MrLeftHand

So the hackers can fall for the same trap?

I wonder if there was a situation where a hacker fell for his own trap.

'Oh sweet! Got an email about p_n_s enlargement.'

'Wait a minute....'

Oh god, being a grownup. Yeah because grownups are immaculate. They never do or say anything stupid.

If this were true we would live in a perfect world and we couldn't make any rape jokes, because rape as a crime wouldn't exist in the first place.

From the article, who was the grown-up? The guy making a mistake by telling the rape joke and apologizing afterwords, or the lady who literally had a rage fit about the whole situation and ran directly to Tim Cook and because she didn't got her way left the company?

So tell me then? Who was the grownup?

And the comment I replied to?

@daughart bragging about having a richer life and acting with a 'holier than thou' attitude? Literally being offensive! And lecturing us about how not to be offensive in an office environment?

Really? I bet this is a fun person on parties. Also I would love to talk to that team of 8. Just asking them how fun it is to work together with a person like this.

OK, sorry but this part...

This was such a self-promoting bs.

Richer life then others? You can't be serious! This is literally offensive to others. You just contradicted yourself right here.

Good job!

Would you fire a person for a joke like this?

The article doesn't say she was a victim of rape, or not.

I can understand victims feeling violated by rape jokes. That's no laughing matter.

Rape jokes aren't nice and can be rude. I don't want tell rape jokes and neither should anyone, but context does matter.

Penny-Arcade's d__kwolf joke (which I was referring to) wasn't actually a rape joke. The act of rape was just a part of it. It was the crime that was overlooked by the hero because he already finished a quest not related to the crime. Even with the plea of the people, he didn't care about the crime and did nothing to help. And it still was considered offensive because having a reference to rape, whilst it wasn't promoting it in any shape or form. For me it wasn't a rape joke, because the main target of the joke wasn't the rape, but the behavior of the main character ignoring people in need because of his selfish acts. This is actually a common thing when you play an RPG games, where you have to decide which quests you're going to take. And on the top of that the person pleading for help was an actually a man. So it wasn't even painting women as being rape victims.

Now the joke in this issue was about rape. Rape was the main theme, but there was no actual target. There was no reference to gender. The joke was gender neutral. It was still in bad taste and shouldn't have been said. But in the end it was picked up by one individual and made it into a big issue. This is the problem of painting the act of rape to be against just one gender. I agree there are more rape victims of women then men. But rape is gender neutral. Everyone can be a rape victim regardless of their gender.

I'm not a promoting rape jokes.

I'm against harsh punishments for things that clearly are minor offences, like a joke with no actual target.

Also read my other reply. I hope that clarifies my stand on this.

Rape jokes are bad. Harsh punishments for a bad jokes are worse.

These issues just widen the gap between genders and not close it.

No, that's not what I was saying at all.

Words do hurt, jokes can be offensive. But there is a line what you will do to retaliate.

You can brush it off and move on with your life and make the mental note, that the guy is an _ss.

Or you can go and punish him through a series of humiliating procedures which will definitely have an impact on his life, his career and possibly destroy him. You do more damage to him, then he did to you.

Is it worth to punish someone for a joke? Because if it is, then you might bring back the death penalty for stealing a can of beans from the grocery store. Or agreeing that people should commit acts of terrorism because someone made a joke about their faith?

The biggest punishment should have been that their line-manager has a private talk with the guy, or sitting down the three of us and find a common ground. Not running to the head of the company and filing for harassment.

And frankly I wouldn't want to work with a person like that. Not because I want to tell rape jokes and not because she is not a man. It's because I don't want to work with someone where I always have to be careful what I say, how I say it and watch my behavior for 24/7 to not become a target for harassment lawsuit.

Being oversensitive can make one into a toxic person as well, not just bad behavior. And because of this issue, people will avoid her, because they will be too afraid to have any kind of connection with her. And who's fault will that be? The men? Why not, it's always the men apparently.

I'm a father of two girls, I want a future with gender equality, but not the one where you force people into behavioral patterns to accommodate the system. Clearly then the system is bad. It's a relationship between the genders, we have to work together. We have to give to be able to take. Sometimes it's ignoring minor things like an inappropriate joke and sometimes is being thoughtful and not say stupid inappropriate jokes.

I hope this clarifies my stand on this matter. In a nutshell: Rape jokes are bad. Harsh punishment for a joke is also bad.

Yeah, maybe hypocrisy is not the right word here.

I still feel they are making a big problem out of it just because some people have different eating habits.

Ah, now you ruined it for me. I was just in the middle of telling one to everyone.

Making no effort is not OK. Making effort with little to no insight to things wont help either.

For example that fish bladder comes from fish. That fish was probably killed for it's meat. So even if you're not using fish bladder in the beer clearing procedure, that fish will be killed and that part thrown away. Than you use some kind of substitute which has to be grown, or manufactured. That needs land, energy etc...

In short you will have a bigger impact on the environment, because the fish will be killed anyway. And now you have to produce extra filtering agents for the beer, because you will lose customers who like clear beer.

And all of this for a couple of vegan beer drinkers.

Well done.

It's not just this article. This was triggered way back where vegetarians started to boycott Guinness.

We used this technique for quite a while now and people are shocked.

What about this part: Brewery owner Tim Bosworth, a long-term vegetarian who went vegan two years ago, said he was shocked when he first learned about the ingredient.

Really? A brewery owner finds out how he makes clear beer?

And he is shocked? Just imagine how shocked he will be when he finds out how much damage he makes to the environment by brewing beer.

And this: "It's kind of disgusting to think about, even to people who eat meat, and it's something that's not talked about," he said.

It is not. I for one, think if you kill an animal you might as well utilize all of it. Skin for clothing, meat for eating, bones for tools and jewelry, swim bladder for beer cleaning. That animal shouldn't die for nothing.

But for the third time. I agree to get rid of the fish bladder, because we have substitutes for it, which might be even better. But let's not grab one particular problem with the whole brewing industry and the rising alcohol consumption issue.

I might be wrong, maybe starting the change through our beer will lead us to a balanced natural lifestyle.

First of all it's free from fish bladders, because you're not consuming that. That fish might have been killed to end up on the plate of non-vegans. So the fish was already killed for other reasons in the first place. And following this thought, then vegans can go and wear clothes made out of skin. Cows, pigs, sheep aren't killed for their skin in the first place. It's just a byproduct that is used.

The hypocrisy lies in the valuing lives of certain beings over others.

Or when vegans have carnivorous animals as pets. Feeding them with canned guts and other leftover parts of animals. And whining about fish bladders in beer.

I will state that from an energetic standpoint it would be great, if the whole world would go vegan. I have no objections.

But I don't like people going mental on fish bladder whilst they are still polluting the environment as the others and have to have a rage fit about literally everything.

Oh and lastly, we don't have to drink beer. Alcohol was needed when humanity didn't have clean water and we needed alcohol to disinfect it. Now we have all the water we want. From the tap, or bottled.

You are not required to drink alcohol, at all.

Oh and why aren't they considering the huge impact we have on the environment just by growing crops for beer. A social, useless beverage. Like the fish are the only ones who suffer cause of this.

All and all, I'm fine removing fish bladders from the filtering process, but wont get a hissy fit if they continue to use it.

Rape goes both ways. Men and women can get raped. Someone telling rape jokes can be disgusting and inappropriate, but it will stay as a joke.

Agree, a workplace is not a good place to tell these. In fact there might not be a good place for it.

Also, if we go further down the rabbit hole and say that rape jokes promote rape, then we can start saying that video games promote violence, etc...

My concern is to have someone getting fired or prosecuted for a joke. Getting his career broken because of a stupid joke.

You can feel disgusted or even violated, but with the counter actions you can do more damage to the other person compared to the one you received.

I won't leave the house until they invent the hoverboard.

Actual sexual assault destroys humans. A joke less so.

Also getting offended by peoples actions, worldviews and literally punishing them for this... destroys humans.

It's like the penny-arcade dkwolf joke over again. Or the spiderwoman crawling pose.

From the article feels like they were joking about everyone getting raped, including men.

Anyway, rape is a serious crime, no doubt about that and the joke might have crossed a line.

But were do we draw a line by getting offended or not? These lines are pushed further out every time and sometimes limiting freedoms.

Also, men can be sexist, that's true, but we are still in a position where women have an advantage, a powerful tool to call out someone being sexist and inconsiderate and get that said person into trouble and brand him so his future prospects are completely destroyed.

Is being offended about a joke enough to cripple someones future and life?

Looks like men always have to be extra careful about what they say and what they do. I wonder when this whole gender gap won't spill over to become from a male dominant society to a female dominant one.

It's hard to find equal grounds apparently.

I hope they are OK with dead animals being used to fuel their cars, made into plastics to pack their stuff, producing the electricity to power their house and all the stuff in it.

Never heard people being offended by killing plants for food, cutting trees grinding them into paper or just to have it as a decoration for holidays.

I do agree, if it's only for aesthetics we could actually leave it out and not kill something for just having clear beer.

In the end everything is made up from the same starstuff as humans, a squirrel, even the rock in the dirt and the dirt itself. Some of it is considered living the others not.

Why do I always feel a bit of hypocrisy when it comes to these topics?

Oh my god, this article can't be more wrong.

A wearable extends your capabilities without compromise. Like a smartwatch gives you much freedom the be connected, monitor your health, organize your life without being intrusive and limiting your freedom in movement.

Earpods go in your ear, they limit your hearing, the one of the top connections to the real world.

In this context VR headsets are wearables as well.

It's an overpriced BT headset with some extra features. Let's not try to look more into this then it actually is.

If anything bone-conduction headphones are closer to being wearables, because they not limit your freedom of hearing, they can be used to stay connected, you could use Siri with it.

I feel the same thing to be honest. As a mostly Backend Java guy I just have a hard time to get my head wrapped around the whole Frontend/SPA thing and the multitude of frameworks, styles, tools and so on; just don't help at all. It feels like everyone is reinventing the wheel constantly.

Right now I try to write a simple react SPA and I use more libraries as if I would have done it in a tomcat webapp with static html pages.

Documentation is relatively scarce or non-existent at all and in the end you end up looking at code on github. Hunting on Stackoverflow and blogs written by people and realize that there are 100+ ways to do the same thing.

Looking at code would be fine, but looking at Javascript it's hard not to see how easy it is to write in different styles, which makes understanding the things harder. Also being in the middle of transitioning to ES6 makes it more complicated. Of course ES6 will be a big leap, but ES5 won't go anywhere anytime soon because of backward compatibility. So you will end up with overlaps and weird code.

Sass definitely helps with css. React is a great way to develop nice SPA sites webapps.

I don't know if the whole Frontend part is going in the right direction, but it will need some time to settle. For now it's more fragmented then the Android platform. And it really feels like we are trying to put a lot of stuff on top of protocols, tools and standards which were never meant for this in the first place. We might end up having such big scripts loaded for a page, that it could have been just a thick client instead of a web page.

We threw away Java Apps, we threw away flash, we are throwing away jsp/jsf, PHP, etc... And now we are recreating the same behavior with Javascript/CSS/HTML5. Soon it will be only Javascript and you literally won't write not a single line HTML. (Well React already does that to be honest.)

So yeah, interesting times. And it's hard to jump on this train whilst it's moving so fast.

Nicely written.

It is true for a long time now, that Apple sells a lifestyle. It really kicked off when they introduced the iPod and the new line of Mac's not to mention the debut of the iPhone.

I'm not denying the genius behind their marketing strategy, but I'm wondering when this cow will start giving less milk.As more and more people in the upcoming generations are tech literate, the harder it will get to impress them with a better camera and a shiny gloss finish.

I feel this road doesn't lead to more useful innovations. Maybe it will lead to a fitter, happier life with loads of pictures in it.

Probably there is some minimum, because when you drink just regular water that has some calories as well. And not drinking for a day might be he worst dietary idea ever.

UPDATE: Water doesn't contain calories. Sorry for the misinformation.

My mouth (actually my hands) was faster then my brain. :-)

I understand this. As the first cameras were introduced in mobiles the trend is still on the rising. Also I haven't said that they should improve the the quality of the calls. We are talking about smartphones, there are hundreds of other thing to be improved or added.

I'm not saying they're not adding or upgrading other features, but it really feels like the biggest selling point is the camera now.

Like last year trying to sell 3 second videos as live photos.

Great, now they have a phone with double camera wart and no jack.

Also what's up with Apple being so obsessed about pictures? I know you want to have the nude selfie in the toilet to be the best as possible, but come on!

And everything revolves around fitness. People wont get up from their bum, just because their watch tells them to. And the other who already do fitness don't need a watch to tell them how fit they are. They already know. Because they can feel it.

And I almost forgot that having now two different types of back casing is a feature apparently.

Last but not least, Apple is still ignoring the cries of millions of users about the battery life. That majority of the people would trade in the slim design for days worth of juice.

Who cares about paper thin phones when you have to put them into a case with extra battery within it to have it powered through the day?

Who cares about the seamless Jet Black casing when you put the phone into an ugly plastic case?

It looks like 'Form Over Function' again for Apple.

Good job apple, this is probably the most uninteresting keynote ever. Except for the people dancing in stockings at the end.

Sounds fantastic.

So, who will try to convince the wealthy to give up their status and distribute their wealth to the poor?

And who will tell the poor who suddenly has a lot of wealth, that this doesn't mean you can have anything you want now?

I have the feeling we wont learn until something really big and stupid happens, killing millions by the minute.

Even after that a few generations pass and everything will be the same as it always was and will be.

The common job spec:

Have a degree in CS + everything else that is vaguely related to IT.

Have at least 3+ years commercial experience in: C/C++,Java,Perl,Python,Javascript,Node,AngularJS,React,Linux,Windows,Mac,Maven,Agile,LAMP,Ruby,Bash,RegExp,SQL,NoSQL,C#,Android,Photoshop,AWS,Swift,iOS,Docker,rkt,UX,UI,Backend, Frontend, Salesforce, CRM, CSM, MVC, Scrum, Waterfall, JUnit, TDD, Cobol, Fortran, BASIC, UML, Git, SVN, CVS, JQuery, Assembly.

Fluent in English and three other languages.

Good communication skills. You have to be able to explain everything to illiterate shareholders and customers over the phone or Skype.

Be proactive and willing to take risks, but only the ones we approve of.

Desired is everything else not on the list.

Oh, you are 45? Sorry but we are a young dynamic team. We only take people under 25 or androids with 2TB+ RAM and an expandable storage unit.

Well, a wall for start wont shoot you in the face just because you want to cross a border.

A wall, doesn't need electricity.

The maintenance cost is lower.

Can't be hacked.

Oh, and you can paint nice big pictures on it.

It's true we are making less collateral damage then in the golden days, but the problem is that the more advanced one side becomes the less of a chance the other side has.

It's not just about fighting terrorists. We don't know who will be in command next. Giving this tech into the wrong hands will do some massive damages. There is always a chance to find ourselves on the wrong end of the drone.

Also the drone targets a single house, bombs it to oblivion and then someone says they are 80% sure, they bombed the right house with the right people in them. Not to mention a lot of times the people killed are civilians who were actually supportive, but because they are dead now, we just make the rest angry and make them side with the enemy.

We are a long way away making sure we are killing the right target.

Yeah, just let a Hitler like guy (or Trump), have control over a massive robot army.

We always assume, that the technology always stays with the good guys.

This stuff is literally a dictators wet dream.

It looks like we don't have to wait for SkyNET to produce an army of robots and autonomous vehicles with guns.

We make them ourselves, against ourselves.

Can't wait to see someone hacking these machines and turn them against their former owners.

It is easier to find something to blame then actually taking steps to avoid these attacks.

As far as I remember the Police already had the people behind the attacks on their radar, but they didn't do anything.

Being able to decrypt the messages wont help if they do it after the attacks happened. Like the FBI vs Apple? They knew the guy, they were following him. And did they do anything? Nope.

And what does it matter, if they go through with this? Criminals, terrorists will create their own encrypted channels.

It's a never ending battle and the only ones loosing will be the rights of the civilians.

And even if it will help to fight terrorism and save everyone without firing a gun, what's the promise that these tools, these backdoors wont fall into wrong hands? What's the promise when a dictatorship rises in one of these countries, they wont be able to use it for bad things?

Will they close these doors after they won the war on terrorism?

I had meningitis when I was child.

Mumps triggered it with some pancreatitis on the side. Double the 'itis', double the fun they say.

Spending weeks in quarantine, I only saw my parent through a glass window. Luckily my memories of the whole experience is a blur now. Maybe it's better not to remember the ordeal.

The only scar that's stayed is stuttering, which is sometimes better, sometimes worse.

I'm afraid what else might have gotten damaged back then, that might come out when I'm old.