So, "Nazis are bad" is really hard for you to understand, eh? You're going through a lot of trouble to demonize a lot of other groups and equate them with Nazis, and it's quite telling. They are not the same. Not in the least. Do you not get how disingenuous it is to try to lump non-fascist groups in with actual fascists? Do you not understand what WWII was all about?
Bringing up a squabble about someone bring a flag to a parade in the same context as actual white nationalists advocating the expulsion of non-whites from the country is about as stupid as it gets. That's the sort of shit that got tens of millions of people killed the last time it happened. Arguing about bringing a flag to a parade did not.
I'm not pretending it's something different - it is different. That you seem to not understand this is frightening.
Fascism and Nazis are bad. We've decided this. If you do not really understand what these groups are and why they are bad, you really need a history lesson. Stop trying to say non-fascist things are fascist because you personally don't like them. That's not how this works.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Nazi.....
Look dude, you may have missed this in history class, but 70ish years ago the world got together and waged outright war on fascists. Like, million man armies, naval armadas, giant fleets of bombers, all leading up to nuclear weapons to stop the fascists. Why? Because fascism is them or us. There is no live and let live with fascists, unless you happen to be a Christian Aryan male.
So please, fuck off with the "omg, poor fascists don't get a platform" and "but the black/liberal/cucks are violent too" shit. Fascist hate speech doesn't get free speech rights. We had this debate during WWII, and the world decided that we're not doing Fascism. You may be sympathetic to fascist speech, and you may be a racist asshole, but the debate on this is well over. Nazis are bad, and we're not helping you support and promote that ideology, end of discussion.
I pay an annual subscription for my RSS reader, but that's because it's cross-platform, browser and app, and I don't want it to go the way of Google Reader. I'm happy to keep them afloat and fund new development, even if I don't use most of it. The alternative is that it dries up and goes away, and that would make me sad. Sure, I could move elsewhere, but this one absolutely nails my use-cases, and it's by far the best one I've ever used.
My college had culture clubs for every culture except American or white European, because such clubs would be seen as racist.
Well, yeah. Because that's racist. If you don't understand why, you've really never embraced diversity. You might have gone to a diverse college, but you've wrapped yourself in a blanket of whiteness.
I can get the unhappiness of having to work with unqualified individuals - been there, and it's frustrating. But your racism and sexism comes out when the complaint is not on the person's skill-set, but on their race or gender. I find it hard to believe that you've never come across someone white and male hired to a position that they were utterly unqualified for. It happens all the time, in my experience.
As for the deck being stacked against you, bullshit. If you are white, male, and make enough that you don't qualify for government assistance, you have it largely made. You're not likely to get arrested for doing the same things that get black people arrested, you're (presumably) not likely to have your resume thrown in the bin because of how your name is spelled or because you've got hints of a black experience in it, and you're not likely to have credit denied for houses and cars, or extra-padding added to the interest rate. You're not likely to be sexually harassed at work, walking down the street, shopping, and going to the park.
To complain about the deck being stacked against you is most likely very large amounts of ignorance about exactly how high the deck is stacked for women and minorities. If you never experience diversity, I'm sure the world looks hard. If you want it to look easier, look through someone else's eyes. It's always going to look unfair to you if you don't understand how hard it is for others, and why we're doing this diversity thing in the first place. It's not about shitting on you - it's about trying to give other people a chance to have what you have.
Thanks - I hadn't totally wrapped my brain around that part. That's even crazier. It's like Planet Fitness but without owning gyms. Third party hoping that enough people sign up and don't use it that they turn a profit giving free access to another company. I bet good money they're soon going to have to put a * after unlimited and include some fine print about how often you can use their service.
But unlike Planet Fitness, they've got a second cash-flow: Charge outrageous prices on cheap junk food to the people who actually use the service. And they might be more willing to pay for it because they got a "free" ticket. So I think this actually works out decently well for them.
I'll admit that I didn't RTFS, so I was really confused. "Isn't that what Netflix is already doing?" Then I realized that they were talking about actually going to movie theaters, and I realized that I had sort-of forgotten that was a thing. Movies don't expire, and I don't feel the need to keep up with pop culture. I'll catch the good ones sometime in the next decade or so. Probably.
Overpriced garbage food, kids and teens, and lots of people dicking around on phones. I don't get why people go.
I'm not so sure. The FDA is likely going to have to approve it, and for that reason I can see some legislation popping up which defines what's allowable. Nutritionally, I don't think they'll get away with calling it meat unless it's close to meat. How close is the big question, likely settled with lawsuits and lobbying dollars.
We might end up with grades of lab meat at the end of it, which would be really interesting.
Neither. There are always going to be people who want to eat the real deal.
What we're likely to see are the big factory farms replaced with meat factories, and the smaller farms handling the boutique real meat. Best of both worlds - the big places get the automation and efficiency they need to squeeze every last cent out of manufacturing, and the smaller farms get good prices for doing things traditionally. Consumers will also likely benefit, because the factory meat can actually be tailored to nutritional standards, and when they go for real meat, while expensive, it will be high quality.
If this comes to pass, I really think it will be a net benefit. Not having giant stockades and finishing farms would be really nice for everyone. Nobody likes that shit. (Literally.)
But the problem with that is that hamburger is made from the lest desirable cuts of meat. It's relatively cheap for that reason. It might be an easier target from a technical standpoint, but it's going after the hardest target from a price standpoint. Doubly so when it starts to impact the market, and there's nothing to do with the existing real hamburger meat.
Sure, but are the people getting raises now making way more than you are, or are the raises the mechanism to get them back up to salary parity to right a previous wrong? Are the raises to keep them in the organization, because their diversity is valued? There are plenty of good reasons that someone else is getting a raise and you aren't. And that's not even considering that you're hostile to minorities to the point of angry internet posts.
Diversity means giving preference to non white men. There's no way to work on fixing diversity issues without doing that. I value the diversity in my organization, because people with a different view of the world and different experiences can be really helpful. They can help an organization better interact with customers, find new ones, improve how it works, and any number of other things. I'm sorry that you've decided to be bitter about diversity rather than understanding why it's important. Life is hard when you want to be a special snowflake, but the world doesn't think you are.
What do you consider ridiculous amounts of money? Because a $2k laptop, which on the face looks really expensive, is ballpark $400/year over 5 years, which is also ballpark $1/day. Even a refresh every 3 years is still under $2/day.
Is it worth $2/day for me to work on a nice machine? I think so. That plus the cellphone hardware still clocks in under a beer per day, which is what I consider throw-away money. My telecom bills are far higher than that. Lunch is higher than that!
If you're spending $2000 every year, you're still only at $6 per day. I.E., a nice drink at the bar or a latte. It feels like a lot when you look at it in total, but how many people piss away far more than $6/day on eating/drinking out, a movie, lotto tickets, gym memberships and road bikes they don't use, etc? Hell, if that laptop keeps you from going to one movie, you've probably made back about a week of the per-day cost of it.
This is even better if you combine it with the existing number plate recognition. Then you can see if the plate matches the car. That would trip up a number of criminals, I bet. Of course, who knows how well this really works, because new cars are generally pretty identical. I'm guessing that it gets more accurate the older cars are, as they accumulate physical changes.
I've got a password protected file with login and password hints for a couple dozen sites in it. Not the frequent ones like amazon or my banking, the infrequent ones that I need like once every year or so. Car insurance website with the bizarrely shitty requirements where only some subset of the symbols are allowed, and some other crazy requirements. Student loan login so I can get my interest statement for taxes. I find that it's invaluable when I go to log in each year, as if I can at least remember the login, I can reset the password if I have to. Trying to reset it without the login is more likely to trigger the stupid security questions, which are random answers also in that document.
It's quick enough to try, but does anyone? Human nature being what it is, I assume the people designing brute force attacks design for the common password requirements prevalent in the area that they're trying to force. I know that if I was designing a brute force attack, I'd probably start with 6 characters, because almost nobody allows less than that now.
I was referring to the last line of the summary. Doubtful if executives or directors got forced out for agreeing with him that they would suffer career suicide. Former google execs tend to do ok.
And interesting point on the claim for damages - apparently he already got a job offer, so that's going to make things even more interesting if this goes to trial.
I'd put money on it. Either he's socially absolutely brain-dead (possibly) or he had a plan that he understood the possible consequences of. Most people who want to stay in an organization understand that becoming a lightning rod for criticism is not a good idea. Don't poke the sleeping management bear is a pretty well understood rule.
That said, the comment that it would have been career suicide to support some of his views is laughable. Career at Google, maybe. But not career outside of Google. Plenty of places would happily hire a former Google employee, even if they had some office politics showing them the door. And that's if they didn't band together and start their own company.
Sure, but was there anything better when that guidance was initially published? Was it actually wrong then?
I'm guessing that back in 2003 that this was probably the best we could do based on our understanding of the ability to crack passwords. I bet it was better than no guidance!
Why the pitchforks when someone updates their guidance based on new information? If you adopted the voluntary initial guidance, nothing other than your stubborn resistance to change prevents you from adopting the updated guidance.
Except that's how it was distributed in the first place. And that's how it was updated. Just like all of the other NIST policies. I don't see why they need to go out and do some massive campaign for when they change any given policy. That's not how it was ever done, for anything. Companies that want to be compliant keep up with the policies, and those that don't do their own thing. Seems a little odd for you to pick this one example of a standard change and demand some giant marketing campaign about the change.
Not necessarily just priced too high - unavailable or difficult/inconvenient to get causes things to be pirated as well. When you look at the massive drop in piracy with the advent of paid streaming services, part of that is because it's just so much easier than torrenting, and more convenient than stockpiling CDs and DVDs. Price is definitely a driving factor, but convenience is a big one as well.
So for the next installment, it hits theaters, then it's on streaming for 3 months before the blueray comes out. Your kids see the advertisements that they can stream it every second of every day, and so goes the Disney marketing scheme. You sign up for the streaming platform, and a week later they take the movie off the stream rotation and put out the DVDs. And market that on the streaming platform.
It's fiendishly evil in its brilliance. Good luck!
Good point. I hadn't really considered reinvesting any excess - just made a base assumption that when it was drawn down it would get spent. Thanks for the insight!
Slashdot Mirror
So, "Nazis are bad" is really hard for you to understand, eh? You're going through a lot of trouble to demonize a lot of other groups and equate them with Nazis, and it's quite telling. They are not the same. Not in the least. Do you not get how disingenuous it is to try to lump non-fascist groups in with actual fascists? Do you not understand what WWII was all about?
Bringing up a squabble about someone bring a flag to a parade in the same context as actual white nationalists advocating the expulsion of non-whites from the country is about as stupid as it gets. That's the sort of shit that got tens of millions of people killed the last time it happened. Arguing about bringing a flag to a parade did not.
I'm not pretending it's something different - it is different. That you seem to not understand this is frightening.
Fascism and Nazis are bad. We've decided this. If you do not really understand what these groups are and why they are bad, you really need a history lesson. Stop trying to say non-fascist things are fascist because you personally don't like them. That's not how this works.
First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Nazi.....
Look dude, you may have missed this in history class, but 70ish years ago the world got together and waged outright war on fascists. Like, million man armies, naval armadas, giant fleets of bombers, all leading up to nuclear weapons to stop the fascists. Why? Because fascism is them or us. There is no live and let live with fascists, unless you happen to be a Christian Aryan male.
So please, fuck off with the "omg, poor fascists don't get a platform" and "but the black/liberal/cucks are violent too" shit. Fascist hate speech doesn't get free speech rights. We had this debate during WWII, and the world decided that we're not doing Fascism. You may be sympathetic to fascist speech, and you may be a racist asshole, but the debate on this is well over. Nazis are bad, and we're not helping you support and promote that ideology, end of discussion.
I pay an annual subscription for my RSS reader, but that's because it's cross-platform, browser and app, and I don't want it to go the way of Google Reader. I'm happy to keep them afloat and fund new development, even if I don't use most of it. The alternative is that it dries up and goes away, and that would make me sad. Sure, I could move elsewhere, but this one absolutely nails my use-cases, and it's by far the best one I've ever used.
My college had culture clubs for every culture except American or white European, because such clubs would be seen as racist.
Well, yeah. Because that's racist. If you don't understand why, you've really never embraced diversity. You might have gone to a diverse college, but you've wrapped yourself in a blanket of whiteness.
I can get the unhappiness of having to work with unqualified individuals - been there, and it's frustrating. But your racism and sexism comes out when the complaint is not on the person's skill-set, but on their race or gender. I find it hard to believe that you've never come across someone white and male hired to a position that they were utterly unqualified for. It happens all the time, in my experience.
As for the deck being stacked against you, bullshit. If you are white, male, and make enough that you don't qualify for government assistance, you have it largely made. You're not likely to get arrested for doing the same things that get black people arrested, you're (presumably) not likely to have your resume thrown in the bin because of how your name is spelled or because you've got hints of a black experience in it, and you're not likely to have credit denied for houses and cars, or extra-padding added to the interest rate. You're not likely to be sexually harassed at work, walking down the street, shopping, and going to the park.
To complain about the deck being stacked against you is most likely very large amounts of ignorance about exactly how high the deck is stacked for women and minorities. If you never experience diversity, I'm sure the world looks hard. If you want it to look easier, look through someone else's eyes. It's always going to look unfair to you if you don't understand how hard it is for others, and why we're doing this diversity thing in the first place. It's not about shitting on you - it's about trying to give other people a chance to have what you have.
Thanks - I hadn't totally wrapped my brain around that part. That's even crazier. It's like Planet Fitness but without owning gyms. Third party hoping that enough people sign up and don't use it that they turn a profit giving free access to another company. I bet good money they're soon going to have to put a * after unlimited and include some fine print about how often you can use their service.
But unlike Planet Fitness, they've got a second cash-flow: Charge outrageous prices on cheap junk food to the people who actually use the service. And they might be more willing to pay for it because they got a "free" ticket. So I think this actually works out decently well for them.
I'll admit that I didn't RTFS, so I was really confused. "Isn't that what Netflix is already doing?" Then I realized that they were talking about actually going to movie theaters, and I realized that I had sort-of forgotten that was a thing. Movies don't expire, and I don't feel the need to keep up with pop culture. I'll catch the good ones sometime in the next decade or so. Probably.
Overpriced garbage food, kids and teens, and lots of people dicking around on phones. I don't get why people go.
I'm not so sure. The FDA is likely going to have to approve it, and for that reason I can see some legislation popping up which defines what's allowable. Nutritionally, I don't think they'll get away with calling it meat unless it's close to meat. How close is the big question, likely settled with lawsuits and lobbying dollars.
We might end up with grades of lab meat at the end of it, which would be really interesting.
How else can starving millennials stay healthy, if not eating the cheapest chicken to get their antibiotics?
Neither. There are always going to be people who want to eat the real deal.
What we're likely to see are the big factory farms replaced with meat factories, and the smaller farms handling the boutique real meat. Best of both worlds - the big places get the automation and efficiency they need to squeeze every last cent out of manufacturing, and the smaller farms get good prices for doing things traditionally. Consumers will also likely benefit, because the factory meat can actually be tailored to nutritional standards, and when they go for real meat, while expensive, it will be high quality.
If this comes to pass, I really think it will be a net benefit. Not having giant stockades and finishing farms would be really nice for everyone. Nobody likes that shit. (Literally.)
But the problem with that is that hamburger is made from the lest desirable cuts of meat. It's relatively cheap for that reason. It might be an easier target from a technical standpoint, but it's going after the hardest target from a price standpoint. Doubly so when it starts to impact the market, and there's nothing to do with the existing real hamburger meat.
Ironically, had he some additional diversity in his life, he might have realized that and not written the memo.
Sure, but are the people getting raises now making way more than you are, or are the raises the mechanism to get them back up to salary parity to right a previous wrong? Are the raises to keep them in the organization, because their diversity is valued? There are plenty of good reasons that someone else is getting a raise and you aren't. And that's not even considering that you're hostile to minorities to the point of angry internet posts.
Diversity means giving preference to non white men. There's no way to work on fixing diversity issues without doing that. I value the diversity in my organization, because people with a different view of the world and different experiences can be really helpful. They can help an organization better interact with customers, find new ones, improve how it works, and any number of other things. I'm sorry that you've decided to be bitter about diversity rather than understanding why it's important. Life is hard when you want to be a special snowflake, but the world doesn't think you are.
What do you consider ridiculous amounts of money? Because a $2k laptop, which on the face looks really expensive, is ballpark $400/year over 5 years, which is also ballpark $1/day. Even a refresh every 3 years is still under $2/day.
Is it worth $2/day for me to work on a nice machine? I think so. That plus the cellphone hardware still clocks in under a beer per day, which is what I consider throw-away money. My telecom bills are far higher than that. Lunch is higher than that!
If you're spending $2000 every year, you're still only at $6 per day. I.E., a nice drink at the bar or a latte. It feels like a lot when you look at it in total, but how many people piss away far more than $6/day on eating/drinking out, a movie, lotto tickets, gym memberships and road bikes they don't use, etc? Hell, if that laptop keeps you from going to one movie, you've probably made back about a week of the per-day cost of it.
This is even better if you combine it with the existing number plate recognition. Then you can see if the plate matches the car. That would trip up a number of criminals, I bet. Of course, who knows how well this really works, because new cars are generally pretty identical. I'm guessing that it gets more accurate the older cars are, as they accumulate physical changes.
I've got a password protected file with login and password hints for a couple dozen sites in it. Not the frequent ones like amazon or my banking, the infrequent ones that I need like once every year or so. Car insurance website with the bizarrely shitty requirements where only some subset of the symbols are allowed, and some other crazy requirements. Student loan login so I can get my interest statement for taxes. I find that it's invaluable when I go to log in each year, as if I can at least remember the login, I can reset the password if I have to. Trying to reset it without the login is more likely to trigger the stupid security questions, which are random answers also in that document.
It's quick enough to try, but does anyone? Human nature being what it is, I assume the people designing brute force attacks design for the common password requirements prevalent in the area that they're trying to force. I know that if I was designing a brute force attack, I'd probably start with 6 characters, because almost nobody allows less than that now.
I was referring to the last line of the summary. Doubtful if executives or directors got forced out for agreeing with him that they would suffer career suicide. Former google execs tend to do ok.
And interesting point on the claim for damages - apparently he already got a job offer, so that's going to make things even more interesting if this goes to trial.
I'd put money on it. Either he's socially absolutely brain-dead (possibly) or he had a plan that he understood the possible consequences of. Most people who want to stay in an organization understand that becoming a lightning rod for criticism is not a good idea. Don't poke the sleeping management bear is a pretty well understood rule.
That said, the comment that it would have been career suicide to support some of his views is laughable. Career at Google, maybe. But not career outside of Google. Plenty of places would happily hire a former Google employee, even if they had some office politics showing them the door. And that's if they didn't band together and start their own company.
Sure, but was there anything better when that guidance was initially published? Was it actually wrong then?
I'm guessing that back in 2003 that this was probably the best we could do based on our understanding of the ability to crack passwords. I bet it was better than no guidance!
Why the pitchforks when someone updates their guidance based on new information? If you adopted the voluntary initial guidance, nothing other than your stubborn resistance to change prevents you from adopting the updated guidance.
Except that's how it was distributed in the first place. And that's how it was updated. Just like all of the other NIST policies. I don't see why they need to go out and do some massive campaign for when they change any given policy. That's not how it was ever done, for anything. Companies that want to be compliant keep up with the policies, and those that don't do their own thing. Seems a little odd for you to pick this one example of a standard change and demand some giant marketing campaign about the change.
Not necessarily just priced too high - unavailable or difficult/inconvenient to get causes things to be pirated as well. When you look at the massive drop in piracy with the advent of paid streaming services, part of that is because it's just so much easier than torrenting, and more convenient than stockpiling CDs and DVDs. Price is definitely a driving factor, but convenience is a big one as well.
So for the next installment, it hits theaters, then it's on streaming for 3 months before the blueray comes out. Your kids see the advertisements that they can stream it every second of every day, and so goes the Disney marketing scheme. You sign up for the streaming platform, and a week later they take the movie off the stream rotation and put out the DVDs. And market that on the streaming platform.
It's fiendishly evil in its brilliance. Good luck!
Good point. I hadn't really considered reinvesting any excess - just made a base assumption that when it was drawn down it would get spent. Thanks for the insight!
Aaah yes, I'd forgotten that a million years is faster than a couple hundred years. Thanks AC!