I posted an extensive list of criticisms and rebuttals to his specific arguments and sources.
First, you do know that you can post links to such posts so that people don't have to hunt them down in a 600+ response thread right? Second, cherry picking is not a rebuttal! Everything I see here from you is either regurgitated SJW narrated "opinion" or cherry picking fragments of the paper to complain about. Let us see your 10 page manifesto and decide who has the better grasp on science. Hint: my bet is on the guy with a masters in biology and several years of work toward his PHD.
It was modded down as being a "troll". That's why you aren't seeing the considered responses, they are being censored and suppressed to enforce an echo chamber.
I read at -1 and and have to wonder how many sock puppets you have. You seem to get up modded for poor posts quite often. Like this one complaining about unfair moderation on other posts. Your whine gets moderated "interesting", where most people complaining about moderation receive "-1 off topic" or "redundant".
Are you saying it's literally impossible to discuss these things in a reasonable manner? That's a depressing thought.
The leaked questions seemed reasonable at least.
You do realize that in order to have a discussion, both parties must agree to have a discussion?
Do we really need to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion when a large percentage of the participants (including the executives) simply yell "racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, fascist, nazi, pig, murderer, rapist, f&*king a&#hole", etc.. and prevent any discussion?
Going back to my original statement which you complained about is I believe more pertinent to your complaint. I figured it would be best to lay out the events and ask the important question.
1. Person writes a paper questioning policies and pointing out favoritism and discrimination.
2. Former Google Exec works with Media agent to put out an edited version of that document which removed citations, footnotes, graphs, and sets the headline that translates roughly as Horrible person releases horrible paper inside Google.
3. Google then publicly fires the same horrible person for having such a horrible opinion.
Google knew damn well that items 1,2, and 3 damage this person's ability to find a new job. Not just at Google of course, but anywhere he goes there will be a slew of SJWs harassing the company for hiring the "horrible person with the horrible opinion" and demanding that they too fire the guy.
How are these actions Not Stalinist? Stalinist tactics are to discredit and destroy anyone who dissents and causes harm to your ideology. Prison and execution were part of Stalin's tactics, but certainly not the only part and not the majority. Firing squads are an exclamation point on fear and intimidation tactics, not the majority of them.
Google could have put a stop to this immediately had they simply stood up for their employee and said publicly that he was mischaracterized by the former exec, perhaps even releasing an non redacted version of the paper. Even better addressing a few of his points they felt worth discussion.
Pretty much wrong. I gave you the hint, and you didn't bother to look. I can think of several companies off the top of my head who were found guilty by class action suit of forcing people to work 4-10 hours a week overtime without any pay. In at least one case, a person quitting those jobs would lose security clearances and prospects for a similar job without clearance. A person also loses tenure, benefits, stock options, etc.. if they quit. It's not free for a person to quit and companies know this.
Courts found the companies I'm referring to guilty, but the cases last years. The authoritarian action may only run 6-12 months while the class action suit gets started, but companies can (and do) lobby for legislation to protect their practices at the expense of the employee.
Sure, you have an option of quitting (and paying the price [see above]) but companies have more power and more levers than an employee with the Government. The whole point of companies spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year lobbying is to get more power, and maintain their power, within Government. It is called crony Capitalism mostly, but studies also relate this to Fascism.
I believe where we have a difference is in the belief that a Company has no power related to Governments. You seem to believe that a company has no more power than an individual, when in fact that is false. Because companies do have more power they can, and do, act authoritarian. We can validate that with a very long list of class action lawsuits against companies for violating various labor laws. Companies can, and do, use immoral tactics against people to promote an ideology and behave in an authoritarian way.
Being forced to stay at a job may be figurative, but it is not always feasible to quit your job. Companies know this and can take advantage of it.
Companies do act democratically at times, but those tend to not break any laws so we don't hear about them.
So only a government can be authoritarian? How about democratic? "Stalinist tactic" is not restricted to Governments, though I admit we normally associate those tactics with nasty political regimes. The term refers to the method of enforcing and reinforcing an ideology. Nazis used similar tactics, but if I said Nazi you would claim I was trying to Godwin the discussion. Lenin and Trotsky did similar too, but someone would have complained that the guy from the Beatles didn't like horses.
I kind of wonder if he intended to get fired and the sue... It wasn't exactly hard to predict. He could have published it anonymously, but didn't. It just seems like he wanted to martyr himself.
I listened to an interview with the guy, and doubt it. Sure, you and I reading/. would know what was coming, but a whole lot of people don't pay any attention to the political world until something bad happens to them. Not a new phenomenon, and certainly not something new where a bookworm gets surprised by politics.
So you are fine with a plastics factory next to your house? How about a stamping shop? Large food production facility? Detergent manufacturer?
Zoning laws prevent housing from being built too close to industries in the US because yes, they do pollute. While your horse statement initially looks okay to a moron, show me the amount of Hg, Pb, CN, and other nice emissions from industry which are known to cause harm and death to humans.
There is certainly a level of trade off between cars and horses, but don't sit there and pretend that industrial pollution is not harmful.
Yet another dipshit who refuses to read the actual 10 page memo and still has the false belief that everything they read on a site labeled "news" must be true.
Nobody claimed the guy was a whistle blower, oh bearer of the tiny straw man. They claim that he was slandered and wrongfully terminated.
I read the memo, unlike you. IANAL, but believe he's got a pretty solid case. The Stalinist tactics being used by many are being illuminated.
First, I would be much more inclined to entertain discussion if you were willing to back your words with a user account instead of hiding in anonymity. As is, I'll just point out a few of the problems with your post in terms of logic and reasonable discussion.
Moving the goal post does not work. Most Americans will tell you that they don't agree with many policies of the Government, but we are by far the most generous and altruistic people in the world, and that is based on facts. Most us are pretty open that we don't agree with everything our Government does, but at least we in the US have the freedom to _be_ critical of our Government and influence change with our voices and votes.
Why? What is that industrialization producing?
Selective reading and feigning ignorance is pathetic. Industrialization produces pollution. The thing that people promoting and repeating propaganda, like you, claim to be against.
Followed by flat out lies and denials of fact. The most notable is your claim that batteries are harmless. Simple study of the chemical composition of batteries and decomposition proves how wrong you are.
Two wordw describes a person like you: Cowardly Shill. Which explains your need to hide in anonymity so that you can sling bullshit and ad hominem around without facing repercussions.
Give us a solution which does not include a massive program of redistributing wealth to tyrants and dictators, from wealthier countries who do have a sense of altruism. The program must be globally agreed to and followed since countries like India, China, and Russia have been steadily increasing pollution and industrialization, not reducing it. The solution must be moral, meaning not cause undo harm to innocents.
I don't want to hear what China promised, because they are simply not good at keeping promises. They are good at deception, expansion, and colonization lately. Those latter 2 have steadily increased their pollution, not reduced it. I don't want to hear what any other country promised either, because a promise to reduce is not the same thing as action. Claims that China is improving come from China, but we have no independent verification that they have done anything except increase gas mask distribution and started standing up and using various filtering systems on the ground so people don't get poisoned walking across the street.
*crickets*
And therein lies the problem with the debate. The Paris accords which were proclaimed as the gospel of "fixing" global warming would have succeeded in De-industrializing the US, sent trillions of dollars from the US to anyone who wanted a free bucket of money, and relied on the promises of Governments who may not want to keep such promises and no mechanism of enforcing any rules.
The US, and most of the West _has_been_ curbing pollution and trying to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. At present, 15% of our power is coming from renewables, and slowly rising. As it should be. Simply dumping non-renewable sources means that millions suffer and die because we lose necessary power for hospitals, refrigeration, air conditioning, and yes the foundries needed to continue to produce wind turbines and solar panels (did you notice the humanitarian/moral issue there?).
And lets face facts: We will always have some dependency on non-renewable sources of energy. Renewable sources are not consistent, and dead batteries are very bad for the environment.
Good grief, read your own damn quotes. Gore DID claim to invent the Internet. He later tried to clarify that as without him voting it would not have happened. You dislike the BBS comparison because it happens to harm your Statist claims, not because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I never restricted the conversation to ARPANET, You just tried to move the goal post, by once again fabricating words which I never wrote.
You are either mentally retarded or a troll! Go pound sand!
Perhaps you should investigate the difference between Criminal and Civil actions. Lets see if we can reason through this, using money since you hinted at it.
A better analogy (IMHO) would be that you and your roommate have a jug and each of you drops money into the jug. One day you come home from work and see a note that your roommate hates you, and moved out while you were at work. You happen to notice that the jug you both put money into is no longer full, and is at roughly half.
Did your roommate commit a crime? If you related this factually: A police officer and DA would tell you no, that you could not prosecute and that there was no criminal action. You could however take them to civil court if you feel that they took more than their fair share and try to get the difference in what you feel was rightly yours versus theirs.
You voluntarily shared your money in the same pile as theirs. The outcome you got was probably not what you wanted, but without your actions the outcome would not have been possible.
Now if a person feels wronged and wants to sue the person uploading the pictures, I'm fine with that. Making a voluntary exchange criminal because someone changes their mind after the fact, not fine. We are all accountable for our actions and any repercussions that arise from our actions. The better our choices the safer and better the outcomes tend to be.
My statement was, and is factually correct. You are attempting to create a nuance of "literal" creation where my statement does not change if the statement from Gore is figurative (as he later clarified) or literal (as you are attempting to attribute to my words).
Public universities and government facilities, yes. You'll recall computers were rather expensive toys,
Well that there dismisses anything else you wish to claim. Numerous companies were working on Networking systems, such as IBM, Xerox, AT&T (and countless others)for commercial purposes outside of DARPA. The first POS systems were LAN based and quickly expanded into WAN space to accommodate larger companies and corporations. (see TNS).
If you were even attempting to be honest you could have stated that network (both LAN and WAN including Internet)s were originally expensive to adopt, which would be true. Even BBSs were expensive due to the need for multiple phone lines and modems capable switching. You don't even bother when an attempt to be honest, you go right to the fantasy "toy" (which implies little commercial value) to promote a statist ideology. (perhaps not your intent, but useful idiots are still idiots).
Was I a bit generous with HTTP? Again, you _interpret_ a statement to be what you want instead of what I said. httpd != http. Further, the first httpd was quickly improved upon and expanded so we had numerous servers capable of serving both secure and insecure pages.
As I said, if you wish to ask for clarification you may, instead of being a douche bag. Nah, you would much rather be a DB.
There are certainly issues where I would side with you. Anything in fact where the victim did not intentionally exposed themselves to being photographed in a compromising way. The cretins who post up-skirt photos, I believe should be addressed.
People posing nude or taking nude selfies to send to people does not fall into the same category. Nobody should have the expectation that the recipient/holder of the photos is, or will remain, altruistic and friendly. While nobody gets married intending to get a divorce (or so statically small it's the same thing), we all know and understand that there is a risk of divorce after marriage. Quite a high risk for that matter.
I know this is all common sense and foreign to people, but relationships are emotional by definition. Good or bad, it's still emotional.
I did read them during the campaign, pretty scary stuff. He's not currently running, so no point in me reading old news. Simple question: What is a "fair share" which gets repeated in his talking points? I get the anti-corruption stuff, but wonder why it never pertains to Government, or him. Like most positions you can start with a valid premise but not end up with a valid conclusion.
Bernie is fine with corruption as long as it's "his" team. We can validate that by his complete capitulation to the DNC even after all of the corruption was exposed and his silence since. He stands on whatever morals advance his ideology, which means he is without virtue.
Nope, not even close. We could argue that maybe 30 years ago they were more center than left, but today it is firmly left. Sander's platform is Marxist, not Libertarian. It states that Government should own the economy, distribute wealth as it sees fit, take money from people as they see fit, and have control over all aspects of a person's life. The collective is greater than the Individual.
Perhaps you are in the UK where the Left is considered Libertarian, but that is not the common or US use of the terminology.
I didn't misrepresent Gore's words at all, you are choosing to interpret a very simple statement in your own way adding words I never wrote. How about reading what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to write. You could have asked for clarification if you had doubts about the intent of my statement, instead of simply being a douche bag.
Taking Gore's words exactly as you quoted ignores the millions of man hours and dollars poured into Networking and Software _WITHOUT_ a single Government dollar, mandate, or dictate. Al Gore's vote, or any Government official, would not have had _ANY_ impact on the evolution of the Internet. TCP/IP was but one of dozens of competing network protocols developed for the same purpose as we eventually adopted TCP/IP. Consumers of Networking technology were the driving force behind the mass adoption of TCP/IP, not "Public Official" who was clueless about the technology. HTTP was developed by consortium, not by Government mandate or designation. Identity management solutions were driven by Customers having a choice of solutions and forcing vendor adoption of certain protocols and services. HTTPS came because of expanding needs with HTTP Servers, SCP because the insecure protocols of a LAN were not good enough for WAN/WWW use.
The best a Statist can say with any semblance of truth is that Government funding may have increased the rate of growth for certain aspects of Internet, but even that small claim is subject to criticism. Unix was the advent of AT&T, not DARPA or Government, made for AT&T's purposes. X-Windows was funded by Private companies, Privately sponsored University grants, and _some_ funding from Government.
Numerous Liberals left the Democratic party because they have become a party of extreme Leftists promoting ideas more in line with Marxism than text book Liberalism.
No, you are missing the point! This type of claim and person frustrate and infuriate me for the same reason Al Gore and his claim to Internet creation frustrate and infuriate me. NIST did not invent password policies, they adopted INDUSTRY STANDARDS developed by the Community long after the community did all the work. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you search the Slashdot archives, you would find discussion on NIST _finally_ adopting standards. Just like the Internet was the advent of numerous companies, who did receive _some_ funding from the Government but were developing networks anyway.
The person claiming fame admits that he didn't know anything about passwords and policies in TFA, and IMHO they appear to still lack the knowledge. Give credit to the community who developed the standards, and ask them why we developed things like 8 character password rules if you don't know. Instead of trying to gain 5 minutes of fame on everyone else' work because you copied some stuff.
This egomaniac isn't responsible, password rules meeting or exceeding his claim go back at least two decades for Commercial companies, and longer for "Government" (especially DOD). I have a policy from 1995 that I wrote for the company I worked for at the time.
Password enforcement was a constant problem 20-30 years ago, but we all had policies.
The short duration of a password was not some arbitrary number based on "mah ego", it was based on a majority of systems which could not handle a password longer than 8 characters.
I didn't invent the password policy, but by this claim I sure as hell could.
Oh, and password policies are as important today as they were back then. Go ahead and claim your fingerprints are fool proof!
Slashdot Mirror
I posted an extensive list of criticisms and rebuttals to his specific arguments and sources.
First, you do know that you can post links to such posts so that people don't have to hunt them down in a 600+ response thread right? Second, cherry picking is not a rebuttal! Everything I see here from you is either regurgitated SJW narrated "opinion" or cherry picking fragments of the paper to complain about. Let us see your 10 page manifesto and decide who has the better grasp on science. Hint: my bet is on the guy with a masters in biology and several years of work toward his PHD.
It was modded down as being a "troll". That's why you aren't seeing the considered responses, they are being censored and suppressed to enforce an echo chamber.
I read at -1 and and have to wonder how many sock puppets you have. You seem to get up modded for poor posts quite often. Like this one complaining about unfair moderation on other posts. Your whine gets moderated "interesting", where most people complaining about moderation receive "-1 off topic" or "redundant".
Actually that's not true. Most people answer the anonymous surveys, but assume they will be outed. If they are smart that is.
Are you saying it's literally impossible to discuss these things in a reasonable manner? That's a depressing thought.
The leaked questions seemed reasonable at least.
You do realize that in order to have a discussion, both parties must agree to have a discussion?
Do we really need to point out that it is impossible to have a discussion when a large percentage of the participants (including the executives) simply yell "racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, fascist, nazi, pig, murderer, rapist, f&*king a&#hole", etc.. and prevent any discussion?
Going back to my original statement which you complained about is I believe more pertinent to your complaint. I figured it would be best to lay out the events and ask the important question.
1. Person writes a paper questioning policies and pointing out favoritism and discrimination.
2. Former Google Exec works with Media agent to put out an edited version of that document which removed citations, footnotes, graphs, and sets the headline that translates roughly as Horrible person releases horrible paper inside Google.
3. Google then publicly fires the same horrible person for having such a horrible opinion.
Google knew damn well that items 1,2, and 3 damage this person's ability to find a new job. Not just at Google of course, but anywhere he goes there will be a slew of SJWs harassing the company for hiring the "horrible person with the horrible opinion" and demanding that they too fire the guy.
How are these actions Not Stalinist? Stalinist tactics are to discredit and destroy anyone who dissents and causes harm to your ideology. Prison and execution were part of Stalin's tactics, but certainly not the only part and not the majority. Firing squads are an exclamation point on fear and intimidation tactics, not the majority of them.
Google could have put a stop to this immediately had they simply stood up for their employee and said publicly that he was mischaracterized by the former exec, perhaps even releasing an non redacted version of the paper. Even better addressing a few of his points they felt worth discussion.
Instead, Google pressed the destroy button.
Pretty much wrong. I gave you the hint, and you didn't bother to look. I can think of several companies off the top of my head who were found guilty by class action suit of forcing people to work 4-10 hours a week overtime without any pay. In at least one case, a person quitting those jobs would lose security clearances and prospects for a similar job without clearance. A person also loses tenure, benefits, stock options, etc.. if they quit. It's not free for a person to quit and companies know this.
Courts found the companies I'm referring to guilty, but the cases last years. The authoritarian action may only run 6-12 months while the class action suit gets started, but companies can (and do) lobby for legislation to protect their practices at the expense of the employee.
Sure, you have an option of quitting (and paying the price [see above]) but companies have more power and more levers than an employee with the Government. The whole point of companies spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year lobbying is to get more power, and maintain their power, within Government. It is called crony Capitalism mostly, but studies also relate this to Fascism.
I believe where we have a difference is in the belief that a Company has no power related to Governments. You seem to believe that a company has no more power than an individual, when in fact that is false. Because companies do have more power they can, and do, act authoritarian. We can validate that with a very long list of class action lawsuits against companies for violating various labor laws. Companies can, and do, use immoral tactics against people to promote an ideology and behave in an authoritarian way.
Being forced to stay at a job may be figurative, but it is not always feasible to quit your job. Companies know this and can take advantage of it.
Companies do act democratically at times, but those tend to not break any laws so we don't hear about them.
What if he happens to be wiccan? I could see the literal translation and taking offense at the same...
So only a government can be authoritarian? How about democratic? "Stalinist tactic" is not restricted to Governments, though I admit we normally associate those tactics with nasty political regimes. The term refers to the method of enforcing and reinforcing an ideology. Nazis used similar tactics, but if I said Nazi you would claim I was trying to Godwin the discussion. Lenin and Trotsky did similar too, but someone would have complained that the guy from the Beatles didn't like horses.
Did you forget about shell companies?
I kind of wonder if he intended to get fired and the sue... It wasn't exactly hard to predict. He could have published it anonymously, but didn't. It just seems like he wanted to martyr himself.
I listened to an interview with the guy, and doubt it. Sure, you and I reading /. would know what was coming, but a whole lot of people don't pay any attention to the political world until something bad happens to them. Not a new phenomenon, and certainly not something new where a bookworm gets surprised by politics.
So you are fine with a plastics factory next to your house? How about a stamping shop? Large food production facility? Detergent manufacturer?
Zoning laws prevent housing from being built too close to industries in the US because yes, they do pollute. While your horse statement initially looks okay to a moron, show me the amount of Hg, Pb, CN, and other nice emissions from industry which are known to cause harm and death to humans.
There is certainly a level of trade off between cars and horses, but don't sit there and pretend that industrial pollution is not harmful.
Yet another dipshit who refuses to read the actual 10 page memo and still has the false belief that everything they read on a site labeled "news" must be true.
Nobody claimed the guy was a whistle blower, oh bearer of the tiny straw man. They claim that he was slandered and wrongfully terminated.
I read the memo, unlike you. IANAL, but believe he's got a pretty solid case. The Stalinist tactics being used by many are being illuminated.
First, I would be much more inclined to entertain discussion if you were willing to back your words with a user account instead of hiding in anonymity. As is, I'll just point out a few of the problems with your post in terms of logic and reasonable discussion.
Moving the goal post does not work. Most Americans will tell you that they don't agree with many policies of the Government, but we are by far the most generous and altruistic people in the world, and that is based on facts. Most us are pretty open that we don't agree with everything our Government does, but at least we in the US have the freedom to _be_ critical of our Government and influence change with our voices and votes.
Why? What is that industrialization producing?
Selective reading and feigning ignorance is pathetic. Industrialization produces pollution. The thing that people promoting and repeating propaganda, like you, claim to be against.
Followed by flat out lies and denials of fact. The most notable is your claim that batteries are harmless. Simple study of the chemical composition of batteries and decomposition proves how wrong you are.
Two wordw describes a person like you: Cowardly Shill. Which explains your need to hide in anonymity so that you can sling bullshit and ad hominem around without facing repercussions.
Give us a solution which does not include a massive program of redistributing wealth to tyrants and dictators, from wealthier countries who do have a sense of altruism. The program must be globally agreed to and followed since countries like India, China, and Russia have been steadily increasing pollution and industrialization, not reducing it. The solution must be moral, meaning not cause undo harm to innocents.
I don't want to hear what China promised, because they are simply not good at keeping promises. They are good at deception, expansion, and colonization lately. Those latter 2 have steadily increased their pollution, not reduced it. I don't want to hear what any other country promised either, because a promise to reduce is not the same thing as action. Claims that China is improving come from China, but we have no independent verification that they have done anything except increase gas mask distribution and started standing up and using various filtering systems on the ground so people don't get poisoned walking across the street.
*crickets*
And therein lies the problem with the debate. The Paris accords which were proclaimed as the gospel of "fixing" global warming would have succeeded in De-industrializing the US, sent trillions of dollars from the US to anyone who wanted a free bucket of money, and relied on the promises of Governments who may not want to keep such promises and no mechanism of enforcing any rules.
The US, and most of the West _has_been_ curbing pollution and trying to reduce dependency on fossil fuels. At present, 15% of our power is coming from renewables, and slowly rising. As it should be. Simply dumping non-renewable sources means that millions suffer and die because we lose necessary power for hospitals, refrigeration, air conditioning, and yes the foundries needed to continue to produce wind turbines and solar panels (did you notice the humanitarian/moral issue there?).
And lets face facts: We will always have some dependency on non-renewable sources of energy. Renewable sources are not consistent, and dead batteries are very bad for the environment.
Good grief, read your own damn quotes. Gore DID claim to invent the Internet. He later tried to clarify that as without him voting it would not have happened. You dislike the BBS comparison because it happens to harm your Statist claims, not because it has nothing to do with the discussion. I never restricted the conversation to ARPANET, You just tried to move the goal post, by once again fabricating words which I never wrote.
You are either mentally retarded or a troll! Go pound sand!
Perhaps you should investigate the difference between Criminal and Civil actions. Lets see if we can reason through this, using money since you hinted at it.
A better analogy (IMHO) would be that you and your roommate have a jug and each of you drops money into the jug. One day you come home from work and see a note that your roommate hates you, and moved out while you were at work. You happen to notice that the jug you both put money into is no longer full, and is at roughly half.
Did your roommate commit a crime? If you related this factually: A police officer and DA would tell you no, that you could not prosecute and that there was no criminal action. You could however take them to civil court if you feel that they took more than their fair share and try to get the difference in what you feel was rightly yours versus theirs.
You voluntarily shared your money in the same pile as theirs. The outcome you got was probably not what you wanted, but without your actions the outcome would not have been possible.
Now if a person feels wronged and wants to sue the person uploading the pictures, I'm fine with that. Making a voluntary exchange criminal because someone changes their mind after the fact, not fine. We are all accountable for our actions and any repercussions that arise from our actions. The better our choices the safer and better the outcomes tend to be.
My statement was, and is factually correct. You are attempting to create a nuance of "literal" creation where my statement does not change if the statement from Gore is figurative (as he later clarified) or literal (as you are attempting to attribute to my words).
Public universities and government facilities, yes. You'll recall computers were rather expensive toys,
Well that there dismisses anything else you wish to claim. Numerous companies were working on Networking systems, such as IBM, Xerox, AT&T (and countless others)for commercial purposes outside of DARPA. The first POS systems were LAN based and quickly expanded into WAN space to accommodate larger companies and corporations. (see TNS).
If you were even attempting to be honest you could have stated that network (both LAN and WAN including Internet)s were originally expensive to adopt, which would be true. Even BBSs were expensive due to the need for multiple phone lines and modems capable switching. You don't even bother when an attempt to be honest, you go right to the fantasy "toy" (which implies little commercial value) to promote a statist ideology. (perhaps not your intent, but useful idiots are still idiots).
Was I a bit generous with HTTP? Again, you _interpret_ a statement to be what you want instead of what I said. httpd != http. Further, the first httpd was quickly improved upon and expanded so we had numerous servers capable of serving both secure and insecure pages.
As I said, if you wish to ask for clarification you may, instead of being a douche bag. Nah, you would much rather be a DB.
There are certainly issues where I would side with you. Anything in fact where the victim did not intentionally exposed themselves to being photographed in a compromising way. The cretins who post up-skirt photos, I believe should be addressed.
People posing nude or taking nude selfies to send to people does not fall into the same category. Nobody should have the expectation that the recipient/holder of the photos is, or will remain, altruistic and friendly. While nobody gets married intending to get a divorce (or so statically small it's the same thing), we all know and understand that there is a risk of divorce after marriage. Quite a high risk for that matter.
I know this is all common sense and foreign to people, but relationships are emotional by definition. Good or bad, it's still emotional.
I did read them during the campaign, pretty scary stuff. He's not currently running, so no point in me reading old news. Simple question: What is a "fair share" which gets repeated in his talking points? I get the anti-corruption stuff, but wonder why it never pertains to Government, or him. Like most positions you can start with a valid premise but not end up with a valid conclusion.
Bernie is fine with corruption as long as it's "his" team. We can validate that by his complete capitulation to the DNC even after all of the corruption was exposed and his silence since. He stands on whatever morals advance his ideology, which means he is without virtue.
Nope, not even close. We could argue that maybe 30 years ago they were more center than left, but today it is firmly left. Sander's platform is Marxist, not Libertarian. It states that Government should own the economy, distribute wealth as it sees fit, take money from people as they see fit, and have control over all aspects of a person's life. The collective is greater than the Individual.
Perhaps you are in the UK where the Left is considered Libertarian, but that is not the common or US use of the terminology.
I didn't misrepresent Gore's words at all, you are choosing to interpret a very simple statement in your own way adding words I never wrote. How about reading what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to write. You could have asked for clarification if you had doubts about the intent of my statement, instead of simply being a douche bag.
Taking Gore's words exactly as you quoted ignores the millions of man hours and dollars poured into Networking and Software _WITHOUT_ a single Government dollar, mandate, or dictate. Al Gore's vote, or any Government official, would not have had _ANY_ impact on the evolution of the Internet. TCP/IP was but one of dozens of competing network protocols developed for the same purpose as we eventually adopted TCP/IP. Consumers of Networking technology were the driving force behind the mass adoption of TCP/IP, not "Public Official" who was clueless about the technology. HTTP was developed by consortium, not by Government mandate or designation. Identity management solutions were driven by Customers having a choice of solutions and forcing vendor adoption of certain protocols and services. HTTPS came because of expanding needs with HTTP Servers, SCP because the insecure protocols of a LAN were not good enough for WAN/WWW use.
The best a Statist can say with any semblance of truth is that Government funding may have increased the rate of growth for certain aspects of Internet, but even that small claim is subject to criticism. Unix was the advent of AT&T, not DARPA or Government, made for AT&T's purposes. X-Windows was funded by Private companies, Privately sponsored University grants, and _some_ funding from Government.
Numerous Liberals left the Democratic party because they have become a party of extreme Leftists promoting ideas more in line with Marxism than text book Liberalism.
No, you are missing the point! This type of claim and person frustrate and infuriate me for the same reason Al Gore and his claim to Internet creation frustrate and infuriate me. NIST did not invent password policies, they adopted INDUSTRY STANDARDS developed by the Community long after the community did all the work. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you search the Slashdot archives, you would find discussion on NIST _finally_ adopting standards. Just like the Internet was the advent of numerous companies, who did receive _some_ funding from the Government but were developing networks anyway.
The person claiming fame admits that he didn't know anything about passwords and policies in TFA, and IMHO they appear to still lack the knowledge. Give credit to the community who developed the standards, and ask them why we developed things like 8 character password rules if you don't know. Instead of trying to gain 5 minutes of fame on everyone else' work because you copied some stuff.
This egomaniac isn't responsible, password rules meeting or exceeding his claim go back at least two decades for Commercial companies, and longer for "Government" (especially DOD). I have a policy from 1995 that I wrote for the company I worked for at the time.
Password enforcement was a constant problem 20-30 years ago, but we all had policies.
The short duration of a password was not some arbitrary number based on "mah ego", it was based on a majority of systems which could not handle a password longer than 8 characters.
I didn't invent the password policy, but by this claim I sure as hell could.
Oh, and password policies are as important today as they were back then. Go ahead and claim your fingerprints are fool proof!
You are allowed to try and 1 up people. Competition is healthy!