? Maybe, maybe not. But is he worse than than the people he kills, whom he kills while they actively take part, at some level or other, in propping up and enabling the slaughter of millions of Jews while promoting one of the worst wars in recorded history?
I'd say he's not worse than them, no.
Now hold on. Who is proposing killing people with unpopular opinions?
Pope's right incidentally. You might not like it but "People advocating Genocide" are way worse, like, by a million orders of magnitude, than "People advocating privately owned public forums ban people who advocate genocide."
For all Google's faults, unlike Facebook they aren't so fraudy that they convinced every big publisher to get replace their written content with videos.
But yeah, they probably come in second.
Interesting, I've actually tried pressing the buttons before and none of them did anything, but I assume from this that some pumps at least do have an escape.
Thanks for warning me. The world is going to hell, urgh.
On Android? I've never seen this happen, and I'd be pretty pissed if it does. If it does, I send equal contempt to Google as for as Mozilla on this.
I wonder if this is a misinterpretation of the common view that marginalized minorities can't practice "-ism", eg a black person in the US isn't being racist if he or she says something negative and unfair about white people, or discriminates against them.
That is a common view, and it's not an unreasonable view (if someone calls me a "honkey" or "cracker", where's the actual harm at the end of the day? It's not going to contribute to a culture that undermines my ability to find work, live in safety, have the police take me seriously, etc. Whereas if I use the N-word, it does prop up a culture that actively discriminates against and harms black people.)
But it's not the same as '"Marginalized people" cannot be guilty of oppressing "non-marginalized people" no matter how they behave.', as the latter is far more generalized and covers acts that are more than mere discrimination or slander.
Yes, but PIP mode where the unwanted fucking video continues playing when you've left the browser to go into another application is apparently a FF exclusive feature.
What's it like living in 1998?
So now when you open what you think is a news article, and it starts playing a massive video, and you pause it, scroll down to where there's text and then the fucking video moves to the corner and starts playing again and you say "Oh fuck this shit" and hit the home button to get out of the browser, the video will still continue to play and be overlaid over the Android UI.
Should we be surprised? I can't even fill my car with gasoline without getting an autoplaying video FFS. Yes, that's a thing people who aren't in the US right now, gas stations actually have pumps now that have the same screens that are used to confirm your payment method suddenly switch to playing full color ads.
When does this end? I think a quote from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy about walls, revolutions, and being the first comes to mind.
The only time I've ever heard anyone called themselves an SJW, it was to get a rise out of illiberal assholes. And as SJWs don't actually exist (SJWs are defined exclusively by critics of Feminism, Anti-racism, Anti-homophobia advocates, etc, who have created such a massive strawman that it can't exist because of the huge number of contradictions in the definition and the problem that no human would ever form that set of opinions), the answer to your question is no.
No, he's right, because what you're describing is what Microsoft is doing by accident, whereas what he's describing is the experience Microsoft intends you to have. We've gone from Windows 7, which, while not rock solid, could have uptimes measured in years and had a consistent, obvious, user interface, to Windows 10 which intentionally crashes (sorry, "updates") once a week, and which has UI changes that are mandatory every six months that result in users having to relearn basics like "Where in the settings do I change this?"
That's ignoring the bugs. Your files being deleted? That's an accident. Everything above, that's on purpose. That's already terrible and Microsoft needs to stop it.
I don't think we know anything about the process that created AmigaOS, and what does that have to do with Linus Torvalds? ;-)
He apparently pretty much knew based upon the test data he was getting who the "client" was, so it was technically insider trading - he did know.
At the same time... this seems a relatively trivial crime to spend resources on, in an environment in which pretty much everyone knows the causes of the Equifax breach will never lead to punishment. Insider trading, while damaging to the stock market and something that needs to be kept in check, isn't anything like as bad as the fuck up Equifax made which did more than reduce the value of a few pension funds by 0.01%.
I completely agree we need to make sure that everyone has access to telecommunications, but undermining cities and forcing everyone to live in the suburbs and/or country, and then paying through the nose to support that is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Is it? Because I can't make head or tail of the summary. It's saying that malicious Javascript can compromise a PHP server. Does this plug-in include a server side component?
Because the only way I can see that you can blame this plugin for compromising servers is if it does, and if that's the case then the actual exploit is PHP, not Javascript. If not, then WTF?
The problem here is that once you understand string theory it no longer exists, it's necessary to destroy it in order to observe and understand it.