I'm sure it's coming. The Data Download tool is likely a requirement to satisfy the new GDPR regulation that goes into effect in a month or so, specifically article 20 ( Right to Data Portability: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gd... ). There is another requirement in the same regulation that guarantees the right to erasure ( https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gd... )
Absolutely not. I only want to ban 80 and 443. Think of all the other ports that could carry useful data though! In this particularly case, I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the notably excellent hollywoodreporter.com gopher space.
More to the point, while I could use my hosts file, I would still need a mechanism to keep it up-to-date with all sites that auto-play audio. Self maintenance would mean that I would have to visit most offending sites at least once, whereas I would like to keep that number much closer to 0.
This is a good analysis of the new Trek movies. However, one can say the same thing of some of the older (particularly TNG) trek movies. Trek TV has always been about exploration, but movies 9 and 10 (and even 8 if you eliminate the Zephram Cochrane arc), for example, had precious little to tickle the curious mind. They were good-guys / bad-guy "action" flicks, but they weren't even good at the action parts. Ever since Star Trek II (the first one), the studio[s] considered it a safe financial bet to just turn Star Trek cinema into a Star Wars clone (but with more people per ship). Heck, even Discovery so far has been way heavy on the war plot.
Thanks for the suggestion! However, Ghostery looks more like a content filter (to remove trackers, ads, etc.), whereas I don't even want to patronize the site at all. I just want my browser to tell me that it's a garbage site before my browser navigates away so I can move quickly along with the rest of my life.
Maybe this works for TPB, but increasingly, websites won't work when you do that. I say this as the lead developer of a single-page-app that most certainly requires javascript. Plus, even without making it a single-page-app, TPB could be trivially rewritten to require js.
You make it sound so tawdry, perhaps because you failed to identify the most important distinction: free as in beer, or as in speech? Many of the people who want "free stuff" are more than happy to buy their media, but only without DRM. People who don't want DRM and do want privacy actually overlap quite nicely.
Haha, a reasonable point to be sure. That being said, companies can have subsidiaries with a more tarnished reputation than their parent. Also, I would claim that one way of measuring the "brand of record" is the domain that shows up first when I Google. In this case, "beatsbydre.com". iPhone, by contrast, returns "apple.com".
Also, I bet if you look outside tech circles, a lot of people don't even know Beats is owned by Apple. There were only two references to Apple on the Beats site that I identified. One was the Apple icon inside the "buy" buttons, and the other was the registration footer with excruciatingly low contrast. Maybe one day when they get renamed to BeatsByCook, I'll reconsider my position.
I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "premium". If you must use an adjective that is not pejorative, I would choose "fashion headphones". When I think "premium", I think Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Beyerdynamic.
I would have thought the same thing. However, I've been using Bing since the James Damore incident out of curiosity, and it really isn't that bad. I haven't had to do as many technical (i.e. programming) searches since I switched, and that was always Bing's weakness compared to Google, so I reserve full judgement for later. Regardless of what you feel ethically about Google vs Microsoft, it can't be good for any particular search engine to have a near Monopoly in the US.
Haha, I can almost understand people not reading the 10 page memo, but not reading my 2 paragraph comment before responding is reprehensible.
Your contention is that being lazy is a biological trait
I didn't say that at all. My example had nothing to do with biology. I was merely saying that some traits alter your inclination perform a task without altering your ability to do perform that task. Also, I didn't say anything about laziness (I said something about delay-of-gratification).
Not true. The traits that make me more likely to choose something are often very different than the traits that make me good at something.
For instance, I'm an overweight gentleman who has vanishingly little ability to delay gratification when it comes to food. Because of those traits, I rarely choose to shop at the grocery store, and instead opt for fast food on the way home. However, when I do shop at the grocery store, I kick serious ass. I find the sales, I buy the healthy stuff, and I'm super nice to the person who watches the self checkout stations. Therefore, the same trait that make me less likely to shop at the grocery store does not at all negatively affect my suitability for it.
I do appreciate your perspective on this - I think most folks with a very black and white opinion of this situation (myself include sadly) are probably mistaken about something. That being said, one thing about your comment disturbs me.
Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail... (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.)
How then does one talk about averages? Aren't they sometimes important? Particularly if the "problem" one is trying to address is merely one of averages itself (i.e. the gender gap). I think that most people (perhaps yourself included) are not truly bothered by lumping people together, but instead bothered that the conclusion isn't flattering. Suppose I said the following three things (and, I am NOT saying that I believe any of these things - this is just a mind experiment):
"On average, women are less likely to be a developer"
"On average, women are more likely to encounter negative bias"
"On average, women are less likely choose software development because of their biological makeup"
In which statements am I "lumping massive groups of population and assigning traits"? Which is not "OK" to say in a memo? For which should I be socially castigated? If the answer to any of these is only 3, I submit that you are simply cherry picking the statement that you don't like as the generalization.
I agree that this is capitalism, and I certainly agree that Google has the right to fire Damore (even as I personally find that action repugnant). That being said, political correctness can still be repressive, socially speaking. The state is not the entity that exercises power within the country. For example large corporations also wield power in a capitalist system (particularly those with $500+ Billion market caps, and particularly those with a history of employment price fixing and collusion).
Naubol is totally right. Read the memo again (or, you know, for the first time).
Additionally, and I think more importantly, the notion that you (and many other people) have of "toxic" ideas is very disturbing. To declare an ideological, political, or sociological position as "toxic" justifies (for many people) a multitude of disproportionate responses, including violence and large-scale social castigation. I certainly think certain ideas are wrong or even morally repugnant, but we need, as a society, to be in a place where we can have these discussions rationally and without fear of reprisal. In short: even if you (and all the other folks in the world that didn't bother read the memo) are right about his premise, it simply doesn't justify the backlash.
but going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions.
he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers
Simply false. Please quote for me the section of his memo that would make any reasonable person think that. Just because a person can talk objectively of averages or statistics doesn't mean that they are incapable of judging, grading, or promoting people based on their personal merits.
his so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday.
Given the quite reasonable and level-headed tone of his memo, I think this reflects quite poorly on those that stayed home from work. Perhaps they should have been fired.
I'm not sure that people are that concerned merely with the fact that they have blacklists. Rather, I think the concern is Google has shown that, as a company, they conflate having a non-conforming view with being "impossible to work with" (as evidenced by Damore's firing). Therefore, their blacklists would indeed have folks that they "don't agree with".
The CS gender gap likely has a variety of causes, and I think that is one of the most significant points of Damore's memo. Heck, he literally titles a section "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech," meaning that bias may be a component, but there may be others.
To your specific point, saying that the gap is entirely social or entirely biological is probably over-simplifying. Given that there are likely a number of factors (and assuming that biology is one of the causes [duck!]), I would expect that on average, women would be underrepresented in CS across the entire world, but would closer to parity (or in the majority) in certain places based on prevailing social factors and perception.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it's coming. The Data Download tool is likely a requirement to satisfy the new GDPR regulation that goes into effect in a month or so, specifically article 20 ( Right to Data Portability: https://gdpr-info.eu/art-20-gd... ). There is another requirement in the same regulation that guarantees the right to erasure ( https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gd... )
Not sure on Rigel, but I know what they call it in Theta 116: http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...
Absolutely not. I only want to ban 80 and 443. Think of all the other ports that could carry useful data though! In this particularly case, I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the notably excellent hollywoodreporter.com gopher space.
More to the point, while I could use my hosts file, I would still need a mechanism to keep it up-to-date with all sites that auto-play audio. Self maintenance would mean that I would have to visit most offending sites at least once, whereas I would like to keep that number much closer to 0.
This is a good analysis of the new Trek movies. However, one can say the same thing of some of the older (particularly TNG) trek movies. Trek TV has always been about exploration, but movies 9 and 10 (and even 8 if you eliminate the Zephram Cochrane arc), for example, had precious little to tickle the curious mind. They were good-guys / bad-guy "action" flicks, but they weren't even good at the action parts. Ever since Star Trek II (the first one), the studio[s] considered it a safe financial bet to just turn Star Trek cinema into a Star Wars clone (but with more people per ship). Heck, even Discovery so far has been way heavy on the war plot.
Well, fair enough - thank you good sir!
Thanks for the suggestion! However, Ghostery looks more like a content filter (to remove trackers, ads, etc.), whereas I don't even want to patronize the site at all. I just want my browser to tell me that it's a garbage site before my browser navigates away so I can move quickly along with the rest of my life.
Can anybody suggest a good plugin that will ban sites that do that shit? I don't even want to show up in their daily-active-user count.
Ahh, good catch! I stand corrected.
It's almost certainly a bubble commodity, but it has been solidly above $1,000 for over 7 months now.
bitcoins
worth $1,000
I think the plural is misleading. That's less than 20% of one bitcoin at the time of this comment.
Maybe this works for TPB, but increasingly, websites won't work when you do that. I say this as the lead developer of a single-page-app that most certainly requires javascript. Plus, even without making it a single-page-app, TPB could be trivially rewritten to require js.
People that use torrents want free stuff.
You make it sound so tawdry, perhaps because you failed to identify the most important distinction: free as in beer, or as in speech? Many of the people who want "free stuff" are more than happy to buy their media, but only without DRM. People who don't want DRM and do want privacy actually overlap quite nicely.
Haha, a reasonable point to be sure. That being said, companies can have subsidiaries with a more tarnished reputation than their parent. Also, I would claim that one way of measuring the "brand of record" is the domain that shows up first when I Google. In this case, "beatsbydre.com". iPhone, by contrast, returns "apple.com".
Also, I bet if you look outside tech circles, a lot of people don't even know Beats is owned by Apple. There were only two references to Apple on the Beats site that I identified. One was the Apple icon inside the "buy" buttons, and the other was the registration footer with excruciatingly low contrast. Maybe one day when they get renamed to BeatsByCook, I'll reconsider my position.
I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "premium". If you must use an adjective that is not pejorative, I would choose "fashion headphones". When I think "premium", I think Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Beyerdynamic.
I would have thought the same thing. However, I've been using Bing since the James Damore incident out of curiosity, and it really isn't that bad. I haven't had to do as many technical (i.e. programming) searches since I switched, and that was always Bing's weakness compared to Google, so I reserve full judgement for later. Regardless of what you feel ethically about Google vs Microsoft, it can't be good for any particular search engine to have a near Monopoly in the US.
Your contention is that being lazy is a biological trait
I didn't say that at all. My example had nothing to do with biology. I was merely saying that some traits alter your inclination perform a task without altering your ability to do perform that task. Also, I didn't say anything about laziness (I said something about delay-of-gratification).
Not true. The traits that make me more likely to choose something are often very different than the traits that make me good at something.
For instance, I'm an overweight gentleman who has vanishingly little ability to delay gratification when it comes to food. Because of those traits, I rarely choose to shop at the grocery store, and instead opt for fast food on the way home. However, when I do shop at the grocery store, I kick serious ass. I find the sales, I buy the healthy stuff, and I'm super nice to the person who watches the self checkout stations. Therefore, the same trait that make me less likely to shop at the grocery store does not at all negatively affect my suitability for it.
Any discussion that tries to lump massive groups of population and assign traits to them is going to fail ... (And you can't get around that by liberally sprinkling the phrase 'on average'.)
How then does one talk about averages? Aren't they sometimes important? Particularly if the "problem" one is trying to address is merely one of averages itself (i.e. the gender gap). I think that most people (perhaps yourself included) are not truly bothered by lumping people together, but instead bothered that the conclusion isn't flattering. Suppose I said the following three things (and, I am NOT saying that I believe any of these things - this is just a mind experiment):
In which statements am I "lumping massive groups of population and assigning traits"? Which is not "OK" to say in a memo? For which should I be socially castigated? If the answer to any of these is only 3, I submit that you are simply cherry picking the statement that you don't like as the generalization.
I agree that this is capitalism, and I certainly agree that Google has the right to fire Damore (even as I personally find that action repugnant). That being said, political correctness can still be repressive, socially speaking. The state is not the entity that exercises power within the country. For example large corporations also wield power in a capitalist system (particularly those with $500+ Billion market caps, and particularly those with a history of employment price fixing and collusion).
let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves
Naubol is totally right. Read the memo again (or, you know, for the first time).
Additionally, and I think more importantly, the notion that you (and many other people) have of "toxic" ideas is very disturbing. To declare an ideological, political, or sociological position as "toxic" justifies (for many people) a multitude of disproportionate responses, including violence and large-scale social castigation. I certainly think certain ideas are wrong or even morally repugnant, but we need, as a society, to be in a place where we can have these discussions rationally and without fear of reprisal. In short: even if you (and all the other folks in the world that didn't bother read the memo) are right about his premise, it simply doesn't justify the backlash.
but going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions.
he marked himself as someone who would not fairly grade women co-workers
Simply false. Please quote for me the section of his memo that would make any reasonable person think that. Just because a person can talk objectively of averages or statistics doesn't mean that they are incapable of judging, grading, or promoting people based on their personal merits.
his so demoralized a lot of his women co-workers that many stayed home from work on Monday.
Given the quite reasonable and level-headed tone of his memo, I think this reflects quite poorly on those that stayed home from work. Perhaps they should have been fired.
I'm not sure that people are that concerned merely with the fact that they have blacklists. Rather, I think the concern is Google has shown that, as a company, they conflate having a non-conforming view with being "impossible to work with" (as evidenced by Damore's firing). Therefore, their blacklists would indeed have folks that they "don't agree with".
The CS gender gap likely has a variety of causes, and I think that is one of the most significant points of Damore's memo. Heck, he literally titles a section "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech," meaning that bias may be a component, but there may be others.
To your specific point, saying that the gap is entirely social or entirely biological is probably over-simplifying. Given that there are likely a number of factors (and assuming that biology is one of the causes [duck!]), I would expect that on average, women would be underrepresented in CS across the entire world, but would closer to parity (or in the majority) in certain places based on prevailing social factors and perception.