If they were really serious about fixing bad code while leaving a safer world, they would've sand-boxed applications that used known insecure API's while giving fast lane non-emulated modes to 'pure' applications who's API's are good enough. At least then you don't look like pretentious upstart purists living in an ivory tower that nobody cares about. Note: I don't care about GPL, rust, forks, etc.. I care about compatibility and a healthy trade-off between security and extensibility.
The Slashdot coles notes rendition of this project indicates that they're less about compromise and more pushing out those that they disagree with.
Like every half-assed company, they have something called a terms of service which likely dictates the terms of 'updates and over the air book uploading' or whatever else they do through their cloud offering. Does that make MS class actioned for abandoning their devices left and right leaving existing owners high and dry? No, they have the right to terminate service at any time they see necessary. If you're living in a bubble world then you're going to be awfully upset by this. If you live in the real world with the rest of us, you wouldn't have an issue with this at all.
Note as well, they're supporting Kindles back to 2007! Are you really whining about them supporting a 9 years old product?
Wow, one would assume that satire would be covered under the 1st amendment. Or is your impression that political free speech is going to be criminalized in the near future?
Its hard to ridicule well reasoned opinions. If your opinion is well constructed and rationally based (even though wrong), its a lot harder poke holes into than saying "Gay people don't deserve marriage" or "Gay people are the best employees have", etc..
Life lesson: Say dumb things and they'll come back at you. Say well reasoned wrong things and you could still get bashed for it, but at least its a more simple conversation than defending 'fags are bad, k!'
PS: The only time I've ever heard words Microaggression and SJW are Slashdot and South Park. Is this really a 'thing' or is it a strawman for some perceived attack on one's own personal biases (which may be considered un-PC in today's climate)? Is this really in the public sphere in common parlance?
To be fair, a large portion of a company's telco infrastructure was originally given to them through tax dollars, so its a little disingenuous to say company's are simply consumer paid. Plus as 'public utilities', these services are used universally by society, so if its paid for by government or companies, its essentially all taxpayers that are paying for it.
As for the idea of 'public utilities', the number of people who use internet access, http://www.wired.com/2015/07/1... 15% is low and only likely to get lower as better internet access is provided to rural residents (and the very elderly that never bothered to learn). At that rate, its chasing or has beaten USPS usage, and its almost entirely beaten land line based Telco ownership (though certainly not the combined landline/mobile phone penetration -yet-).
Speaking of USPS, why does the US have USPS and not shutter that as well and leave it to private enterprise? Actually, that's a bad/sad example because it almost certainly will be the outcome... We should liquidate the army and make everything private contractors. We should liquidate the free-way infrastructure and let private enterprise make better and more streamlined toll roads...
Lastly, unless government actively passes laws to cause advantage to themselves, how does government participation weaken free market commerce assuming its not a loss leading business unit?
What is 'a right' and what are morally/ethically 'right' are very different.
Talking naturally, there is slavery, abuse, murder and a billion other bad things that happen which would happen if mankind or society is involved or not. These things only become morally or ethically bad when one (or many) deem it so. Today the EU decided that being forgotten is a right. At some point in the very recent future people -decided- privacy was a right. Maybe in the future, society will consider it a right to have both Coke and Pepsi sold at my local movie theatre, eh in my dreams...
At the end of the day, any rights are instituted by man, which is of course why we often disagree on what they are. Without the charter of rights and freedoms (Canada) or the bill or rights (American), etc.., these rights would amount to 'common sense' (social pressure). None of this can happen until people make laws or rules to establish these baseline rules upon which other laws are applied. Once again, all of these are 'legal' rights, since they're dictated by people making rules on how to live their lives.
As to your point, I think slavery isn't right at all, but that doesn't stop governments from legalizing it.
Here's some food for thought, If we're to abide universally by natural rights (vs. social laws): 1. How is capital punishment (or even captivity) not an obvious violation? 2. How does the murder or animals not a violation? (Oh wait we're xenophobic god children who are the only life forms blessed with rights) 3. Name some strictly natural laws that aren't being violated in some way by your government (any government really)..
Its a fairy-tail thought experiment by philosophers trying to order a purely academic concept of the universe. That that, its totally fine. But, if you want to judge what is or isn't a 'right', then you establish laws (much like the EU in the whole right to be forgotten thing).
Money isn't real but we believe in it. I think people would revolt if the US gov decided to abandon money tomorrow. All rights are given by powers that be. There are no natural rights besides maybe the right to die (even then, most societies have fought hard against it).
Certainly expensive, but with > 2500 listings under 2000 from a back-of-napkin search, I think you exaggerate a little.
Plus 2000/mo is 12 * 2000 == $24,000 or 1/5 your gross income. That's actually quite reasonable if that's the number being quoted considering the tertiary benefits of living in a large lively international city.
If you want to make more money and save it, there are countless cities where you can make more proportional (and probably real) dollars in less 'hot' urban centres. My city (Vancouver) has a grossly overpriced housing market (ripe for bubble bursting but that's another talk) and yet people still pay more and more for their properties. Its not uncommon to be leveraged to 50%+ gross income for rental/ownership. I'm sitting at around 1/4 so not that unreasonable, but I enjoy a much higher paying job than most of the millennial's scraping by sharing apartments with 2 friends to support themselves.
Certainly -worth- yes, but never have I worked for companies where employees of equal status make N-times the salary of another. Its basically a tax on the worthy to support those that are less capable.
Ultimately, there's essentially no company that can just continually hire genius people and pay them their amazing value vs. the less capable competing job seekers. If those less capable job seekers seek N dollars and that's what you pay more gifted employees, you either raise your wages across the board (not good business sense) or you pay far less than the productive value of the employee to make up -some- sort of equitable 'you rock so we're paying you more' relationship. You may see average industry scales around 60-200k stride with some cream of crop contractors reaching short-term 500k incomes. You're not seeing million dollar dev's outside of IPO equity windfalls (which is really gambling like any other).
"would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight"
Wouldn't these grey/illegal migrants already be in the workforce (illegally)? If anything, it hurts scumbag employers unable to exploit those that have no other options.
the young For the -very- young: Realistically, there are obviously laws that will have to address just whom can ride in an autonomous vehicle. When a child rides a bus alone, essentially the bus driver takes temporary custodianship. When on a plane, flight attendants take care of their care. In a fully autonomous vehicle, there's no custodian, which will likely be judged illegal. For the not so young: Yes, the rich teenager could ride aton's vs. taking more efficient travel like buses / trains. That said, economics will be a large factor in this.
the elderly Many many old people take buses to travel currently. One -could- say that they'd all flip over to aton's, but IMHO, much of the time they're travelling it's to find be around people. They might frown at some young punk kids on the bus, but it gives them something to do. Riding in an aton alone is much more lonely but at least you get some new views. Ultimately I don't see -that- big of a % of increased use, but considering the growing elderly demographic, this could at least be a problem as a short/medium term aberration.
the visually or otherwise impaired A small population which shouldn't even show up as a significant factor.
Sharia Law is to Muslim as Catholic is to Christianity. They are certainly tangentially based on the original source materials, but they took centuries of refinements to build up a set of strange nonsense rules that represent their original source version of things. Looking back at the rules they form, and one has to question why they were ever made. Plus, Sharia itself doesn't have a central authority to dictate, so maybe something like like the collage of baptist faiths would be a better analogy.
Secondly, much like described above, since all Muslims don't believe in the Sharia, why would you ever assume that a Muslim university (especially in the US) would espouse it?
1. Ask permission 2. Break the law and throw the dice 3. Re-write all pieces of code that you updated before. Your company doesn't own your ideas (yet), just your expression of your thoughts during business hours. IANAL If you happen to express that over again, there's little chance that a lawsuit would succeed. If you signed a draconian NDA that says the company owns your thoughts then you may have issues.
Realistically through, you're better off forgetting the whole thing and move on to your next interesting problems.
Why the hell assign -a- term for a laundry list of many grievences, all of which are actually different? Pro-gay, Anti-harassment, Pro-feminist, Anti-Masculine, etc.. Each have their talking points and generally ad -some- context to what you're trying to say. I'd say event they're too general depending on the topic they're bandied about in.
Its like the 99% standing up and screaming to bring down the 1% as if they were somehow trying to accomplish the same goals. They weren't and they fell apart because 'the 1%' isn't a problem. Its a large group of problems that need to be decomposed in isolation. You will NEVER win an argument with someone pulling a SJW card. Its like saying fuck you, I'm done. You're just a SJW. Yes, the Nazi comparison card of slashdot. Its the conversation killing pointless slogan thown by the lazy or simply uneducated commentor.
If they were called the Washington Negro's would we be having this discussion? No, they would've been pressured into changing their name decades ago. The point being that the "redskin's" are a marginalized group that nobody seems to give a fuck about it which is the issue.
I'm sorry, are these people workers / managers at github or did you just cherry pick some posts by people who happen to use GitHub and welcome gender equality (to whatever scale YOU find repugnant).
Did you ever wake up at night sweating and say: "Damn, I'm on the wrong side of history!"?
DMCA doesn't apply to Trademarks, so just challenge the ruling. Of course Google can take videos down unilaterally, they are generally transparent as to why things are removed. But once again, link to said disruptions please?
Sue aggressively or loose your rights. Either they will sue people into the ground and lose any love of the public, or don't sue them and loose their trademark rights..
"This guy had nothing to do with what happened in the past so why must he be made to suffer for it?"
Why not wait until the lawsuit's been judged/settled before considering guilt please? For that matter, please take out the value judgement 'wrongs' out of a law story entirely. Either the company colluded against men to suppress equally capable male counterparts or they didn't. The only thing we can say for sure is that definitively is that people who get fired almost always feel like they got dumped on by management when they didn't deserve it. Sometimes they're right.
Just like the old boss. People voted for a party who's interests have been well known to side with big business, so there's zero surprise here. For the uninformed, the 'party' rules the individual representatives much tighter than say the US where its common to vote against/abstain from voting on ballot measures against one's personal (or representative) interests.
Slashdot Mirror
If they were really serious about fixing bad code while leaving a safer world, they would've sand-boxed applications that used known insecure API's while giving fast lane non-emulated modes to 'pure' applications who's API's are good enough. At least then you don't look like pretentious upstart purists living in an ivory tower that nobody cares about. Note: I don't care about GPL, rust, forks, etc.. I care about compatibility and a healthy trade-off between security and extensibility.
The Slashdot coles notes rendition of this project indicates that they're less about compromise and more pushing out those that they disagree with.
Piss all over them. The OpenBSD community must feel pretty vindicated now!
Like every half-assed company, they have something called a terms of service which likely dictates the terms of 'updates and over the air book uploading' or whatever else they do through their cloud offering. Does that make MS class actioned for abandoning their devices left and right leaving existing owners high and dry? No, they have the right to terminate service at any time they see necessary. If you're living in a bubble world then you're going to be awfully upset by this. If you live in the real world with the rest of us, you wouldn't have an issue with this at all.
Note as well, they're supporting Kindles back to 2007! Are you really whining about them supporting a 9 years old product?
Aeron chairs.... I could sit for hourrsssssss....
Wow, one would assume that satire would be covered under the 1st amendment. Or is your impression that political free speech is going to be criminalized in the near future?
Its hard to ridicule well reasoned opinions. If your opinion is well constructed and rationally based (even though wrong), its a lot harder poke holes into than saying "Gay people don't deserve marriage" or "Gay people are the best employees have", etc..
Life lesson: Say dumb things and they'll come back at you. Say well reasoned wrong things and you could still get bashed for it, but at least its a more simple conversation than defending 'fags are bad, k!'
PS: The only time I've ever heard words Microaggression and SJW are Slashdot and South Park. Is this really a 'thing' or is it a strawman for some perceived attack on one's own personal biases (which may be considered un-PC in today's climate)? Is this really in the public sphere in common parlance?
Google is many things, many good things, but they're NOT a startup... I heard the same thing.
To be fair, a large portion of a company's telco infrastructure was originally given to them through tax dollars, so its a little disingenuous to say company's are simply consumer paid. Plus as 'public utilities', these services are used universally by society, so if its paid for by government or companies, its essentially all taxpayers that are paying for it.
As for the idea of 'public utilities', the number of people who use internet access,
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/1...
15% is low and only likely to get lower as better internet access is provided to rural residents (and the very elderly that never bothered to learn).
At that rate, its chasing or has beaten USPS usage, and its almost entirely beaten land line based Telco ownership (though certainly not the combined landline/mobile phone penetration -yet-).
Speaking of USPS, why does the US have USPS and not shutter that as well and leave it to private enterprise? Actually, that's a bad/sad example because it almost certainly will be the outcome... We should liquidate the army and make everything private contractors. We should liquidate the free-way infrastructure and let private enterprise make better and more streamlined toll roads...
Lastly, unless government actively passes laws to cause advantage to themselves, how does government participation weaken free market commerce assuming its not a loss leading business unit?
"I've invented a pill that gives worms to ex-girlfriends."
What is 'a right' and what are morally/ethically 'right' are very different.
Talking naturally, there is slavery, abuse, murder and a billion other bad things that happen which would happen if mankind or society is involved or not. These things only become morally or ethically bad when one (or many) deem it so. Today the EU decided that being forgotten is a right. At some point in the very recent future people -decided- privacy was a right. Maybe in the future, society will consider it a right to have both Coke and Pepsi sold at my local movie theatre, eh in my dreams...
At the end of the day, any rights are instituted by man, which is of course why we often disagree on what they are. Without the charter of rights and freedoms (Canada) or the bill or rights (American), etc.., these rights would amount to 'common sense' (social pressure). None of this can happen until people make laws or rules to establish these baseline rules upon which other laws are applied. Once again, all of these are 'legal' rights, since they're dictated by people making rules on how to live their lives.
As to your point, I think slavery isn't right at all, but that doesn't stop governments from legalizing it.
Here's some food for thought, If we're to abide universally by natural rights (vs. social laws):
1. How is capital punishment (or even captivity) not an obvious violation?
2. How does the murder or animals not a violation? (Oh wait we're xenophobic god children who are the only life forms blessed with rights)
3. Name some strictly natural laws that aren't being violated in some way by your government (any government really)..
Its a fairy-tail thought experiment by philosophers trying to order a purely academic concept of the universe. That that, its totally fine. But, if you want to judge what is or isn't a 'right', then you establish laws (much like the EU in the whole right to be forgotten thing).
Money isn't real but we believe in it. I think people would revolt if the US gov decided to abandon money tomorrow. All rights are given by powers that be. There are no natural rights besides maybe the right to die (even then, most societies have fought hard against it).
https://newyork.craigslist.org...
Certainly expensive, but with > 2500 listings under 2000 from a back-of-napkin search, I think you exaggerate a little.
Plus 2000/mo is 12 * 2000 == $24,000 or 1/5 your gross income. That's actually quite reasonable if that's the number being quoted considering the tertiary benefits of living in a large lively international city.
If you want to make more money and save it, there are countless cities where you can make more proportional (and probably real) dollars in less 'hot' urban centres. My city (Vancouver) has a grossly overpriced housing market (ripe for bubble bursting but that's another talk) and yet people still pay more and more for their properties. Its not uncommon to be leveraged to 50%+ gross income for rental/ownership. I'm sitting at around 1/4 so not that unreasonable, but I enjoy a much higher paying job than most of the millennial's scraping by sharing apartments with 2 friends to support themselves.
Certainly -worth- yes, but never have I worked for companies where employees of equal status make N-times the salary of another. Its basically a tax on the worthy to support those that are less capable.
Ultimately, there's essentially no company that can just continually hire genius people and pay them their amazing value vs. the less capable competing job seekers. If those less capable job seekers seek N dollars and that's what you pay more gifted employees, you either raise your wages across the board (not good business sense) or you pay far less than the productive value of the employee to make up -some- sort of equitable 'you rock so we're paying you more' relationship. You may see average industry scales around 60-200k stride with some cream of crop contractors reaching short-term 500k incomes. You're not seeing million dollar dev's outside of IPO equity windfalls (which is really gambling like any other).
"would have dropped 2.5 million job-seekers into the workforce overnight"
Wouldn't these grey/illegal migrants already be in the workforce (illegally)? If anything, it hurts scumbag employers unable to exploit those that have no other options.
Just my short form slang for 'autonomous vehicle' because I was too lazy to type it every time.
the young
For the -very- young: Realistically, there are obviously laws that will have to address just whom can ride in an autonomous vehicle. When a child rides a bus alone, essentially the bus driver takes temporary custodianship. When on a plane, flight attendants take care of their care. In a fully autonomous vehicle, there's no custodian, which will likely be judged illegal.
For the not so young: Yes, the rich teenager could ride aton's vs. taking more efficient travel like buses / trains. That said, economics will be a large factor in this.
the elderly
Many many old people take buses to travel currently. One -could- say that they'd all flip over to aton's, but IMHO, much of the time they're travelling it's to find be around people. They might frown at some young punk kids on the bus, but it gives them something to do. Riding in an aton alone is much more lonely but at least you get some new views. Ultimately I don't see -that- big of a % of increased use, but considering the growing elderly demographic, this could at least be a problem as a short/medium term aberration.
the visually or otherwise impaired
A small population which shouldn't even show up as a significant factor.
Sharia Law is to Muslim as Catholic is to Christianity. They are certainly tangentially based on the original source materials, but they took centuries of refinements to build up a set of strange nonsense rules that represent their original source version of things. Looking back at the rules they form, and one has to question why they were ever made. Plus, Sharia itself doesn't have a central authority to dictate, so maybe something like like the collage of baptist faiths would be a better analogy.
Secondly, much like described above, since all Muslims don't believe in the Sharia, why would you ever assume that a Muslim university (especially in the US) would espouse it?
1. Ask permission
2. Break the law and throw the dice
3. Re-write all pieces of code that you updated before. Your company doesn't own your ideas (yet), just your expression of your thoughts during business hours. IANAL If you happen to express that over again, there's little chance that a lawsuit would succeed. If you signed a draconian NDA that says the company owns your thoughts then you may have issues.
Realistically through, you're better off forgetting the whole thing and move on to your next interesting problems.
Why the hell assign -a- term for a laundry list of many grievences, all of which are actually different? Pro-gay, Anti-harassment, Pro-feminist, Anti-Masculine, etc.. Each have their talking points and generally ad -some- context to what you're trying to say. I'd say event they're too general depending on the topic they're bandied about in.
Its like the 99% standing up and screaming to bring down the 1% as if they were somehow trying to accomplish the same goals. They weren't and they fell apart because 'the 1%' isn't a problem. Its a large group of problems that need to be decomposed in isolation. You will NEVER win an argument with someone pulling a SJW card. Its like saying fuck you, I'm done. You're just a SJW. Yes, the Nazi comparison card of slashdot. Its the conversation killing pointless slogan thown by the lazy or simply uneducated commentor.
If they were called the Washington Negro's would we be having this discussion? No, they would've been pressured into changing their name decades ago. The point being that the "redskin's" are a marginalized group that nobody seems to give a fuck about it which is the issue.
I'm sorry, are these people workers / managers at github or did you just cherry pick some posts by people who happen to use GitHub and welcome gender equality (to whatever scale YOU find repugnant).
Did you ever wake up at night sweating and say: "Damn, I'm on the wrong side of history!"?
Links? Articles? Anything?
DMCA doesn't apply to Trademarks, so just challenge the ruling. Of course Google can take videos down unilaterally, they are generally transparent as to why things are removed. But once again, link to said disruptions please?
Sue aggressively or loose your rights. Either they will sue people into the ground and lose any love of the public, or don't sue them and loose their trademark rights..
"This guy had nothing to do with what happened in the past so why must he be made to suffer for it?"
Why not wait until the lawsuit's been judged/settled before considering guilt please? For that matter, please take out the value judgement 'wrongs' out of a law story entirely. Either the company colluded against men to suppress equally capable male counterparts or they didn't. The only thing we can say for sure is that definitively is that people who get fired almost always feel like they got dumped on by management when they didn't deserve it. Sometimes they're right.
Just like the old boss. People voted for a party who's interests have been well known to side with big business, so there's zero surprise here. For the uninformed, the 'party' rules the individual representatives much tighter than say the US where its common to vote against/abstain from voting on ballot measures against one's personal (or representative) interests.