Feminists and feminism-inclined women want to be on all sides of the issue in a "heads we win, tails you lose" way. Don't believe me? Consider two facts about male-female interaction and how they approach them:
Office time: 1. Closing the door is dangerous. 2. Not closing the door is sexist because it makes her feel less comfortable having an honest discussion. 3. Women are always to be given the benefit of the doubt when they say something happened. 4. Behind a closed door it's impossible, short of secretly recording (which isn't always legal), for a man to have any evidence to defend himself.
Moral of the story: due your duty and fall on your sword if a woman wants to advance over you.
Fraternization: 1. If a woman wants to romantically pursue coworkers you are an awful person who thinks they own women for telling her to not shit where she eats, particularly if you threaten to fire her pursuant to an archaic policy that prohibits relationships. 2. If a woman feels there are any consequences to saying no other than "totally cool, I get you" from the man, she's automatically a victim if he is nominally more powerful than her in the org chart. This holds true even if he's above her but in a totally unrelated group and actually protected by a manager with real authority over her. 3. If a woman agrees, for any reason, to have sex or be in a relationship she is not expected to "put on her big girl panties and be a professional" instead of complaining about her one night stand or ex. 4. If a man decides to call it off because he decides it is unprofessional, he is fully responsible and to be condemned and not lauded.
Moral of the story: women get a total free pass short of sexually assaulting barely legal interns in full view of corporate counsel.
Gab documented the heck out of their interactions with both companies when trying to get their app approved. Google was better than Apple, but in the end they decided to pull it because racist language is tolerated on Gab, even though Twitter is littered with SJW-approved racism like blacks calling for violent crimes and even genocide against whites. Apple was just ridiculous; they at one point even hunted down bad language and were like "well, we found this one guy posting a few racist words so this is clearly a hate site so the whole app and site get the ban hammer."
So once again, tell us how Big Tech is on the side of the angels in promoting a free and open internet, market competition, etc.
If it's particularly aggressive, it's going to teach a lot of drama queens to put their big kid underwear on and deal with their problems instead of writing so many "woe is fucking me" posts.
There is no way in hell the ISPs are going to mess with eCommerce except where it pertains to bandwidth-heavy goods and services. That would be so greedy and such an assault on ordinary users that it would make the average Republican voter become open-minded to nationalizing the big ISPs and making utilities out of them. It would rank right up there on the level of stupid as fining grandma for downloading family photos and using Facebook to talk to her grandkids.
A totalitarian government that wants to inflict maximum damage to cryptocurrency without firing a shot would just have to work on a worm that would target the users' wallets and make them inaccessible. The number of users that would have gone through the steps to enable recovery would probably be shockingly low.
The FCC is going to have no shortage of examples of censorship and flaming hypocrisy from the most vocal advocates of Net Neutrality like Google, Facebook and Twitter. If the goal is an "open Internet," it's going to be the biggest backers who end up looking the worst because they are doing all of the things that they fear the ISPs would do (and yet have never done).
Big Tech crushes dissenting opinions, even slightly dissenting opinions. People get banned, shadowbanned, demonetized, etc. at the drop of a hat. By comparison, even Comcast looks downright honorable in how it treats its users.
Leftists on slashdot love to say "no one has a right to give you a platform." It's just terrifying to think that someone else might have the power to deplatform you instead of those who are amenable to your point of view on issues like this.
The SCOTUS has never, that I can remember, sided against Congress in altering the scope of IP law. In fact, the SCOTUS has basically told the public we're SOL if Congress does something we don't like. The "pro-IP side" is part of the general public and has no standing either to challenge Congress in defining the scope of IP protection because Article I, Section 8 is a blank check to Congress.
I see people on social media saying "I pay for da interwebz, I'll do whatever I want and oh btw, I'll do it at the full speed I was 'sold.'" A lot of these are people that should know better, who should know that they were never sold a package with a QoS agreement with the ISP. The reason you can afford 75mbps+ at a rate that is supportable on a few bucks above minimum wage is precisely that "up to $Xmbps" in the contract and the other stipulations that make it clear they can impose QoS policies to give the best service to the most people. Turns out streaming 4k NetFlix to 1% of their users might not fit that description.
Thanksgiving morning, I tried to download an update to IntelliJ which is about 500MB of data. My FiOS connection was slow probably because my neighborhood, which is pretty large, were all home streaming NetFlix, Hulu, etc. waiting for Thanksgiving dinner. Anything I tried to download over an ordinary HTTP connection was slow, but NetFlix was just fine for my kids... So as far as I know, I was on the losing end of bandwidth prioritization.
To me this wailing that streaming users might be discriminated against is like hybrid drivers complaining that they might face additional alternative taxes to cover the fact that their cars put the same wear on the roads, but don't fund it properly through the gas tax. It may not be fair, but those shared resources (private or public) are not elastic. It costs money to maintain them and keep the same level of service as usage patterns change.
Nearly $333M to produce? That's a huge investment from an industry that is filled with people who can't shut their mouths and stop making statements that alienate as much as 50% of the population. With such large outlays, you need to appeal to as much of the population as a whole unless you have a minority of the population with deep pockets who will enthusiastically replace the majority (see Apple).
It's especially ironic since right-of-center audiences that Hollywood loves to mock are precisely the sort of people who go to movies like this for the escapism and are willing to hold it to a lower standard because they don't "expect that much" from a comic book. The only people I know who bitch about Michael Bay movies are left-leaning types. For everyone else, it's worth a little escapism and sometimes fun to watch it over a few beers just to watch shit get blown up.
What you'd do is get rid of the copyright protection. Declare that porn obscene materials have no legal protection. You'd do two things that would set the whole production process on fire without jailing anyone:
1. Bankrupt the producers. 2. Make it impossible for amateur producers to control distribution of their materials.
The most you could do is use revenge porn laws to stop #2 and that would be as effective as asking Shawn Fanning "pretty please stop" back in 1999 instead of having the legal system at the ready.
And the best part is that it would be completely legal and constitutional in the US because copyright law is not a civil right per Article I, Section 8.
People are losing their shit because of this, but not Twitter's announcement that they are planning to monitor users' off site behavior and weigh it against whether to let them stay.
This is why I can no longer get worked up about Net Neutrality. Comcast is not going to throttle small web sites unless they enter into private deals. Twitter, a vocal proponent of Net Neutrality, however, has no problem actively discriminating about who can use their platform.
So again, the people who like to use this XKCD cartoon can take their argument and shove it up their asses. Net Neutrality is looking more and more like a case of projection (in the psychological sense) by highly censorious people who are attempting a bait and switch that just so happens to line their pockets more.
Remember how you had to pay extra to access Slashdot, Google, Facebook, Twitter and Netflix? Remember how some websites were faster than others?
I think back several years ago and...
1. Google still paid lip service to "don't be evil" (including manipulating search results for political reasons). 2. Twitter was much more diverse in opinion. 3. No one except truly dangerous people were getting banned from Facebook nor were posts known to disappear if they disagreed with Facebook's corporate culture.
As Weev pointed out, this about getting preferential treatment to push high volumes of data. Only Comcast is both evil and stupid enough to impose preferential treatment on http traffic.
Love him, hate him or don't give a damn about him, Weev made some great points against the policy, the best one of which is: Many of the companies screaming the loudest are the biggest advocates of censorship. (Then there is the fact that as he rightly points out no one is stopping state and local monopolistic practices)
Of course they don't call it that. They pretend that it's some balance to protect civility, feelings and ensure that cowards are not driven to silence by hearing disagreement, but that is precisely what it is. Censorship.
And one of the greatest ironies of the whole issue is that the sort of people who love to throw this XKCD comic out there are the ones shitting themselves the hardest at the idea that ISPs might take their platform away, but when it is GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTube doing it we are invited to a lecture on how we are not entitled to a soapbox.
Between this, the debacle of iOS 11 and the fact that the Mac lines have been languishing under him, it's clear they need to get rid of him.
And no, replacing him with the woman who runs the retail side is not good for the company no matter how good her number is or how desperately they want to put a woman in charge of the richest company in the world.
At this point, they need a Satya Nadella who can actually get in there, balance both product lines, come up with new ones and reacquire alienated Mac users who've said "I'm not buying this unfixable, glorified iPad that costs $2500-$3000 and has last year's specs." (But hey, it's 1mm thinner!)
I've worked for two very big contractors in the past, and they enthusiastically embraced open source. In fact, there was a consensus among management that open source is preferable whenever FOSS can get the job done at an acceptable level. Every dollar not spent on commercial licenses is another dollar that could be spent on billing labor.
If KDE and GNOME had positioned themselves as full operating systems a la Android and "distros" were an exotic geek thing, desktop Linux might actually be a thing by now. Look at what OS X really is. Most of it is a DE like KDE or GNOME that runs on top of Darwin, but the same company manages both sides. If KDE or GNOME had done that, the results would probably be very similar. Heck, something like going from X.Org to Wayland would be completely invisible to ordinary users.
Slip ups on the road can become fatal in seconds because of the speeds and forces involved. You know people are going to rely on these systems precisely when they should be off the road period or be paying attention. And what happens when a deer decides to bolt out from the woods in front of your vehicle? Are you going to trust that the car can detect a deer?
This seems like a solution to people who hate the idea of mass transit and transporting goods by trains. Self-driving cars and trucks and hyperloops! FFS, just hire Disney's engineers and building a fucking monorail in most cities and connect them to the suburbs. That would be more than sufficient to raise the quality of life on transit.
This is straight out of this post from Stuff White People Like about "awareness." They're giving $5M, while not profitable, to make people "aware" of an issue instead of doing something practical like spending $5M to augment background investigation systems. Because that would be actually doing something. Making people "aware" of a problem is just mental and emotional masturbation for activists who should be working real jobs.
They got lucky that the person was smart enough to not delete the account. There are plenty of political radicals in SV that would have not been so rational. Since the threat of firing was already gone, the only way Twitter can punish them now is to publicly name the person who did this. That is also a good way to make it clear to other employees that if they follow in this person's footsteps, Twitter will not hesitate to nuke them in defense of its interests and users.
Like it or not, Trump is not just some user. He is almost a full blown asset with a monetary value to Twitter because he drives so much user engagement. Had the person deleted the account, Trump would have had a few options. One of which is Twitter's nightmare: move to Gab. Right now, Gab only has a few hundred thousand users and the neo-Nazis retards have a loud and proud presence there. I can guarantee you that if this SJW had deleted the account, Gab would have grown at least an order of magnitude within a few days. With 90 days, it would probably have at least 5M, if not 10M, users. Twitter would have also lost a huge source of engagement which would drive the conversations there down even further.
If Twitter management cares about shareholders (we know they don't, as Dorsey is still in charge), they'll take swift and brutal action against this person and their career.
ava is also a sysadmin's most hated language because you are constantly dealing with clueless Indians and other folks on Java's level and they have no idea how to tune their app other than "Give me everything the system has."
I am a Java developer working with a.NET team. They do the **exact** same thing with.NET. <old-coot-voice>And back in my day, they used C++ and shit randomly blew up because they didn't understand pointers, but at least we had control over memory!</old-coot-voice>
But a lot of us who use Java actually do now how to write Java code that typically doesn't leak object references and can garbage collect just fine. Pay bananas, and don't be surprised when all you get are monkeys.
Finally, Java's "promise" of write once run everywhere is a total lie. It's more like write once run on the exact same version and rig as the developer and it'll work if you are really really freakin' lucky.
You are more full of shit than an abandoned outhouse. I could run this by every Java developer I've met in the last 10 years and they'd ask what controlled substance you're high on because most of us haven't worked on even a single project where the deployment target and the workstations matched up either in OS or JVM version. The JVM is not perfect, but Java binaries are extremely portable if you fully leverage the appropriate APIs to make resource access platform agnostic. (Most of you could be a demotivator: "Hard codes Windows file path, claims it's not cross-platform.")
The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past. I can tell you why: the government didn't have the level of red tape it has today in the name of "accountability." Your "accountability" was "do the damn job effectively or go to the private sector." I have much older relatives who used to be in the federal civil service. They hate what they see it has become today. They hate the red tape that lets people shrug off responsibility for thinking and puts a committee of 10 people in charge of a $2M budget that is a rounding error in the agency's budget.
It is just rampant, out of control legalism at its worst. Laws and regulations choke everything and ensure no one just assumes authority and gets stuff done (because that would Fascist, since wanting the trains to run on time means you are a natural Fascist who doesn't respect dissent and demands submission to arbitrary authority).
Slashdot Mirror
Feminists and feminism-inclined women want to be on all sides of the issue in a "heads we win, tails you lose" way. Don't believe me? Consider two facts about male-female interaction and how they approach them:
Office time:
1. Closing the door is dangerous.
2. Not closing the door is sexist because it makes her feel less comfortable having an honest discussion.
3. Women are always to be given the benefit of the doubt when they say something happened.
4. Behind a closed door it's impossible, short of secretly recording (which isn't always legal), for a man to have any evidence to defend himself.
Moral of the story: due your duty and fall on your sword if a woman wants to advance over you.
Fraternization:
1. If a woman wants to romantically pursue coworkers you are an awful person who thinks they own women for telling her to not shit where she eats, particularly if you threaten to fire her pursuant to an archaic policy that prohibits relationships.
2. If a woman feels there are any consequences to saying no other than "totally cool, I get you" from the man, she's automatically a victim if he is nominally more powerful than her in the org chart. This holds true even if he's above her but in a totally unrelated group and actually protected by a manager with real authority over her.
3. If a woman agrees, for any reason, to have sex or be in a relationship she is not expected to "put on her big girl panties and be a professional" instead of complaining about her one night stand or ex.
4. If a man decides to call it off because he decides it is unprofessional, he is fully responsible and to be condemned and not lauded.
Moral of the story: women get a total free pass short of sexually assaulting barely legal interns in full view of corporate counsel.
Gab documented the heck out of their interactions with both companies when trying to get their app approved. Google was better than Apple, but in the end they decided to pull it because racist language is tolerated on Gab, even though Twitter is littered with SJW-approved racism like blacks calling for violent crimes and even genocide against whites. Apple was just ridiculous; they at one point even hunted down bad language and were like "well, we found this one guy posting a few racist words so this is clearly a hate site so the whole app and site get the ban hammer."
So once again, tell us how Big Tech is on the side of the angels in promoting a free and open internet, market competition, etc.
They might as well act surprised when Keyser Soze denies being Keyser Soze...
If it's particularly aggressive, it's going to teach a lot of drama queens to put their big kid underwear on and deal with their problems instead of writing so many "woe is fucking me" posts.
There is no way in hell the ISPs are going to mess with eCommerce except where it pertains to bandwidth-heavy goods and services. That would be so greedy and such an assault on ordinary users that it would make the average Republican voter become open-minded to nationalizing the big ISPs and making utilities out of them. It would rank right up there on the level of stupid as fining grandma for downloading family photos and using Facebook to talk to her grandkids.
A totalitarian government that wants to inflict maximum damage to cryptocurrency without firing a shot would just have to work on a worm that would target the users' wallets and make them inaccessible. The number of users that would have gone through the steps to enable recovery would probably be shockingly low.
The FCC is going to have no shortage of examples of censorship and flaming hypocrisy from the most vocal advocates of Net Neutrality like Google, Facebook and Twitter. If the goal is an "open Internet," it's going to be the biggest backers who end up looking the worst because they are doing all of the things that they fear the ISPs would do (and yet have never done).
Big Tech crushes dissenting opinions, even slightly dissenting opinions. People get banned, shadowbanned, demonetized, etc. at the drop of a hat. By comparison, even Comcast looks downright honorable in how it treats its users.
Leftists on slashdot love to say "no one has a right to give you a platform." It's just terrifying to think that someone else might have the power to deplatform you instead of those who are amenable to your point of view on issues like this.
The SCOTUS has never, that I can remember, sided against Congress in altering the scope of IP law. In fact, the SCOTUS has basically told the public we're SOL if Congress does something we don't like. The "pro-IP side" is part of the general public and has no standing either to challenge Congress in defining the scope of IP protection because Article I, Section 8 is a blank check to Congress.
I see people on social media saying "I pay for da interwebz, I'll do whatever I want and oh btw, I'll do it at the full speed I was 'sold.'" A lot of these are people that should know better, who should know that they were never sold a package with a QoS agreement with the ISP. The reason you can afford 75mbps+ at a rate that is supportable on a few bucks above minimum wage is precisely that "up to $Xmbps" in the contract and the other stipulations that make it clear they can impose QoS policies to give the best service to the most people. Turns out streaming 4k NetFlix to 1% of their users might not fit that description.
Thanksgiving morning, I tried to download an update to IntelliJ which is about 500MB of data. My FiOS connection was slow probably because my neighborhood, which is pretty large, were all home streaming NetFlix, Hulu, etc. waiting for Thanksgiving dinner. Anything I tried to download over an ordinary HTTP connection was slow, but NetFlix was just fine for my kids... So as far as I know, I was on the losing end of bandwidth prioritization.
To me this wailing that streaming users might be discriminated against is like hybrid drivers complaining that they might face additional alternative taxes to cover the fact that their cars put the same wear on the roads, but don't fund it properly through the gas tax. It may not be fair, but those shared resources (private or public) are not elastic. It costs money to maintain them and keep the same level of service as usage patterns change.
Nearly $333M to produce? That's a huge investment from an industry that is filled with people who can't shut their mouths and stop making statements that alienate as much as 50% of the population. With such large outlays, you need to appeal to as much of the population as a whole unless you have a minority of the population with deep pockets who will enthusiastically replace the majority (see Apple).
It's especially ironic since right-of-center audiences that Hollywood loves to mock are precisely the sort of people who go to movies like this for the escapism and are willing to hold it to a lower standard because they don't "expect that much" from a comic book. The only people I know who bitch about Michael Bay movies are left-leaning types. For everyone else, it's worth a little escapism and sometimes fun to watch it over a few beers just to watch shit get blown up.
What you'd do is get rid of the copyright protection. Declare that porn obscene materials have no legal protection. You'd do two things that would set the whole production process on fire without jailing anyone:
1. Bankrupt the producers.
2. Make it impossible for amateur producers to control distribution of their materials.
The most you could do is use revenge porn laws to stop #2 and that would be as effective as asking Shawn Fanning "pretty please stop" back in 1999 instead of having the legal system at the ready.
And the best part is that it would be completely legal and constitutional in the US because copyright law is not a civil right per Article I, Section 8.
With attitudes like this being pervasive in the SJWs that run HR, who wouldn't prefer a good self-employment option if they can find one they like?
People are losing their shit because of this, but not Twitter's announcement that they are planning to monitor users' off site behavior and weigh it against whether to let them stay.
This is why I can no longer get worked up about Net Neutrality. Comcast is not going to throttle small web sites unless they enter into private deals. Twitter, a vocal proponent of Net Neutrality, however, has no problem actively discriminating about who can use their platform.
So again, the people who like to use this XKCD cartoon can take their argument and shove it up their asses. Net Neutrality is looking more and more like a case of projection (in the psychological sense) by highly censorious people who are attempting a bait and switch that just so happens to line their pockets more.
I think back several years ago and...
1. Google still paid lip service to "don't be evil" (including manipulating search results for political reasons).
2. Twitter was much more diverse in opinion.
3. No one except truly dangerous people were getting banned from Facebook nor were posts known to disappear if they disagreed with Facebook's corporate culture.
As Weev pointed out, this about getting preferential treatment to push high volumes of data. Only Comcast is both evil and stupid enough to impose preferential treatment on http traffic.
Love him, hate him or don't give a damn about him, Weev made some great points against the policy, the best one of which is: Many of the companies screaming the loudest are the biggest advocates of censorship. (Then there is the fact that as he rightly points out no one is stopping state and local monopolistic practices)
Of course they don't call it that. They pretend that it's some balance to protect civility, feelings and ensure that cowards are not driven to silence by hearing disagreement, but that is precisely what it is. Censorship.
And one of the greatest ironies of the whole issue is that the sort of people who love to throw this XKCD comic out there are the ones shitting themselves the hardest at the idea that ISPs might take their platform away, but when it is GoogleFacebookTwitterYouTube doing it we are invited to a lecture on how we are not entitled to a soapbox.
Between this, the debacle of iOS 11 and the fact that the Mac lines have been languishing under him, it's clear they need to get rid of him.
And no, replacing him with the woman who runs the retail side is not good for the company no matter how good her number is or how desperately they want to put a woman in charge of the richest company in the world.
At this point, they need a Satya Nadella who can actually get in there, balance both product lines, come up with new ones and reacquire alienated Mac users who've said "I'm not buying this unfixable, glorified iPad that costs $2500-$3000 and has last year's specs." (But hey, it's 1mm thinner!)
The #1 complaint of most teams I've been on is that the PM sat around and rarely followed through on removing obstacles.
I've worked for two very big contractors in the past, and they enthusiastically embraced open source. In fact, there was a consensus among management that open source is preferable whenever FOSS can get the job done at an acceptable level. Every dollar not spent on commercial licenses is another dollar that could be spent on billing labor.
If KDE and GNOME had positioned themselves as full operating systems a la Android and "distros" were an exotic geek thing, desktop Linux might actually be a thing by now. Look at what OS X really is. Most of it is a DE like KDE or GNOME that runs on top of Darwin, but the same company manages both sides. If KDE or GNOME had done that, the results would probably be very similar. Heck, something like going from X.Org to Wayland would be completely invisible to ordinary users.
I almost hit upgrade on my phone, but the I saw the announcement of an input bug.
o_O
Input bug? How the Hell do you miss that in QA?
Slip ups on the road can become fatal in seconds because of the speeds and forces involved. You know people are going to rely on these systems precisely when they should be off the road period or be paying attention. And what happens when a deer decides to bolt out from the woods in front of your vehicle? Are you going to trust that the car can detect a deer?
This seems like a solution to people who hate the idea of mass transit and transporting goods by trains. Self-driving cars and trucks and hyperloops! FFS, just hire Disney's engineers and building a fucking monorail in most cities and connect them to the suburbs. That would be more than sufficient to raise the quality of life on transit.
This is straight out of this post from Stuff White People Like about "awareness." They're giving $5M, while not profitable, to make people "aware" of an issue instead of doing something practical like spending $5M to augment background investigation systems. Because that would be actually doing something. Making people "aware" of a problem is just mental and emotional masturbation for activists who should be working real jobs.
They got lucky that the person was smart enough to not delete the account. There are plenty of political radicals in SV that would have not been so rational. Since the threat of firing was already gone, the only way Twitter can punish them now is to publicly name the person who did this. That is also a good way to make it clear to other employees that if they follow in this person's footsteps, Twitter will not hesitate to nuke them in defense of its interests and users.
Like it or not, Trump is not just some user. He is almost a full blown asset with a monetary value to Twitter because he drives so much user engagement. Had the person deleted the account, Trump would have had a few options. One of which is Twitter's nightmare: move to Gab. Right now, Gab only has a few hundred thousand users and the neo-Nazis retards have a loud and proud presence there. I can guarantee you that if this SJW had deleted the account, Gab would have grown at least an order of magnitude within a few days. With 90 days, it would probably have at least 5M, if not 10M, users. Twitter would have also lost a huge source of engagement which would drive the conversations there down even further.
If Twitter management cares about shareholders (we know they don't, as Dorsey is still in charge), they'll take swift and brutal action against this person and their career.
I am a Java developer working with a .NET team. They do the **exact** same thing with .NET. <old-coot-voice>And back in my day, they used C++ and shit randomly blew up because they didn't understand pointers, but at least we had control over memory!</old-coot-voice>
But a lot of us who use Java actually do now how to write Java code that typically doesn't leak object references and can garbage collect just fine. Pay bananas, and don't be surprised when all you get are monkeys.
You are more full of shit than an abandoned outhouse. I could run this by every Java developer I've met in the last 10 years and they'd ask what controlled substance you're high on because most of us haven't worked on even a single project where the deployment target and the workstations matched up either in OS or JVM version. The JVM is not perfect, but Java binaries are extremely portable if you fully leverage the appropriate APIs to make resource access platform agnostic. (Most of you could be a demotivator: "Hard codes Windows file path, claims it's not cross-platform.")
The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past. I can tell you why: the government didn't have the level of red tape it has today in the name of "accountability." Your "accountability" was "do the damn job effectively or go to the private sector." I have much older relatives who used to be in the federal civil service. They hate what they see it has become today. They hate the red tape that lets people shrug off responsibility for thinking and puts a committee of 10 people in charge of a $2M budget that is a rounding error in the agency's budget.
It is just rampant, out of control legalism at its worst. Laws and regulations choke everything and ensure no one just assumes authority and gets stuff done (because that would Fascist, since wanting the trains to run on time means you are a natural Fascist who doesn't respect dissent and demands submission to arbitrary authority).