That's because we stomped on Nazi Germany and militarist Japan hard and reasonably fast. (Fascist Italy wasn't murdering significant numbers of people.) The Soviet Union and Communist China had a lot more time to rack up deaths. My best estimates show Nazi Germany and militarist Japan killing at close to double the rate of the Soviet Union and Communist China.
You're awful close to Godwin, serviscope_minor. Nazi Germany got involved with the Hollow Earth theory, although there's no historical documentation for some of the wackier rumors (like attempts to see the South Atlantic from Germany).
Thing is, according to United States vs. Lovett, this is a bill of attainder. The Supreme Court held that the law in question specified a person, imposed some sort of punishment (they couldn't be hired by the Federal Government), and wasn't due to judicial action. In this case, a specifically named company is barred from selling to the Federal government by statute rather than judicial action, which looks awfully similar.
There's ways this law could work, as long as it doesn't mention Kaspersky. It could ban the use of security software from companies based in countries the President certifies as constituting a security risk, for example.
Can I now sue the Federal Government if they refuse to use *my* software product?
Depends on why they refused your software product. If the selection of something else, or nothing if they didn't get a replacement, was done according to law, you're going to lose. (You can sue for anything, and many things even won't be thrown out by the first judge to see them.) If they violated the law in not choosing your software, go ahead. You have a good chance of winning, although I'm not completely sure what you'd win.
It has nothing to do with us being the center of the world. It has to do with being the US. The US doesn't want to be spied on by the FSB, and Russia doesn't want to be spied on by the NSA. Therefore, the US government likely doesn't want to use Kaspersky, and the Russian government likely doesn't want to use AV products by US companies.
Historically, government officials have thrown business to their friends and associates regardless of the value to the government, and we've tried putting restrictions on that. Therefore, we have laws on procurement that reduce the problem somewhat (and create other problems, law being a blunt instrument). The DoD may be violating them (or not, I'm not a lawyer), and, if so, that's grounds for a lawsuit.
I don't trust any AV vendor, or any government for that matter. I'm less worried about Russia getting my info than a branch of the US government getting my data. It's low risk in either case, but Russians are less likely to be interested in me than the US. This is most definitely not the case with sensitive US government computers.
Moreover, there has been more than the slightest hint that Kaspersky has to collude with the Russian government, and it hasn't crashed yet.
He's not a shill, you're a partisan hack. The uranium deal was a normal business deal that had to be approved by six people, including Secretary Clinton. It was non-controversial at the time. The Clintons did not accept money for the sale, the Secretary had only part of the deal, and Russia has plenty of uranium available to convert to plutonium-239 anyway.
Got any actual evidence for anything you wrote there?
AIs do not have legal accountability. People have legal accountability, no matter what tools they use. Illegal discrimination conducted by scientific-sounding means is still illegal discrimination.
Official acts are foreign policy. Assuming the policy is legally arrived at, and doesn't violate other law, it's fine.
Personal acts are not foreign policy, and can be illegal.
There are things Trump can legally do for his Russian buddies, now that he's President, that he couldn't do before. He seems to have colluded with them before.
Algorithms can discriminate even without the raw classifications. We saw a case on Slashdot earlier where a computer program took in data about people being sentenced and came up with a likelihood of re-offending in two years. When it was studied, and compared to actual two-year data about re-offending, it turned out to typically underestimate the chance for whites and overestimate the chance for blacks. That's clearly discriminatory. It gives significantly different results based on category.
If your algorithm consistently overestimates the lending risk for blacks and underestimates it for whites, as shown by empirical data, it's racist. It doesn't matter what the inputs are.
Algorithms don't necessarily reflect the real world. If they did, we'd have solved physics ages ago.
The appropriate phrase is "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". You seem to be under the impression that enemies only exist in wartime, and I don't know that that's the case.
It looks like the alternative, for women, is to be sexually harassed or to be semi-ostracized, the way you put it. When people either disbelieved accusations of harassment or didn't do anything about it, they got sexually harassed. When people started believing the claims and doing something, women got shunted aside. There is nothing even vaguely fair about this for women in general. Once more, men come out on top. This is the sort of crap that has women talking about the patriarchy, because it's a case of heads creepy men win and women lose, tails women lose, so it's impossible for women to win. You've even said that paying attention to what women say made things worse, so, as it typically has been the case, women are punished for speaking up.
In the meantime, it takes credible accusations of raping teenagers and the fact of being watched in malls because of stalking teenagers to barely defeat a Senate candidate, and Trump remains President. There's little substantive happening to stop real harassers.
The idea that "people feel they can't say no" and that is the problem of the pursuer rather than the pursued is ludicrous.
No, it is not the job of the pursuer to make sure the pursued takes responsibility for their own actions.
I'm disagreeing with those statements. Your latest post (before this one) was discussing false accusations, which is a separate matter. You also claimed that male-female interaction isn't as simple as I think it is, without bothering to find out how simple I think it is.
Let me use an example. Andrew wants to do something sexual with Betty, and expresses this, although Betty doesn't want to do that. Ideally, Betty would say she didn't want it, and that would be that. However, there are men who will react to such a refusal violently or vengefully. This means that Betty has reason to fear that honesty might end badly for her. If she refuses Andrew, there's a chance that Andrew will insult her and do something sexual anyway. There's a chance that Andrew will make her life unpleasant, particularly if they have some connection (classmates or colleagues or something). If Andrew has some sort of influence over Betty's job evaluations or promotions, Betty might fear that her career was at risk. If some of these cases might happen, Betty might feel that she doesn't dare refuse Andrew. There really is a continuum of risk from "he might do it by force" to "he'll kill my baby if I don't", and nobody would expect Betty to refuse Andrew as you get to a certain point on the continuum.
Betty doesn't have the responsibility to be honest with Andrew despite it being risky. Andrew needs to make sure that what he wants to do is OK with Betty.
There will be misunderstandings. People aren't perfect. People will make mistakes and do wrong things. That doesn't affect the basic morality.
Not necessarily. I neither believe nor disbelieve that there's silicon-based life in the Universe, and I do know what that means (close enough, anyway). I need some sort of phrase to say that.
Theres been a 500 year trend of advancement coming from Christian western societies.
And, before that, over a millennium of a serious lack of scientific advancement, while the Arab world and China made some major developments. Once science caught on, it was adopted by people of every religion without compromising their beliefs. Since we had science arise only once (it nearly did in Greek times), attributing some sort of inherent superiority to where it started is really iffy.
Rightism today is a push away from tolerance, liberalism, democracy, and the greater good in favor of hard social norms (Protestant Christianity, etc.), reduction in self-determination (by allowing corporations to do as whey will), "individualism" when approved by the state (generally when it's making money), deference to authority (as long as the authority is right-wing, such as a Republican politician in power or an evangelical pastor). Neither side puts the welfare of those who do not contribute ahead of those who do. Leftists do want to help people contribute, while rightists tend to Social Darwinism.
Communism is part of the authoritarian left. Considering left-wing ideology Communism is precisely as fair as considering general right-wing beliefs (even not including the alt-right) as fascism. There are authoritarian idiots on both sides. Western Europe is considerably more to the left than the US, but it isn't authoritarian.
Because medicine hasn't been a real science. It's contained a lot of folklore. Doctors had differing opinions about things that were not backed by real evidence, partly on the basis of their own experience. Evidence-based medicine is more or less scientific, and the goal is to get one generally right answer.
For example, consider the constriction of certain arteries in the brain. Neurosurgeons were sure their new stent would be the right answer, and neurologists preferred medical means (like maximum statins and blood thinners). They conducted a test and found the medical approach gave about a 10% better three-year survival rate than the surgical approach. Hence, the medical approach is favored for most cases (some are exceptional). That's evidence-based medicine.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a landslide, this is a landslide (remembers 1972).
That's because we stomped on Nazi Germany and militarist Japan hard and reasonably fast. (Fascist Italy wasn't murdering significant numbers of people.) The Soviet Union and Communist China had a lot more time to rack up deaths. My best estimates show Nazi Germany and militarist Japan killing at close to double the rate of the Soviet Union and Communist China.
There are 10 types of people in the world. People who don't know binary, people who do know binary, and people who understand ternary.
You're awful close to Godwin, serviscope_minor. Nazi Germany got involved with the Hollow Earth theory, although there's no historical documentation for some of the wackier rumors (like attempts to see the South Atlantic from Germany).
Thing is, according to United States vs. Lovett, this is a bill of attainder. The Supreme Court held that the law in question specified a person, imposed some sort of punishment (they couldn't be hired by the Federal Government), and wasn't due to judicial action. In this case, a specifically named company is barred from selling to the Federal government by statute rather than judicial action, which looks awfully similar.
There's ways this law could work, as long as it doesn't mention Kaspersky. It could ban the use of security software from companies based in countries the President certifies as constituting a security risk, for example.
Sure. How does it play with procurement law?
IANAL, and I suspect you aren't either. Some of these laws can get incredibly confusing.
Depends on why they refused your software product. If the selection of something else, or nothing if they didn't get a replacement, was done according to law, you're going to lose. (You can sue for anything, and many things even won't be thrown out by the first judge to see them.) If they violated the law in not choosing your software, go ahead. You have a good chance of winning, although I'm not completely sure what you'd win.
It has nothing to do with us being the center of the world. It has to do with being the US. The US doesn't want to be spied on by the FSB, and Russia doesn't want to be spied on by the NSA. Therefore, the US government likely doesn't want to use Kaspersky, and the Russian government likely doesn't want to use AV products by US companies.
Historically, government officials have thrown business to their friends and associates regardless of the value to the government, and we've tried putting restrictions on that. Therefore, we have laws on procurement that reduce the problem somewhat (and create other problems, law being a blunt instrument). The DoD may be violating them (or not, I'm not a lawyer), and, if so, that's grounds for a lawsuit.
I don't trust any AV vendor, or any government for that matter. I'm less worried about Russia getting my info than a branch of the US government getting my data. It's low risk in either case, but Russians are less likely to be interested in me than the US. This is most definitely not the case with sensitive US government computers.
Moreover, there has been more than the slightest hint that Kaspersky has to collude with the Russian government, and it hasn't crashed yet.
He's not a shill, you're a partisan hack. The uranium deal was a normal business deal that had to be approved by six people, including Secretary Clinton. It was non-controversial at the time. The Clintons did not accept money for the sale, the Secretary had only part of the deal, and Russia has plenty of uranium available to convert to plutonium-239 anyway.
Got any actual evidence for anything you wrote there?
AIs do not have legal accountability. People have legal accountability, no matter what tools they use. Illegal discrimination conducted by scientific-sounding means is still illegal discrimination.
Official acts are foreign policy. Assuming the policy is legally arrived at, and doesn't violate other law, it's fine.
Personal acts are not foreign policy, and can be illegal.
There are things Trump can legally do for his Russian buddies, now that he's President, that he couldn't do before. He seems to have colluded with them before.
Algorithms can discriminate even without the raw classifications. We saw a case on Slashdot earlier where a computer program took in data about people being sentenced and came up with a likelihood of re-offending in two years. When it was studied, and compared to actual two-year data about re-offending, it turned out to typically underestimate the chance for whites and overestimate the chance for blacks. That's clearly discriminatory. It gives significantly different results based on category.
If your algorithm consistently overestimates the lending risk for blacks and underestimates it for whites, as shown by empirical data, it's racist. It doesn't matter what the inputs are.
Algorithms don't necessarily reflect the real world. If they did, we'd have solved physics ages ago.
The appropriate phrase is "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". You seem to be under the impression that enemies only exist in wartime, and I don't know that that's the case.
It looks like the alternative, for women, is to be sexually harassed or to be semi-ostracized, the way you put it. When people either disbelieved accusations of harassment or didn't do anything about it, they got sexually harassed. When people started believing the claims and doing something, women got shunted aside. There is nothing even vaguely fair about this for women in general. Once more, men come out on top. This is the sort of crap that has women talking about the patriarchy, because it's a case of heads creepy men win and women lose, tails women lose, so it's impossible for women to win. You've even said that paying attention to what women say made things worse, so, as it typically has been the case, women are punished for speaking up.
In the meantime, it takes credible accusations of raping teenagers and the fact of being watched in malls because of stalking teenagers to barely defeat a Senate candidate, and Trump remains President. There's little substantive happening to stop real harassers.
The problem is real, and you remain a part of it.
Let's go back.
I'm disagreeing with those statements. Your latest post (before this one) was discussing false accusations, which is a separate matter. You also claimed that male-female interaction isn't as simple as I think it is, without bothering to find out how simple I think it is.
Let me use an example. Andrew wants to do something sexual with Betty, and expresses this, although Betty doesn't want to do that. Ideally, Betty would say she didn't want it, and that would be that. However, there are men who will react to such a refusal violently or vengefully. This means that Betty has reason to fear that honesty might end badly for her. If she refuses Andrew, there's a chance that Andrew will insult her and do something sexual anyway. There's a chance that Andrew will make her life unpleasant, particularly if they have some connection (classmates or colleagues or something). If Andrew has some sort of influence over Betty's job evaluations or promotions, Betty might fear that her career was at risk. If some of these cases might happen, Betty might feel that she doesn't dare refuse Andrew. There really is a continuum of risk from "he might do it by force" to "he'll kill my baby if I don't", and nobody would expect Betty to refuse Andrew as you get to a certain point on the continuum.
Betty doesn't have the responsibility to be honest with Andrew despite it being risky. Andrew needs to make sure that what he wants to do is OK with Betty.
There will be misunderstandings. People aren't perfect. People will make mistakes and do wrong things. That doesn't affect the basic morality.
Not necessarily. I neither believe nor disbelieve that there's silicon-based life in the Universe, and I do know what that means (close enough, anyway). I need some sort of phrase to say that.
It works just fine in Chrome. It's not great, but at least it doesn't require IE.
Science was developed once. There's no reason to think it had to be in Europe or in any Christian area, just that it happened there.
And, before that, over a millennium of a serious lack of scientific advancement, while the Arab world and China made some major developments. Once science caught on, it was adopted by people of every religion without compromising their beliefs. Since we had science arise only once (it nearly did in Greek times), attributing some sort of inherent superiority to where it started is really iffy.
Rightism today is a push away from tolerance, liberalism, democracy, and the greater good in favor of hard social norms (Protestant Christianity, etc.), reduction in self-determination (by allowing corporations to do as whey will), "individualism" when approved by the state (generally when it's making money), deference to authority (as long as the authority is right-wing, such as a Republican politician in power or an evangelical pastor). Neither side puts the welfare of those who do not contribute ahead of those who do. Leftists do want to help people contribute, while rightists tend to Social Darwinism.
Communism is part of the authoritarian left. Considering left-wing ideology Communism is precisely as fair as considering general right-wing beliefs (even not including the alt-right) as fascism. There are authoritarian idiots on both sides. Western Europe is considerably more to the left than the US, but it isn't authoritarian.
Because medicine hasn't been a real science. It's contained a lot of folklore. Doctors had differing opinions about things that were not backed by real evidence, partly on the basis of their own experience. Evidence-based medicine is more or less scientific, and the goal is to get one generally right answer.
For example, consider the constriction of certain arteries in the brain. Neurosurgeons were sure their new stent would be the right answer, and neurologists preferred medical means (like maximum statins and blood thinners). They conducted a test and found the medical approach gave about a 10% better three-year survival rate than the surgical approach. Hence, the medical approach is favored for most cases (some are exceptional). That's evidence-based medicine.
In other words, Republican legislators are believed, by leading medical authorities, to be allergic to science and evidence.