You lack the capacity to differentiate action from words. No matter how you slice up your statement, the problem is in the ACTION and not the WORDS. If I write "John is a spy" and hand the note to the KBG the action is intended to harm John. Since you gave a pathetically inept appeal to emotion I could take the statement the opposite direction. People talking results in a Totalitarian Government killing them. Which then makes your statement mean that talking is the problem, not that an entity is silencing people by murdering them
No matter which way I attempt to view your statement, it demonstrates an irrational and illogical thought. More simply put, you are not very bright. Certainly not bright enough to attempt to use the term "libertard" as an insult. You do however reinforce the normal that idiots regularly resort to ad hominem because they can not argue their opinions with logic and reason. Good on you, I guess.
Actually I thought you were trolling but you defended and reinforced your idiocy in the same thread. Request an increase in dosage, and if that fails, you should strongly consider a lobotomy.p.
As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you have a certain viewpoint. Then add in how many issues are simply ignored because it harms a narrative. Hint: It is closer to 100% than 0% in terms of how much the dialogue is devised for people to have and hold a specific opinion.
To the point you raise: Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said any more than I am or you are. Words do not harm, and have never caused harm(1). I read lots of stupid shit that I don't agree with because it makes my opinion stronger. I also happen to read things I didn't know about in the process, which does the same or causes me to update my opinion.
(1) A call to action like "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" which implies "run for your life" is not "speech", it's a call to action. People often confuse the two and often for sophistry.
I have no problem with certain types of content being unencrypted. If it's static and does nothing the http protocol "should" be fine (depending on the app using the content). I also have no problem with people having a port80 listener redirecting to port443. People are too lazy to type in a URL, let alone "https://".
I didn't look at either of those links to investigate if the above scenarios are present. I have seen people say "Ugh, http needs to die" to any discussions regarding HTTP and HTTPS protocol (more lately for some reason).
> If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
It took months and 5 million dollars to ask the 2.5 million residents of the regional district of Vancouver a question about paying for transit, how exactly would you envision getting buy in from your voters on a comparatively trivial expense question without invoking a cost far in excess of what the option you're asking about is?
Simply put, what you want is just not feasible or cost effective for a population center that is larger than one that can gather every citizen in the local school's gymnasium comfortably, so even suggesting it is kind of disingenuous.
Why do people believe the default mode of government should be "SPEND MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE"? Seriously ask yourself what would happen if you operated your home that way. Don't listen only to people pushing Keynesian economics, get some Milton Friedman in your brains and see what triumphs.
Oh, and when you are broke because your wife/husband/etc.. says "but it was only a dollar" for the 20millionth time, lets talk again.
Defense contractors would be able to make money in a free market, but we don't have a free market. Whether right or wrong (different discussion and interesting) the Government restricts what people make, how much they make, and who they can sell things to. They limit software as well as hardware, and in some cases even concepts and ideas. A company like Lockheed Martin can not sell a military plane to Bill Gates even though he could easily afford one or two. Let alone selling a plane to Sudan or Russia, which would be how a defense company would operate in a free market.
The point is that, without governments, there'd be no defence contracts. You'd have a world of petty warlords and fiefdoms, none of which would have the resources to pay for attack helicopters, aircraft carriers or fleets of tanks. If they could, they'd be big enough to be governments by definition.
And you somehow believe that without Governments nobody would be paid to make bigger guns? I think you need to read a bit of history on that one, because pooling resources to get better weapons is not some new novel concept and surely not limited to defense (historically more prevalent sure, but not limited).
Actually I do know how things work. You on the other hand are feigning intelligent while demonstrating ignorance. 1. A database query does not publish information, it pulls the information from a source. There is more to maintain than a SELECT statement, and it's obvious to anyone that works in IT (except for you?) 2. A database query does not validate the sanitation of data. Validation generally uses a combination of human action and programs (including development and maintenance of the programs, see 3). 3. A database query by itself requires maintenance when working with an option like "We only publish salaries of X" because X will change over time. So even if everything could be handled by a single statement it would require more work. More work == more money in the real world.
I warned you not to play the "but one time fixes everything" card, and you tried to pull it out anyway. Bullshit someone else.
Defense contractors would be able to make money in a free market, but we don't have a free market. Whether right or wrong (different discussion and interesting) the Government restricts what people make, how much they make, and who they can sell things to. They limit software as well as hardware, and in some cases even concepts and ideas. A company like Lockheed Martin can not sell a military plane to Bill Gates even though he could easily afford one or two. Let alone selling a plane to Sudan or Russia, which would be how a defense company would operate in a free market.
Your conclusion of a private company existing due to tax payer money is extremely biased. Meritorious in some cases, but certainly not the majority or even half.
That one aside, we have to ask if its cheaper for tax payers to use a company like General Dynamics as a private company or would it make more sense to have it public? Another really good discussion to be had, and easier to summarize my opinion.
Looking at retirement benefits and how it's nearly impossible to remove bad employees from the tax payer funds today I don't think it would be better or cheaper for tax payers to have Government agencies do all the work. There are certainly incentives to having freedom in certain markets, and part of that should be that private companies can pay some people a lot more money than others even in the same role and job title. Consider also that you don't want the salaries of certain people public because it puts them at risk. You don't think the job "John Doe, NW.Scientist 300K/yr" versus "Jerry Doe, Janitor, 40K/yr" would make it obvious to an enemy who they should target?
Last point on that one is that when I last worked DOD (5 years ago or so) executives were required to report their salaries and earnings publicly. They also needed to report how much of a contract went into what types of labor. Executive abuse was/is? easy for Congressional oversight to catch. But, stronger incentives could be given to stronger workers to get better products in a shorter time frame.
While I certainly agree that the Government should be accountable I don't consider every Government worker a leech and don't agree with the premise. I see the value in providing some freedom for certain services so that we get better than what a bureaucracy would provide (which we can use the old USSR as a great example of how that fails).
Wrong limiting factor to question. The person I responded to stated that only salaries over 100,000/yr are posted.
Dumping 3 fields of a database is pretty cheap. Dumping 3 fields of a database, reviewing rule set, publishing only what matches the rule, monitoring to make sure the rules are followed, adjusting the rule over time, etc.. costs more money.
Just in case someone considers it: Anyone who claims you can write an algorithm once and be done forever has no grasp of how programming works (or is completely dishonest), so don't go that route.
I think the difference between thoughts is that you are comfortable trivializing some of your tax dollars. It costs more money to scrub data and publish only salaries of X, and my taxes are high enough without paying for that too. If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
Usually people are not informed about extra expenses and risks associated with not disclosing all expenses. There have been numerous cases of nepotism and cronyism where loopholes like yours are used to hide abuses.
You are working for the tax payers, not a private entity with private interests. Your salary should be public knowledge, primarily for accountability to the people who you work for. Politicians, Military, etc... should all want to be open to the public about everything. It's not like people are hit over the head and stuffed into the Government Jobs camp any longer.
That said, the private sector is a different story all together. The Government needs to know what you make for tax purposes, but I don't believe there is any benefit to publishing everyone's salary for everyone to see. Executives maybe, but not the general labor staff.
I may be biased because I can negotiate my worth very well, and have a long successful career. If I was not competent/confident in either of those things I may be more worried about what Joe makes versus my salary and demand "equality". Maybe. I also happen to be a realist and despise the push for equality by people who really are not equal to other people. I'm an egalitarian and perhaps a bit of an anarchist capitalist believing that the market will handle itself the majority of the time.
Everyone will be profiled and rated in a method completely hidden from them.
Just like the FBI, DOJ, TSA, DHS, etc.. do now in fact. The difference here is that it leaves open the "we outsourced that to Facebook and Google, we didn't have anything to do with their bad decisions." plausible deniability option. Those people can say "We took the algorithm from some professor at some college", so they get the same benefit.
Yup, I am extremely cynical and have become so after being proven correct way too many times.
So then the backdoor is required for whom exactly? Probably the police/China.
Good luck proving that. My bet is on this being once again just some developer sloppiness, not an intentional backdoor. Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
My Theorem: "Never assume the motive unless you did it yourself." When humans become perfect and never take advantage of other humans I'll agree that Hanlon's razor is always true. That won't happen, so measure the motive based on evidence and probability.
In other words, every Government and Government agency is attempting to legalize back doors in all encryption. Several of those same institutions were found to be installing and using backdoors in hardware and software, and attempting to hack into systems they lacked access to.
Do you find it more probable that a developer "accidentally" left a backdoor in the code and nobody caught it during the whole development chain? Or is it more likely that the backdoor was intentionally installed and not documented so that people could use plausible deniability as defense?
The latter of course is the most probable, and of course reinforcing the idea that "nobody knew about it" and "it was a mistake" will fly around. Hell, they might even find a scapegoat to fire over it. People like you fall for it all the time, so why would they do otherwise?
Are you really attempting to convince me that someone is going to strap a DPRK made nuke to their chest and walk in to Seoul? Or are you somehow trying to convince yourself that the threat footprint for a DPRK made nuke is the same as a that of a Jihad John? I find the latter to be true, not the former. Good luck with that long overdue lobotomy!
Well, to be fair, there are big flashing lights and a click-through on installing Ubuntu warning you that your search queries will be sent somewhere, and a single button to disable it that isn't obfuscated or hidden.
NOW there is, but there was no such warning initially. Initially Canonical was not honest about what they were doing and sending to Amazon. It took a short time for a 3rd party to publish what it was really doing contrary to what the documentation page said.
Claiming that telling you about something and forcing you to acknowledge it is "hiding it" and then crowing about your righteous refusal to use it on that basis is just being a drama queen.
So if I change what I do, that means I never did otherwise? I am (insert ad hominem) if I distrust them after that happens? Nope, that is not reality. You and the AC are both drama queens for attempting to use ad hominem against a fact based post. Appeal to your own emotions, you can not manipulate mine.
The only person using false drama is you. I never stated that it was an evil plot, you did that. You also attempted to claim I said it, which is bullshit.
Telemetry requires a consumer dig through details to find it, and to turn it off. How hard is it to do like Redhat does, and give a prompt to users during the install which asks them if they want the service on or off? Don't bother stopping to think about why Redhat does this as opposed to just turning it on, because that may be more "false drama".
You claim to agree with my position, but then type what a shill would type. It is obvious why _you_ remain hidden in anonymity and the person who is fighting for anonymity does not hide.
The end users may disable the telemetry component of Clear Linux OS for Intel Architecture or even redirect where records go if they wish to collect for themselves.
That's what Canonical (Ubuntu) and a few others think, and it's wrong. Clever wording like "We send only minimal stuff without your knowledge" and "it's for your own good and so that we can make it better" don't change the default state of the software in question. I refuse to load Ubuntu on anything because Canonical installed their software in an always on state and hid it from consumers. I will never ever trust them again, just like I have not trusted Microsoft after their shenanigans (yeah, you have to go back pretty far for me trusting MS).
Very simply put, if it's always on and users don't have big flashing lights warning them at first boot that it's going to be on, then it's intentionally hiding the software. You can claim good intent all you want, but if you tried to hide from the start do you think I'll believe your intent is altruistic? "Fool me once", and all those quotes.
Mental Illness takes faith to understand. It's nothing like a broken bone, or collapsed lung where someone can say "wow, that sucks" by looking at you or an image. Mental illness can't be seen, and really with as much as we know about the mind much is really unknown. Every mental illness effects people differently. Hell, nerve damage in general impacts everyone differently for that matter.
Not being able to see things makes mental illness a target for abuse. People abusing the trust of people leads to suspicions about whether or not a person is really ill, and ridicule and humiliation for people caught abusing trust.
The real world problems you mention don't change much from physical to mental. Smokers, people with bad hearts, people with diabetes, etc.. all pay more for insurance and may become a liability at work. A carpenter with heart disease probably won't be on the job very long, just like your job would not be sustainable with a mental illness. Sucks, but not really when you think it all through.
Anyway, long story long. The stigmas associated with various mental illnesses don't become easy to break down. Open dialogue sure will help all aspects though.
The link you give is to a counter for how many times someone searches Google / Bing for the Database, or uses a FREE service to talk about the product. This is so obviously flawed I don't know where to begin. Lets start with: Running MySQL, my mode of support is Google and my postings about my cool tools and handy hacks will be in Stack Overflow. Running Oracle, my mode of support is Oracle as I have no reason to search for help in Bing or Google. Further, my epeen waving will be on Oracle's forums, not stack overflow. That's enough to not bother with the other BS used to "measure" popularity. If you don't see immediately how the results from the site you posted are going to be grossly skewed, I can only suggest a good strong lobotomy.
I originally came here to ask "Is it sharded?" as a joke...thanks for wrecking that for me.
You are attempting to say a banana is the same as a grazing buffalo. How are you possibly able to equate someone making sure that a carpenter is on the job site and working with a mandate that he use a particular power tool where power may not be available? It's not rational, but you just tried it.
I'll give a courtesy agreement that many of the gun advocates arguments are slippery slopes. What you just answered was not one of them.
Your argument of me being an American and believing that America encompasses the world demonstrates that you have a poor and irrational belief. How about less emotional statements and some facts to back your position that DPRK is a threat.
Fact: North Korea does not have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon at either Japan or South Korea. The scuds they have are not capable of carrying that large of a warhead, tend to fall apart, and even if the glue holds they can't hit what they aim for so missiles end up in the Ocean. Do you believe that North Korea has bombers capable? Think again. The biggest "real" fear in South Korea is the amount of artillery rounds North Korea could fire into Seoul, and that it's possible to use chemical weapons in the artillery. Followed by a whole lot of people marching in behind the artillery of course. I'll give you that the threat of an invasion has a possibility, but not nuking any time soon.
The DPRK is a great bogeyman for Japan and South Korea. China is a much bigger threat and actually taking action in the Pacific. The world leaves them alone because the world can take advantage of the DPRK in many ways. It's worked pretty well since the end of the Korean War.
I know they are not a good government, but we are not going to fix them. We have not fixed them in the last 60 years of them being a bad government. Nobody else will fix them either. Every Government needs a bogeyman, and the DPRK still works as one.
Personally even if they had a H-Bomb what is the fright? That they are going to use it against their own population? Until they have something better than coal fired missiles from the old USSR the world is not under eminent threat.
You are making it way harder to get rid of people than what can happen in reality. In most settings professors make money by teaching classes. If you suddenly find out that you are teaching 1 class and only on Saturday evenings, how long are you going to be a Professor for exactly? I have seen colleges hire additional professors for the purpose of getting rid of a professor that someone didn't like.
I have to wonder if you went to a one class college, if you went to one at all. You state several times that my statements make no sense, and the only reasoning you provide is a claim that somehow a Professor becomes a god.
You are choosing to ignore the problem based on what appears to be an extremely shallow personal anecdote.
Look at the position I presented from a different profession which has similar institutional problems, Law enforcement. Many cops get in to the job because they are altruistic and willing to work for society. I don't believe for a moment that all cops are bad, and met and talked with quite a few. That said, the "good" cops generally don't last long. They must either work for the governments benefit and meet quotas, or be out of a job. This turns them into bad guys not working for society, and the good cops know it. I know several Michigan State Police who retired as soon as they were eligible because their morality would not let them continue beyond the 20 years. That does not mean that all cops are bad, or that good cops don't exist. It means that the Institution is broken, and that broken institution is generating a high volume of bad cops. The rules keep bad cops around, and to believe this is accidental policy after 30 years is asinine.
Now review the statements I made about professors and deans and the problems within the institution. Since you ignored my previous statement regarding the institutional problem and went right to the personal defense I have no confidence you will, but I have been demonstrated to be wrong before.
The problem is the attempt to correlate specific activities with learning, when in fact they are not the same thing. Collecting data on how often a person hits the nail with a hammer has no bearing on whether or not they can build a shelf. How difficult is it to teach a monkey to use a mouse? Do you somehow believe that the monkey who uses a mouse better than a person learned more history in a class? Even more appropriate, how easy is it to write a program which reports events that never occurred to a remote server?
In the words of Mark Twain, there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
What we read here is that the recent failures in our education system are not due to Government intervention, policy changes, and a forced influence of what we label progressivism. It's all because the professors don't have the right data to work with, so we need to fix it with statistical methodology. I call bullshit!
This is an attempt to market bullshit, because people are finally starting to grasp the fact that our education system (including so called Universities) has become bullshit Historically here is how we tested whether or not a person paid attention and learned something. We sat them down and give them a test. Every course I had in college required 6 blue books per semester. You had 2 tests and a mid term, then 2 tests and a final. You brought your bluebook, a pencil, and professors could let you bring in other materials used during the course if they wanted. Some courses were very easy to test this way, like Calculus, Chemistry, and Symbolic Logic. Some things were not "easy" to test this way, such as Ethics. Professors had assistant professors and associates for the more complex to grade, like English Lit which always seemed to have more aids working than students (probably for extra credits). They all had questions that if you paid attention to the materials you could answer.
Saying we now need statistical hullabaloo is laughable. Not even close. We need to get Universities to actually teach people instead of coddle them, and we need professors and Deans willing to do the same. College has become a joke on the public in order to grow government and make a few people rich. Even if you want to teach as a professor, the Deans will not defend you because they fear a student's opinion more than care for the Universities reputation. Yes, that's right. A history teacher can't teach history if it "offends" a student because feelings" now trump facts in college. That's fucking scary!
Before I get off my soap box, I do want to tell people that the generalization fallacies don't work. That one bad professor never causes an educational institution to collapse. In fact the market usually removed the professor within a pretty short time as nobody would sign up or pay for their courses.
Slashdot Mirror
You lack the capacity to differentiate action from words. No matter how you slice up your statement, the problem is in the ACTION and not the WORDS. If I write "John is a spy" and hand the note to the KBG the action is intended to harm John. Since you gave a pathetically inept appeal to emotion I could take the statement the opposite direction. People talking results in a Totalitarian Government killing them. Which then makes your statement mean that talking is the problem, not that an entity is silencing people by murdering them
No matter which way I attempt to view your statement, it demonstrates an irrational and illogical thought. More simply put, you are not very bright. Certainly not bright enough to attempt to use the term "libertard" as an insult. You do however reinforce the normal that idiots regularly resort to ad hominem because they can not argue their opinions with logic and reason. Good on you, I guess.
Actually I thought you were trolling but you defended and reinforced your idiocy in the same thread. Request an increase in dosage, and if that fails, you should strongly consider a lobotomy.p.
As it was, we had US Government spooks trying to silence people pushing for equality. Look at Mockingbird and COINTELPRO if you don't know or don't believe. Yes, people would be silenced. In fact I'll argue that a tremendous amount of silencing happens today. Censorship already happens all the time, because it benefits people in power to control the narrative. People should try to count how many clips of audio they hear everyday in the "News" which are intentionally taken out of context so that you have a certain viewpoint. Then add in how many issues are simply ignored because it harms a narrative. Hint: It is closer to 100% than 0% in terms of how much the dialogue is devised for people to have and hold a specific opinion.
To the point you raise: Google is not the arbiter of what should and should not be said any more than I am or you are. Words do not harm, and have never caused harm(1). I read lots of stupid shit that I don't agree with because it makes my opinion stronger. I also happen to read things I didn't know about in the process, which does the same or causes me to update my opinion.
(1) A call to action like "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" which implies "run for your life" is not "speech", it's a call to action. People often confuse the two and often for sophistry.
I have no problem with certain types of content being unencrypted. If it's static and does nothing the http protocol "should" be fine (depending on the app using the content). I also have no problem with people having a port80 listener redirecting to port443. People are too lazy to type in a URL, let alone "https://".
I didn't look at either of those links to investigate if the above scenarios are present. I have seen people say "Ugh, http needs to die" to any discussions regarding HTTP and HTTPS protocol (more lately for some reason).
> If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
It took months and 5 million dollars to ask the 2.5 million residents of the regional district of Vancouver a question about paying for transit, how exactly would you envision getting buy in from your voters on a comparatively trivial expense question without invoking a cost far in excess of what the option you're asking about is?
Simply put, what you want is just not feasible or cost effective for a population center that is larger than one that can gather every citizen in the local school's gymnasium comfortably, so even suggesting it is kind of disingenuous.
Why do people believe the default mode of government should be "SPEND MONEY WE DO NOT HAVE"? Seriously ask yourself what would happen if you operated your home that way. Don't listen only to people pushing Keynesian economics, get some Milton Friedman in your brains and see what triumphs.
Oh, and when you are broke because your wife/husband/etc.. says "but it was only a dollar" for the 20millionth time, lets talk again.
Defense contractors would be able to make money in a free market, but we don't have a free market. Whether right or wrong (different discussion and interesting) the Government restricts what people make, how much they make, and who they can sell things to. They limit software as well as hardware, and in some cases even concepts and ideas. A company like Lockheed Martin can not sell a military plane to Bill Gates even though he could easily afford one or two. Let alone selling a plane to Sudan or Russia, which would be how a defense company would operate in a free market.
The point is that, without governments, there'd be no defence contracts. You'd have a world of petty warlords and fiefdoms, none of which would have the resources to pay for attack helicopters, aircraft carriers or fleets of tanks. If they could, they'd be big enough to be governments by definition.
And you somehow believe that without Governments nobody would be paid to make bigger guns? I think you need to read a bit of history on that one, because pooling resources to get better weapons is not some new novel concept and surely not limited to defense (historically more prevalent sure, but not limited).
Actually I do know how things work. You on the other hand are feigning intelligent while demonstrating ignorance.
1. A database query does not publish information, it pulls the information from a source. There is more to maintain than a SELECT statement, and it's obvious to anyone that works in IT (except for you?)
2. A database query does not validate the sanitation of data. Validation generally uses a combination of human action and programs (including development and maintenance of the programs, see 3).
3. A database query by itself requires maintenance when working with an option like "We only publish salaries of X" because X will change over time. So even if everything could be handled by a single statement it would require more work. More work == more money in the real world.
I warned you not to play the "but one time fixes everything" card, and you tried to pull it out anyway. Bullshit someone else.
Defense contractors would be able to make money in a free market, but we don't have a free market. Whether right or wrong (different discussion and interesting) the Government restricts what people make, how much they make, and who they can sell things to. They limit software as well as hardware, and in some cases even concepts and ideas. A company like Lockheed Martin can not sell a military plane to Bill Gates even though he could easily afford one or two. Let alone selling a plane to Sudan or Russia, which would be how a defense company would operate in a free market.
Your conclusion of a private company existing due to tax payer money is extremely biased. Meritorious in some cases, but certainly not the majority or even half.
That one aside, we have to ask if its cheaper for tax payers to use a company like General Dynamics as a private company or would it make more sense to have it public? Another really good discussion to be had, and easier to summarize my opinion.
Looking at retirement benefits and how it's nearly impossible to remove bad employees from the tax payer funds today I don't think it would be better or cheaper for tax payers to have Government agencies do all the work. There are certainly incentives to having freedom in certain markets, and part of that should be that private companies can pay some people a lot more money than others even in the same role and job title. Consider also that you don't want the salaries of certain people public because it puts them at risk. You don't think the job "John Doe, NW.Scientist 300K/yr" versus "Jerry Doe, Janitor, 40K/yr" would make it obvious to an enemy who they should target?
Last point on that one is that when I last worked DOD (5 years ago or so) executives were required to report their salaries and earnings publicly. They also needed to report how much of a contract went into what types of labor. Executive abuse was/is? easy for Congressional oversight to catch. But, stronger incentives could be given to stronger workers to get better products in a shorter time frame.
While I certainly agree that the Government should be accountable I don't consider every Government worker a leech and don't agree with the premise. I see the value in providing some freedom for certain services so that we get better than what a bureaucracy would provide (which we can use the old USSR as a great example of how that fails).
Wrong limiting factor to question. The person I responded to stated that only salaries over 100,000/yr are posted.
Dumping 3 fields of a database is pretty cheap. Dumping 3 fields of a database, reviewing rule set, publishing only what matches the rule, monitoring to make sure the rules are followed, adjusting the rule over time, etc.. costs more money.
Just in case someone considers it: Anyone who claims you can write an algorithm once and be done forever has no grasp of how programming works (or is completely dishonest), so don't go that route.
I think the difference between thoughts is that you are comfortable trivializing some of your tax dollars. It costs more money to scrub data and publish only salaries of X, and my taxes are high enough without paying for that too. If voters were all given the facts and all agreed to pay the extra expense to disclose only certain people's money then the people as a whole have spoken and I'm good with that.
Usually people are not informed about extra expenses and risks associated with not disclosing all expenses. There have been numerous cases of nepotism and cronyism where loopholes like yours are used to hide abuses.
You are working for the tax payers, not a private entity with private interests. Your salary should be public knowledge, primarily for accountability to the people who you work for. Politicians, Military, etc... should all want to be open to the public about everything. It's not like people are hit over the head and stuffed into the Government Jobs camp any longer.
That said, the private sector is a different story all together. The Government needs to know what you make for tax purposes, but I don't believe there is any benefit to publishing everyone's salary for everyone to see. Executives maybe, but not the general labor staff.
I may be biased because I can negotiate my worth very well, and have a long successful career. If I was not competent/confident in either of those things I may be more worried about what Joe makes versus my salary and demand "equality". Maybe. I also happen to be a realist and despise the push for equality by people who really are not equal to other people. I'm an egalitarian and perhaps a bit of an anarchist capitalist believing that the market will handle itself the majority of the time.
Everyone will be profiled and rated in a method completely hidden from them.
Just like the FBI, DOJ, TSA, DHS, etc.. do now in fact. The difference here is that it leaves open the "we outsourced that to Facebook and Google, we didn't have anything to do with their bad decisions." plausible deniability option. Those people can say "We took the algorithm from some professor at some college", so they get the same benefit.
Yup, I am extremely cynical and have become so after being proven correct way too many times.
So then the backdoor is required for whom exactly? Probably the police/China.
Good luck proving that. My bet is on this being once again just some developer sloppiness, not an intentional backdoor. Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
My Theorem: "Never assume the motive unless you did it yourself." When humans become perfect and never take advantage of other humans I'll agree that Hanlon's razor is always true. That won't happen, so measure the motive based on evidence and probability.
In other words, every Government and Government agency is attempting to legalize back doors in all encryption. Several of those same institutions were found to be installing and using backdoors in hardware and software, and attempting to hack into systems they lacked access to.
Do you find it more probable that a developer "accidentally" left a backdoor in the code and nobody caught it during the whole development chain? Or is it more likely that the backdoor was intentionally installed and not documented so that people could use plausible deniability as defense?
The latter of course is the most probable, and of course reinforcing the idea that "nobody knew about it" and "it was a mistake" will fly around. Hell, they might even find a scapegoat to fire over it. People like you fall for it all the time, so why would they do otherwise?
Are you really attempting to convince me that someone is going to strap a DPRK made nuke to their chest and walk in to Seoul? Or are you somehow trying to convince yourself that the threat footprint for a DPRK made nuke is the same as a that of a Jihad John? I find the latter to be true, not the former. Good luck with that long overdue lobotomy!
Well, to be fair, there are big flashing lights and a click-through on installing Ubuntu warning you that your search queries will be sent somewhere, and a single button to disable it that isn't obfuscated or hidden.
NOW there is, but there was no such warning initially. Initially Canonical was not honest about what they were doing and sending to Amazon. It took a short time for a 3rd party to publish what it was really doing contrary to what the documentation page said.
Claiming that telling you about something and forcing you to acknowledge it is "hiding it" and then crowing about your righteous refusal to use it on that basis is just being a drama queen.
So if I change what I do, that means I never did otherwise? I am (insert ad hominem) if I distrust them after that happens? Nope, that is not reality. You and the AC are both drama queens for attempting to use ad hominem against a fact based post. Appeal to your own emotions, you can not manipulate mine.
The only person using false drama is you. I never stated that it was an evil plot, you did that. You also attempted to claim I said it, which is bullshit.
Telemetry requires a consumer dig through details to find it, and to turn it off. How hard is it to do like Redhat does, and give a prompt to users during the install which asks them if they want the service on or off? Don't bother stopping to think about why Redhat does this as opposed to just turning it on, because that may be more "false drama".
You claim to agree with my position, but then type what a shill would type. It is obvious why _you_ remain hidden in anonymity and the person who is fighting for anonymity does not hide.
Clear Linux also comes packaged with spyware
From the 1st paragraph at that link:
That's what Canonical (Ubuntu) and a few others think, and it's wrong. Clever wording like "We send only minimal stuff without your knowledge" and "it's for your own good and so that we can make it better" don't change the default state of the software in question. I refuse to load Ubuntu on anything because Canonical installed their software in an always on state and hid it from consumers. I will never ever trust them again, just like I have not trusted Microsoft after their shenanigans (yeah, you have to go back pretty far for me trusting MS).
Very simply put, if it's always on and users don't have big flashing lights warning them at first boot that it's going to be on, then it's intentionally hiding the software. You can claim good intent all you want, but if you tried to hide from the start do you think I'll believe your intent is altruistic? "Fool me once", and all those quotes.
Mental Illness takes faith to understand. It's nothing like a broken bone, or collapsed lung where someone can say "wow, that sucks" by looking at you or an image. Mental illness can't be seen, and really with as much as we know about the mind much is really unknown. Every mental illness effects people differently. Hell, nerve damage in general impacts everyone differently for that matter.
Not being able to see things makes mental illness a target for abuse. People abusing the trust of people leads to suspicions about whether or not a person is really ill, and ridicule and humiliation for people caught abusing trust.
The real world problems you mention don't change much from physical to mental. Smokers, people with bad hearts, people with diabetes, etc.. all pay more for insurance and may become a liability at work. A carpenter with heart disease probably won't be on the job very long, just like your job would not be sustainable with a mental illness. Sucks, but not really when you think it all through.
Anyway, long story long. The stigmas associated with various mental illnesses don't become easy to break down. Open dialogue sure will help all aspects though.
The link you give is to a counter for how many times someone searches Google / Bing for the Database, or uses a FREE service to talk about the product. This is so obviously flawed I don't know where to begin. Lets start with: Running MySQL, my mode of support is Google and my postings about my cool tools and handy hacks will be in Stack Overflow. Running Oracle, my mode of support is Oracle as I have no reason to search for help in Bing or Google. Further, my epeen waving will be on Oracle's forums, not stack overflow. That's enough to not bother with the other BS used to "measure" popularity. If you don't see immediately how the results from the site you posted are going to be grossly skewed, I can only suggest a good strong lobotomy.
I originally came here to ask "Is it sharded?" as a joke.. .thanks for wrecking that for me.
You are attempting to say a banana is the same as a grazing buffalo. How are you possibly able to equate someone making sure that a carpenter is on the job site and working with a mandate that he use a particular power tool where power may not be available? It's not rational, but you just tried it.
I'll give a courtesy agreement that many of the gun advocates arguments are slippery slopes. What you just answered was not one of them.
Your argument of me being an American and believing that America encompasses the world demonstrates that you have a poor and irrational belief. How about less emotional statements and some facts to back your position that DPRK is a threat.
Fact: North Korea does not have the ability to launch a nuclear weapon at either Japan or South Korea. The scuds they have are not capable of carrying that large of a warhead, tend to fall apart, and even if the glue holds they can't hit what they aim for so missiles end up in the Ocean. Do you believe that North Korea has bombers capable? Think again. The biggest "real" fear in South Korea is the amount of artillery rounds North Korea could fire into Seoul, and that it's possible to use chemical weapons in the artillery. Followed by a whole lot of people marching in behind the artillery of course. I'll give you that the threat of an invasion has a possibility, but not nuking any time soon.
The DPRK is a great bogeyman for Japan and South Korea. China is a much bigger threat and actually taking action in the Pacific. The world leaves them alone because the world can take advantage of the DPRK in many ways. It's worked pretty well since the end of the Korean War.
I know they are not a good government, but we are not going to fix them. We have not fixed them in the last 60 years of them being a bad government. Nobody else will fix them either. Every Government needs a bogeyman, and the DPRK still works as one.
Personally even if they had a H-Bomb what is the fright? That they are going to use it against their own population? Until they have something better than coal fired missiles from the old USSR the world is not under eminent threat.
You are making it way harder to get rid of people than what can happen in reality. In most settings professors make money by teaching classes. If you suddenly find out that you are teaching 1 class and only on Saturday evenings, how long are you going to be a Professor for exactly? I have seen colleges hire additional professors for the purpose of getting rid of a professor that someone didn't like.
I have to wonder if you went to a one class college, if you went to one at all. You state several times that my statements make no sense, and the only reasoning you provide is a claim that somehow a Professor becomes a god.
You are choosing to ignore the problem based on what appears to be an extremely shallow personal anecdote.
Look at the position I presented from a different profession which has similar institutional problems, Law enforcement. Many cops get in to the job because they are altruistic and willing to work for society. I don't believe for a moment that all cops are bad, and met and talked with quite a few. That said, the "good" cops generally don't last long. They must either work for the governments benefit and meet quotas, or be out of a job. This turns them into bad guys not working for society, and the good cops know it. I know several Michigan State Police who retired as soon as they were eligible because their morality would not let them continue beyond the 20 years. That does not mean that all cops are bad, or that good cops don't exist. It means that the Institution is broken, and that broken institution is generating a high volume of bad cops. The rules keep bad cops around, and to believe this is accidental policy after 30 years is asinine.
Now review the statements I made about professors and deans and the problems within the institution. Since you ignored my previous statement regarding the institutional problem and went right to the personal defense I have no confidence you will, but I have been demonstrated to be wrong before.
The problem is the attempt to correlate specific activities with learning, when in fact they are not the same thing. Collecting data on how often a person hits the nail with a hammer has no bearing on whether or not they can build a shelf. How difficult is it to teach a monkey to use a mouse? Do you somehow believe that the monkey who uses a mouse better than a person learned more history in a class? Even more appropriate, how easy is it to write a program which reports events that never occurred to a remote server?
In the words of Mark Twain, there are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.
What we read here is that the recent failures in our education system are not due to Government intervention, policy changes, and a forced influence of what we label progressivism. It's all because the professors don't have the right data to work with, so we need to fix it with statistical methodology. I call bullshit!
This is an attempt to market bullshit, because people are finally starting to grasp the fact that our education system (including so called Universities) has become bullshit Historically here is how we tested whether or not a person paid attention and learned something. We sat them down and give them a test. Every course I had in college required 6 blue books per semester. You had 2 tests and a mid term, then 2 tests and a final. You brought your bluebook, a pencil, and professors could let you bring in other materials used during the course if they wanted. Some courses were very easy to test this way, like Calculus, Chemistry, and Symbolic Logic. Some things were not "easy" to test this way, such as Ethics. Professors had assistant professors and associates for the more complex to grade, like English Lit which always seemed to have more aids working than students (probably for extra credits). They all had questions that if you paid attention to the materials you could answer.
Saying we now need statistical hullabaloo is laughable. Not even close. We need to get Universities to actually teach people instead of coddle them, and we need professors and Deans willing to do the same. College has become a joke on the public in order to grow government and make a few people rich. Even if you want to teach as a professor, the Deans will not defend you because they fear a student's opinion more than care for the Universities reputation. Yes, that's right. A history teacher can't teach history if it "offends" a student because feelings" now trump facts in college. That's fucking scary!
Before I get off my soap box, I do want to tell people that the generalization fallacies don't work. That one bad professor never causes an educational institution to collapse. In fact the market usually removed the professor within a pretty short time as nobody would sign up or pay for their courses.