Actually, you are the one who is ignorant of how cookies work. Mozilla already has a bug documenting what this guy is asking for, which has several proof-of-concept implementations, one of which is already used in the Tor browser. I implemented vertical and horizontal browser data isolation in about a month in my spare time. Mozilla has finally started working toward this with their isolated tabs. The next logical result will be isolated origins. The change is inevitable. And get this: third-party cookies still work. They are just isolated to the origin domain. You can still use single sign-on, but it becomes one sign-on per origin. You stay logged in for as long as you want. Your browsing habits just stop becoming trackable. Also, browser fingerprinting is a defeated technology. Just randomly rotate between common values, and noise is added to a non-unique signal. The only thing left is IP address tracking, which can easily be defeated by VPNs, or any form of IP masquerading. Tracking on The Web is dying because it is all moving to third-party app monetization libraries, and that is where all of the money is now.
Oh, I get it. Going out of your way to hire someone to install an email server who has no security credentials, and sending diplomatic communication, and communications that approve of assassinations... that is just *simple* negligence. At the same time, I am learning that you can commit any crime as long as someone in power would be implicated in that crime. Thank you for the clarification.
That would require the demand to move slower to the US than the supply. However, in tech, demand closely follows supply.
This is pretty easy to demonstrate by the fact that something like 9% (off the top of my head) of the population of Seattle are tech people, and yet there is still crazy demand.
The nature of technology is that there is virtually limitless possibility to *create* demand, because an increase in technology is an increase of efficiency, which is an inherent market advantage, which naturally is a form of demand.
I work with census data for a living. The change is caused by a change in tax code, not a change in the labor market. People are the same. The system has changed. To say otherwise is ignorance of nearly every metric. The effects we are seeing is not due to a failure in people, but a failed culture, set by those in power.
Smartwatches are in between handheld and augmented reality glasses. There is going to be a very significant rise in that, and that niche isn't going to go away even after AR becomes mainstream because walking around with glasses on is not a desirable in the way that a fashion accessory is. A watch is something that you *want* to wear. My Smartwatch has lowered my stress level immensely because I can finally know at a glance if somethings needs my attention, and I can reply super quickly. I love my Pebble. I would enjoy an Apple Watch just as much. My wife has one, and she had only wanted it as a fashion accessory until she started using it, and now she talks about all the cool things she is still doing with it that are brand new, and it has been almost 4 months now, so definitely past the honeymoon stage.
Yes, it is difficult to parse. I meant it like this: "A labor-system that relies on disparity-to-persist advocates for equality-with-respect-to-conditions because equality-with-respect-to-conditions is a bias in favor of those in better-conditions."
What I am trying to say is that the labor system is designed for persistent disparity, and the way it does that is by arguing for "equality with respect to conditions". Better conditions is a natural advantage. This is not only an intuitive idea, but is a well documented fact. For example, poll taxes and such things apply to everyone, but don't affect everyone. It is the difference between application and the subjects of application that express institutional racism. This is why one way to effectively counter it is to measure whole-system bias, and counter based on measured effects, and that is the basis for affirmative action. If you come up with a better system that addresses the class migration problem, please the the word know!
Countering the effects of racism/sexism is not racism/sexism in the same way that offering a self-defense class for women is not sexist, but an attempt to address sexism elsewhere. Institutionalized racism is not affirmative action, but an effect of neighborhood segregation.
1. It isn't about what people deserve. It is about a smart investment in all of society, and the development prior to entering the job market. The job market doesn't need affirmative action. That would be a last resort, and a sign of social failure in other systems. You are placing a talking-point sound-bite into my mouth. It is needed in the education system, the healthcare system, and the support system for parents and families in general. 2. The shrinking middle class makes it harder for entrepreneurs like me. I support the development of a strong middle class. 3. I am a business owner now because of social advantages providing opportunities that I was well suited for. I don't think it is just my special skills. I have also been fortunate. I just think everyone deserves the same fortune.
Read about Fijian Indians, then read about Gandhi. Civil rights education is readily available. You were taught to understand it as ignoring racial issues altogether. That is holding ignorance as an ideal. Think about it.
I agree with all of your points, except to say that affirmative action is the solution to both institutional racism, and the problems of white people who are caught in the same income inequality issues. Affirmative action isn't just about race, but about everyone who is socially underdeveloped, including white millennials. It is about dismantling the status quo: truly progressive action. I am not saying that *you* should be punished, but that the system should support the development of all, which exactly address your problem.
A labor system that relies on disparity to persist advocates for equality with respect to conditions because equality with respect to conditions is a bias in favor of those in better conditions. It is an ideal system for limiting class migration because any other method for picking winners and losers will affect some portion of the existing winners. This is why the civil rights movement long ago acknowledged that "affirmative action" is needed to develop the entire society rather than those already in better conditions. That those in better conditions stay in better conditions, despite race, demonstrates that the development of people of all races works. To not develop all races is a lack of social investment, and a sign of a weak and declining society.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my daughter to live in the society of the 1950s, before the civil rights movement. As it is looking today, she will end up working in nearly all white corporations, seeing that people who look like her mother are taking out the trash and cleaning the bathrooms, the thing that her grandmother is doing now despite being a pharmacy technician back in Fiji. She is going to continue seeing the lost development of people who look halfway like her. If she chose to use her advantage to develop people who halfway look like her that are underdeveloped, instead of helping people who already have society's help in every other respect... I don't know about you, but I would be proud.
What white people like we need to understand is that it is not for us to design the movement, but to support it. We have the resources to support a civil rights movement, but we do not have the right experience to design one that will work. What we need to do is look at what works, and support it, and the status quo is certainly not working.
So, women tell you that you are sexist, and that doesn't happen to me, and I'm the sexist one who lacks common sense.
Allow me to project myself on you. It is a very rude to do, but if it hits right, maybe that will help.
What is happening is that there are gaps, and they get filled with a protective layer of ego. It is a natural defense mechanism that everyone does in social situations, but is hugely magnified when someone has aspergers. You are not normally egotistical when things are going fine socially, just like everyone else. But since you have trouble expressing interest in other people, who you actually care about, and are prone to attacking people with coldness in defense, it appears like you are being an asshole from both sides. I know this because I have been there.
The solution is to study etiquette as a geeky subject, and learn how to be polite 100% of the time, even when you are upset or confused or angry. What is actually going on really is "growing up" or "being raised".
Our generation wasn't taught how to be polite like other generations. I started learning to be polite late in life, but made huge progress in a few years. You have probably already made a lot of progress, just knowing that it is a problem. But you have to keep remembering that people are much more baffled by you than you are of them, and that if you become less socially baffling, the behavior of everyone around you will make much more sense, and it will get easier and easier.
This isn't about your success. This is about a group of people being repressed.
My identical twin has Aspergers. I don't. We both have the same tendencies, and behaved similarly when we were younger, but I made a choice to not be an asshole after being one of his victims for my whole life, and worked hard to avoid behaving like him. Let me tell you: it really is about growing up. Yes, your tendencies are real and strong, and difficult, but that is not the burden of anyone else but you. It isn't like sexual orientation. Having an asshole orientation is not a protected class. No one is going to protect your style of hate. You can and should cope with it and stop being sexist. If you can't work with women, you are the problem, not women. The world can go on without Aspergers, but it can't go on without women.
They posted a HUGE correlation, and then posted causation below, explaining the correlation. But anyway, as a counter-example of the parent, even correlation is enough, because if he were correct that HUGE correlation would need to be explained. Plus, anyone who knows how to work with women knows that he is just trolling, and that women aren't explained away in such childish terms, and that is why I told him to grow up.
Clearly, the entry in the dictionary is the legal definition of voluntary:
(Law) Free; without compulsion; according to the will,
consent, or agreement, of a party; without consideration;
gratuitous; without valuable consideration.
Certainly, consequences are valuable consideration, especially by the fact the typical form of compulsion in a legal system is the potential for legal consequence.
It could become the only option for that particular industry. If you apply your argument to all industries, then there will be no place left to work a livable wage, even considering skill. Then no employees would exist, and rights would revert back to Victorian times. This is simply because of what Adam Smith explained, that people with capital can hold out much longer than those without, unless they organize.
Try reading almost any classical book on capitalism, even by capitalists. Remember, unions are a part of capitalism. Without them, capitalism collapses one industry at a time, until a revolution cycles worker rights up again. If it isn't done politically, that would not be good for anyone, including capitalists.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you are the one who is ignorant of how cookies work. Mozilla already has a bug documenting what this guy is asking for, which has several proof-of-concept implementations, one of which is already used in the Tor browser. I implemented vertical and horizontal browser data isolation in about a month in my spare time. Mozilla has finally started working toward this with their isolated tabs. The next logical result will be isolated origins. The change is inevitable. And get this: third-party cookies still work. They are just isolated to the origin domain. You can still use single sign-on, but it becomes one sign-on per origin. You stay logged in for as long as you want. Your browsing habits just stop becoming trackable. Also, browser fingerprinting is a defeated technology. Just randomly rotate between common values, and noise is added to a non-unique signal. The only thing left is IP address tracking, which can easily be defeated by VPNs, or any form of IP masquerading. Tracking on The Web is dying because it is all moving to third-party app monetization libraries, and that is where all of the money is now.
Oh, I get it. Going out of your way to hire someone to install an email server who has no security credentials, and sending diplomatic communication, and communications that approve of assassinations... that is just *simple* negligence. At the same time, I am learning that you can commit any crime as long as someone in power would be implicated in that crime. Thank you for the clarification.
That would require the demand to move slower to the US than the supply. However, in tech, demand closely follows supply. This is pretty easy to demonstrate by the fact that something like 9% (off the top of my head) of the population of Seattle are tech people, and yet there is still crazy demand. The nature of technology is that there is virtually limitless possibility to *create* demand, because an increase in technology is an increase of efficiency, which is an inherent market advantage, which naturally is a form of demand.
If any background processes are running, just pop up a dialog on logout and ask if they want them killed. No need to make assumptions.
My dad taught 4th grade, and taught BASIC with an Apple IIgs. He taught in Redmond, WA School district. I am not sure how common it was.
I work with census data for a living. The change is caused by a change in tax code, not a change in the labor market. People are the same. The system has changed. To say otherwise is ignorance of nearly every metric. The effects we are seeing is not due to a failure in people, but a failed culture, set by those in power.
I enjoyed Machiavelli, too.
Smartwatches are in between handheld and augmented reality glasses. There is going to be a very significant rise in that, and that niche isn't going to go away even after AR becomes mainstream because walking around with glasses on is not a desirable in the way that a fashion accessory is. A watch is something that you *want* to wear. My Smartwatch has lowered my stress level immensely because I can finally know at a glance if somethings needs my attention, and I can reply super quickly. I love my Pebble. I would enjoy an Apple Watch just as much. My wife has one, and she had only wanted it as a fashion accessory until she started using it, and now she talks about all the cool things she is still doing with it that are brand new, and it has been almost 4 months now, so definitely past the honeymoon stage.
Spoken together more and more in the same breath.
Yes, it is difficult to parse. I meant it like this: "A labor-system that relies on disparity-to-persist advocates for equality-with-respect-to-conditions because equality-with-respect-to-conditions is a bias in favor of those in better-conditions."
What I am trying to say is that the labor system is designed for persistent disparity, and the way it does that is by arguing for "equality with respect to conditions". Better conditions is a natural advantage. This is not only an intuitive idea, but is a well documented fact. For example, poll taxes and such things apply to everyone, but don't affect everyone. It is the difference between application and the subjects of application that express institutional racism. This is why one way to effectively counter it is to measure whole-system bias, and counter based on measured effects, and that is the basis for affirmative action. If you come up with a better system that addresses the class migration problem, please the the word know!
Countering the effects of racism/sexism is not racism/sexism in the same way that offering a self-defense class for women is not sexist, but an attempt to address sexism elsewhere. Institutionalized racism is not affirmative action, but an effect of neighborhood segregation.
1. It isn't about what people deserve. It is about a smart investment in all of society, and the development prior to entering the job market. The job market doesn't need affirmative action. That would be a last resort, and a sign of social failure in other systems. You are placing a talking-point sound-bite into my mouth. It is needed in the education system, the healthcare system, and the support system for parents and families in general. 2. The shrinking middle class makes it harder for entrepreneurs like me. I support the development of a strong middle class. 3. I am a business owner now because of social advantages providing opportunities that I was well suited for. I don't think it is just my special skills. I have also been fortunate. I just think everyone deserves the same fortune.
Do you always tell people to fuck off before comprehending what they said?
Read about Fijian Indians, then read about Gandhi. Civil rights education is readily available. You were taught to understand it as ignoring racial issues altogether. That is holding ignorance as an ideal. Think about it.
Nope. That's not what I said.
I agree with all of your points, except to say that affirmative action is the solution to both institutional racism, and the problems of white people who are caught in the same income inequality issues. Affirmative action isn't just about race, but about everyone who is socially underdeveloped, including white millennials. It is about dismantling the status quo: truly progressive action. I am not saying that *you* should be punished, but that the system should support the development of all, which exactly address your problem.
A labor system that relies on disparity to persist advocates for equality with respect to conditions because equality with respect to conditions is a bias in favor of those in better conditions. It is an ideal system for limiting class migration because any other method for picking winners and losers will affect some portion of the existing winners. This is why the civil rights movement long ago acknowledged that "affirmative action" is needed to develop the entire society rather than those already in better conditions. That those in better conditions stay in better conditions, despite race, demonstrates that the development of people of all races works. To not develop all races is a lack of social investment, and a sign of a weak and declining society.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my daughter to live in the society of the 1950s, before the civil rights movement. As it is looking today, she will end up working in nearly all white corporations, seeing that people who look like her mother are taking out the trash and cleaning the bathrooms, the thing that her grandmother is doing now despite being a pharmacy technician back in Fiji. She is going to continue seeing the lost development of people who look halfway like her. If she chose to use her advantage to develop people who halfway look like her that are underdeveloped, instead of helping people who already have society's help in every other respect... I don't know about you, but I would be proud.
What white people like we need to understand is that it is not for us to design the movement, but to support it. We have the resources to support a civil rights movement, but we do not have the right experience to design one that will work. What we need to do is look at what works, and support it, and the status quo is certainly not working.
So, women tell you that you are sexist, and that doesn't happen to me, and I'm the sexist one who lacks common sense.
Allow me to project myself on you. It is a very rude to do, but if it hits right, maybe that will help.
What is happening is that there are gaps, and they get filled with a protective layer of ego. It is a natural defense mechanism that everyone does in social situations, but is hugely magnified when someone has aspergers. You are not normally egotistical when things are going fine socially, just like everyone else. But since you have trouble expressing interest in other people, who you actually care about, and are prone to attacking people with coldness in defense, it appears like you are being an asshole from both sides. I know this because I have been there.
The solution is to study etiquette as a geeky subject, and learn how to be polite 100% of the time, even when you are upset or confused or angry. What is actually going on really is "growing up" or "being raised".
Our generation wasn't taught how to be polite like other generations. I started learning to be polite late in life, but made huge progress in a few years. You have probably already made a lot of progress, just knowing that it is a problem. But you have to keep remembering that people are much more baffled by you than you are of them, and that if you become less socially baffling, the behavior of everyone around you will make much more sense, and it will get easier and easier.
This isn't about your success. This is about a group of people being repressed.
My identical twin has Aspergers. I don't. We both have the same tendencies, and behaved similarly when we were younger, but I made a choice to not be an asshole after being one of his victims for my whole life, and worked hard to avoid behaving like him. Let me tell you: it really is about growing up. Yes, your tendencies are real and strong, and difficult, but that is not the burden of anyone else but you. It isn't like sexual orientation. Having an asshole orientation is not a protected class. No one is going to protect your style of hate. You can and should cope with it and stop being sexist. If you can't work with women, you are the problem, not women. The world can go on without Aspergers, but it can't go on without women.
They posted a HUGE correlation, and then posted causation below, explaining the correlation. But anyway, as a counter-example of the parent, even correlation is enough, because if he were correct that HUGE correlation would need to be explained. Plus, anyone who knows how to work with women knows that he is just trolling, and that women aren't explained away in such childish terms, and that is why I told him to grow up.
I know this is a troll, but instead of moderating, I will just say: why then does science say that women in leadership increases productivity?
In my experience, sexist people just don't know how to communicate with women, and feel threatened. Grow up, and be a man!
Certainly, consequences are valuable consideration, especially by the fact the typical form of compulsion in a legal system is the potential for legal consequence.
We all know that one thing the federal government doesn't have is a dictionary. Those things are like kryptonite to governments.
Tracking cookies are cookies that cross origins. Mozilla refuses to implement the same-origin policy for cookies and other browser state.
It could become the only option for that particular industry. If you apply your argument to all industries, then there will be no place left to work a livable wage, even considering skill. Then no employees would exist, and rights would revert back to Victorian times. This is simply because of what Adam Smith explained, that people with capital can hold out much longer than those without, unless they organize. Try reading almost any classical book on capitalism, even by capitalists. Remember, unions are a part of capitalism. Without them, capitalism collapses one industry at a time, until a revolution cycles worker rights up again. If it isn't done politically, that would not be good for anyone, including capitalists.