Use your brain for a second, look at the new board. Matt Blaze, well-respected cryptographer from academia. Cindy Cohn, director of the EFF. Bruce fucking Schneier, crypo folk hero and no friend of the federal government. They replaced the board for the exact reason they said they did, and then they went out of their way to pick new people that were as unimpeachable as possible.
Did you even read who the new board of directors is? Matt Blaze, an extremely respected academic cryptographer. Cindy Cohn, the director of the EFF. Bruce Schneier, a folk hero on Slashdot and no friend of the federal government. Stop fearmongering please.
What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.
Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job. If you sexually harrass someone at your office, you can get fired based on their word alone because the bar for evidence is not the same as a legal proceeding. This is normal.
Unless you live in a state with a Medicaid gap, then you could fall in the middle and get completely screwed by the obstinance of your state government.
What a completely irrelevant piece of information. You do realize that a lot (probably most) of privacy research is sponsored by the government, i.e. the National Science Foundation?
I never said shameful. I would probably go with 'unfortunate'. There is opportunity cost to having an abortion. Many women might want to have a child but can't support it economically or are not at the right point in their lives. Having an abortion is still a choice that is rejecting that possible baby. Maybe later you will not be able to get pregnant and this was your best chance? It is not shameful or immoral, but still can be a hard decision with a lot of emotions involved. Not to mention it is an uncomfortable procedure.
At this point it is overwhelmingly obvious that the "social norm" includes gay marriage, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. A large majority of people in the US support gay marriage, making it the new norm.
Google translate does that. It matches the font and color of the text too, pretty cool. I've only used it for German and Spanish but it worked really well.
You are entirely missing the point. The reason that some people (i.e. black people) are behind the economic curve is because of centuries of slavery followed by another century of government-imposed segregation and racism. We need policies like this because, for them, the game was explicitly rigged. You can't cheat for hundreds of years and then one day say, "ok starting now we play by the rules, sucks that you are so far behind lol".
I never said it was impossible, just a lot harder for some people. You had to work substantially harder than a trust-fund kid, that is not equal opportunity.
Okay... that doesn't change what I said. You still receive a marginal increase in net income for every dollar of increased gross income. The incentive is still to make more money to buy nicer things.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as equal opportunity, we have well and truly fucked that concept in the US. If you are born poor, you go to shitty schools, eat shitty food, have reduced access to educational materials, don't have the connections to get a good job, don't have a safety net to be able to make long-term beneficial decisions with high short-term cost (i.e. college), etc. It is not impossible to be successful, but the deck is highly stacked against you. That is the definition of unequal opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you know that the NSA has authored large sections of the Linux kernel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's what their cooperation was about. Good find, Sherlock.
Tor has the right to terminate their employees pursuant to their contracts. They do not need to go to a court of law. Why do ACs not understand this?
Use your brain for a second, look at the new board. Matt Blaze, well-respected cryptographer from academia. Cindy Cohn, director of the EFF. Bruce fucking Schneier, crypo folk hero and no friend of the federal government. They replaced the board for the exact reason they said they did, and then they went out of their way to pick new people that were as unimpeachable as possible.
the good people were chased away
You should look at the new board of directors. It is certainly not "bad people".
Good people gone, bad people in
Did you even read who the new board of directors is? Matt Blaze, an extremely respected academic cryptographer. Cindy Cohn, the director of the EFF. Bruce Schneier, a folk hero on Slashdot and no friend of the federal government. Stop fearmongering please.
What I don't understand about opinions like yours is, if it really is some kind of government setup, why did they pick Jacob Abelbaum? He is not even close to a crucial part of Tor. There are lots of more important developers that they could have targeted instead. Besides the scandal of it, losing his developer abilities barely effects Tor at all.
Except that is compete bullshit that you just made up. Citation needed.
Except he has never been officially charged with anything, so innocent until proven guilty does not apply. He was simply fired from his job. If you sexually harrass someone at your office, you can get fired based on their word alone because the bar for evidence is not the same as a legal proceeding. This is normal.
Some people have jobs that they actually like and feel good about the work they are doing.
Unless you live in a state with a Medicaid gap, then you could fall in the middle and get completely screwed by the obstinance of your state government.
This also only effects hidden services, which pretty much nobody uses.
What a completely irrelevant piece of information. You do realize that a lot (probably most) of privacy research is sponsored by the government, i.e. the National Science Foundation?
That's not what he meant.
I never said shameful. I would probably go with 'unfortunate'. There is opportunity cost to having an abortion. Many women might want to have a child but can't support it economically or are not at the right point in their lives. Having an abortion is still a choice that is rejecting that possible baby. Maybe later you will not be able to get pregnant and this was your best chance? It is not shameful or immoral, but still can be a hard decision with a lot of emotions involved. Not to mention it is an uncomfortable procedure.
At this point it is overwhelmingly obvious that the "social norm" includes gay marriage, so that argument doesn't hold any weight. A large majority of people in the US support gay marriage, making it the new norm.
There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Nobody gets abortions as a fun Saturday afternoon activity. There is only pro-choice.
Right, I forgot about that mandatory government fertility test before they issued me a marriage licenses. That was a fun time, oh wait...
Google translate does that. It matches the font and color of the text too, pretty cool. I've only used it for German and Spanish but it worked really well.
Yes my mistake, I was looking at the wrong data. Thanks for the correction.
You are entirely missing the point. The reason that some people (i.e. black people) are behind the economic curve is because of centuries of slavery followed by another century of government-imposed segregation and racism. We need policies like this because, for them, the game was explicitly rigged. You can't cheat for hundreds of years and then one day say, "ok starting now we play by the rules, sucks that you are so far behind lol".
Look at the department of labor statistics if you need proof, it is both.
I never said it was impossible, just a lot harder for some people. You had to work substantially harder than a trust-fund kid, that is not equal opportunity.
We depended on social services while my parents were learning English.
This is the exact argument for expanded social services. Thank you for making my point for me.
Okay... that doesn't change what I said. You still receive a marginal increase in net income for every dollar of increased gross income. The incentive is still to make more money to buy nicer things.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as equal opportunity, we have well and truly fucked that concept in the US. If you are born poor, you go to shitty schools, eat shitty food, have reduced access to educational materials, don't have the connections to get a good job, don't have a safety net to be able to make long-term beneficial decisions with high short-term cost (i.e. college), etc. It is not impossible to be successful, but the deck is highly stacked against you. That is the definition of unequal opportunity.