arg01

I think something else worth pointing out is that even rehabilitation in the case that someone will never be let out of prison serves a purpose as it makes the prison more effective for those who will.

But the successful bad actors are more noticeable because they are near the top of the search while those you have to unpunish are hard to find.

Even if they can easily find them I think the real reason they want to stay away from it is that having such a tool would open a can of worms on the search neutrality side of things. (i.e. we know Google+ is a good actor we should remove link out penalties, we know are largest advertising client is generally a good actor, we should remove penalties from their site). Even if google wasn't tempted to misuse the tool you can easily see it generating a bunch of lawsuits form bad or unlucky actors accusing google of favoritism.

I've seen some of the discussion related to SteamOS and the Raspberry Pi. Looks like SteamOS has no ARM support, so that is likely to be a hurdle. Something similar is Limelight which streams your computer to a PI including keyboard and mouse support, but is only compatible with a Nvidia 600 or 700 card.

I think you'd need to whitelist some useful acronyms if you implemented that rule.

USA

NSA

DOJ

TCP

POS

etc.

"Look I'm sorry mate but I'm just running this wire through your house to give your neighbor internet, if you don't let me you're in the wrong"

"Sorry but we need to tear up this highway and disrupt traffic for the next couple of weeks to lay some fibre. I know someone else did the same thing last week but they were another company and it's illegal for the local government body to stop any of us laying stuff on public land when we want"

Obviously that extreme is untenable. You may be after something a bit more useful like unbundling, but in the US you have to explain how forcing a private company to let competitors use it's cable is not outright stalinistic communism.

I have not been involved behind the scenes. I'll point out liquidity seems like a likely advantage of splitting shares. You can do smaller trades with a wider audience/more frequently. The added liquidity would also make the shares more valuable to certain classes of traders which may raise the price.

Living in Japan it's much more acceptable to eat pink or even raw chicken here. I will vouch for it being much easier to cook a nice juicy (and tastier) piece of chicken when you don't need to worry about under cooking it.

I think there are several arguments for it. The converse a desire not to read is obviously a negative as it is one of the fastest ways we can assimilate information.

Before the internet and videos reading was one of the most efficient ways you could learn, be it actual non-fiction texts or the expanding the mind type fiction. (I'd argue it still is, but I'd guess it's arguable about reading fiction). So we still burn a candle for the heights reading reached as an intellectual pursuit.

Another reason it may be lauded is the positive signaling that can be associated with it. Off the top of my head it would indicate: the fact you have time to read, that you are able to focus for long enough to read, that you can be stimulated by purely mental pursuits, (arguably) that you will spend time finding books to read rather than just watch whatever the latest advertisement told you to, (arguably) that you have an interest in some of humanities greatest works.

This is off the top of my head and certainly you could argue that reading books (especially fiction, though studies have shown fiction to improve empathy) is no longer as important. Certainly you could argue that people may read books that have no inherent value but even that low bar would be worth encouraging as it would still encourage those around them to read in (perhaps) a more productive way.

In conversations about suicide the suicidal person can be talked of as "having given up"/"took the easy way out", "been selfish to their loved ones", "gone against god's will".

On the other end of the scale we can talk about "Dying with dignity", "Not being a burden to loved ones", "finally at peace", "being in a better place".

When more people hold the later views then it is more acceptable in society for someone to commit suicide because they don't feel that they are hurting others as much/aren't as evil for doing it (not that I believe they're at all evil I used that wording as those considering suicide may be self loathing).

You could even make arguments on a case by case basis if you wanted from the heroic last stand to a single parent leaving behind their children. It all comes down to what obligations we feel people have to stay alive.

I disagree mostly because counter culture is much easier for the powers that be to hinder if it needs to declare all it's activities.

I don't particularly disagree with your moral relativism. But I will point out that there are obviously axioms we can base our beliefs on (be they "harming people is bad" or "gods are good so do what they say") and we build up from them to a point were the underlying reasoning is lost and actions can be viewed as both good or bad so obviously reasonable people can hold different views. However the issue with saying we shouldn't be intolerant of intolerance is that nearly everyone agrees that we don't have the perfect world. You're asking us to break the feedback loop when we know things aren't right. Perhaps you're just arguing caution before deciding to boycott and argue for a boycott, still I would argue the action is not unreasonable and it is derived from a basis on very sound axioms.

It's actually the opposite, historically rediquette was to upvote quality and not downvote just because you disagree. Where as HN policy is to downvote things you disagree with. The difference is just that reddit grew faster and had a broader focus. Without careful moderation HN will grow (both in users and topic types submitted) and will suffer from eternal september as well.

You ignored my first point. You can trust the self signed certificate to be used by the same entity(A or C) after the first connection, admittedly you may have been MITM (by C) for that first time(and renewal times) and because of that you may be screwed. Alternatively if you are trusting other entities(B) to verify the certificate of A while B are not trustworthy then after that first communication (even if that first communication was legitimate) another entity (C) can pretend to be A and so long as B verifies C then you are in trouble. I am pointing out that they are different risks and I agree that in nearly all use cases it is better to use verified certificates than self-signed for general internet use, that doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to do otherwise though.

Maybe he is saying by removing trusted root certificates he will trade the possibility of receiving a fraudulent certificate the first time he uses a site for the possibility of not being warned if a certificate changes because the trusted roots are compromised. If he needs to worry about state actors there is an argument to be made for this trade-off, but really if he was worried about that he would be delivering certificates out of band and not visiting any unknown websites on the machine he needed that level of security on. (Maybe justifiable against mass surveillance where you're a general target rather than a specific one).

I can also agree that your reasoning is correct that a spherical rooster you modeled will roll off the roof. Doesn't mean you're right to argue that roosters can't stand on roofs.

Would my reply have been more useful if it did not acknowledge you have some reasonable points and instead just ignored anything you had said as you apparently feel is the appropriate way to frame this discussion. If that's the case I would expect it's safer to dismiss your view than someone's who does not subscribe to that particular philosophy.

More to the point I agree with your quote:

>> I agree with your reasoning ... (some stuff) ...

>Awesome.

>Let's boycott and protest everyone who does ... (some stuff) ...

The Commonwealth has different restrictions on interference with churches. There is no constitutional guarantee in the UK. Similar to how common law countries generally limit freedom of expression to not include hate speech.

Well either the government is separate from religion in which case it's legal definition on the rights of marriage theoretically has no bearing on the religious component or it is part of the religion in which case it can decide how it wants it's religion to develop. I can't speak to civil unions in the UK but in New Zealand there were definite rights that were excluded from civil unions (adoption being one) so the argument to have it be recognized as one entity so that distinctions can't be made is a fair one.

As to forcing a church to marry two people I'm torn. I put it in the ball park of refusing to marry those of a different race or have mixed race weddings. I think you can make the argument that any religion that has a form of tax exemption could be required to not discriminate and hold basic human rights. Ofcourse it's a bit of a mire as you could argue back and forth all day between the "state opression of religion" to the "no they can't make human sacrifices" extremes.

As to the mosque/synagogues stuff I'd assume any law that was created would hopefully lead to a lawsuit (from the muslim/jewish/XXX couple or human rights group) which would show that the law did apply to those institutions. But I agree political discussion is generally avoided out of either the fact that they're a smaller part of UK culture or fear of inciting violence(even if this fear is unjustified) or being called a racist(or the theological equivalent (I for one wouldn't like to be called a theist ;) ). I think the "and they are lynching negroes" point is going to be a particularly useful one for the catholics/christians to argue.

I agree with your reasoning that arbitrary advantages could be viewed as discrimination. I'd argue though that in those cases the goal is to cancel out disadvantages (directly or inderectly) directly related to inherent parts of a person (sex,handicap,race) or are benefits that a person can generally choose to acquire (old age,veteran,handicap;) ).

In the case of maternity leave it cancels out the propensity to fire/not hire a woman because she can get pregnant and is likely to be required to raise the kid for the first few months. Native cards to reduce inherent inequality produced by past events. Handicap to allow the handicapped to function to a level similiar to the non handicapped. Were as age benefits in theory apply to anyone who doesn't croak and presumably if they so desired. Veterans choose to serve the country and are compensated by society at large, admittedly you could argue not all people can join the military so fair point there. Food stamps, just lose all your money.

So onto gay marriage. Marriage is both a legal construct and a religious construct but the government can only recognize the legal part (seperation of church and state). Now the government is currently not recognizing that the couple can be together based on the sex of the partners which is something they can't change (reasonably(you could argue for separate drinking fountains on the basis that skin colour can be medically altered if you think this is reasonable)), you can argue that the marriage is for reproduction but sterile couples can get married, you could argue the child is adversely affected this has been shown not to be the case, you could argue friends will cheat the system but that can already be the case, the issue is the government has no reason to grant the various special right (tax,visitation laws, adoption) to a couple based on the sex of the people in the couple.

The key to that argument is that the government can't use the religious part of marriage as a basis for their decision. It's also worth noting that even if the government allows gay marriage that only guarantees you can get married in a courthouse, nothing about churches would be guaranteed (or in theory enforceable if they decided to say you could).

Is this a problem for anyone with money in MTGox?

i.e. would sales inside MTGox have counted towards this tax or isn't only with withdrawl/deposit into their ecosystem. I can imagine that if internal to MTGox interactions are treated this way then there are a lot of people who sustained a capital loss higher than that and had no option to withdrawl the money to pay taxes.

Companies may be formally structured in such a way that they effectively act in an amoral fashion and merely seek to fulfill the wishes of their shareholders.

But they are also made of some less formal structures. Groups of people that believe privacy is important will be predisposed to assume that disrespecting that tenet will affect profit and the companies operating environment later. Even if this is not the case perhaps a company gains additional political capital in some area for it's behaviour and no single product is likely to be worth the loss of that clout.

If you take factors like these into account you can judge whether a company is predisposed to create outcomes you'd say are good or bad based on it's previous actions.

As to FB and the wages I do not give them the benefit of the doubt and assumed that it wasn't them acting on some outpouring of principal but purely needing the engineers as they grow more than they needed depressed wages. This may be unfair to them but their past actions do not align well with a more generous interpretation, though give it a few years with similar incidents and I'd reevaluate in their favour(I'd love to see it but I wouldn't hold my breath).

I can't speak to how the demographics of the back-fill would turn out, though I'd agree what you say seems likely. However I will say that that Junior engineer is also likely getting a pay rise from his old job (or perhaps just entered the work force).

As to your second point regarding the cold calls if the cold calls do not have some benefit for the one called then it wouldn't matter if other companies were making them (as why would the employee leave). The fact that these companies colluded to avoid them speaks to the fact that threatening to quit vs being poached does not have the same benefit for the employees(or that not all employees have the tendency to act as mercenarily as perhaps they should).

If you poach an engineer from another company that means the other company must replace that engineer or be less productive. This company would then be the one to hire the outside engineer at the improved salary.

i.e. If Google wants another engineer it can hire from outside or it poaches Facebook's(or another's in that club). In the second case Facebook (now needing an engineer) will then either poach from Google(or another in that club) or hire an outside engineer. The only way an outside engineer isn't hired is if Facebook/Google decide that an extra engineer is not worth the new higher salary (or the expected lower worth of them since they constantly jump ship).

Even if the pool is smaller than the current pool of engineers at the big companies it would still arguably be a "fairer" distribution of wealth because the profits are more evenly spread through the successful companies. It would also mean that as the larger companies produce less (fewer engineers to make things) there are more engineers that could be working on competing/niche products that are currently worked on by the larger companies.

Some of the common quotes:

"History never repeats itself, but it rhymes"

-Mark Twain

Split enz also has a popular song with "History never repeats. I tell myself before I go to sleep".

The other quote you're your probably thinking of

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

-George Santayana

So all in all I'd say you're right on the thrust of the generally popular quotes but not necessarily on their wording.

I don't know the answer to this and of course the following was easily dismissed with a tinfoil hat comment, but when China decided recently to unban porn there were people suggesting it was to make bypassing the great firewall less 'necessary' for the average user.

I'd love to see those contracts. They either have to put in a nice big juicy monetary penalty(If it's not your new employer will cover it) that each year at your pay review you can point to and say you obviously think me leaving is worth this much why am I paid 2-20% of it, or they chuck in a non-compete which are often unenforceable (unless they continue to pay you) or doesn't really matter to the hiring company as they can stick you with an unrelated project as they're not looking to capitalize on your skill as much as screw the other company. Really the only way I see it working is with deffered forms of payment which means more equity or performance bonuses. Maybe I'm just not imaginative enough.

Isn't one of the common arguments that they're isn't a shortage the companies just aren't willing to pay enough to get people interested. I mean when I think make BIG money in IT I think startup and all the risks involved or management rather than high level engineer. That will have an effect on who joins the industry.

Your forgetting that some things can't be changed with respect to other things. I may hate the commute to work, but otherwise find my job great and my house great. I may have optomised that commute as much as possible already (audio books, a nice car, best route) but it is still the worst part of my day. If I behave more in line with stoicism then this no longer worries me as much. Sure this may stop innovation by me in that particular area but I'm still inovative in other areas and people who are better able to tackle that issue are the ones that can deal with it (if indeed there is a better soloution).

Could also be a free to play type thing. You get the door for cheap/free, then there's a service fee for use. Hell I can imagine it with a screen and being asked to watch an ad before egress. Even better is the poor guy stuck outside his apartment while having to sit through a horny ladies in your area ad while the neighbour walks past with her kid in tow.

Sure, but those making that argument would be right to point out the NSA should be releasing all their data under the same logic.

The point is that value is not directly mutable for a person. For instance you would probably happily give up all your property in exchange for surviving something that would otherwise kill you but would not do the same for some John Doe. Just like the victims may be happy to exchange the wrongful death fee in exchange for punishment and a millionaire might happily pay a wrongful death fee to drive around town so drunk that he can't stand up.

Then there is the key point that jail costs time which is proportional to the individual fined rather than the victim. In a proportional payment system there would be an even larger perverse incentive to get hit by moneyed people if the fine was in anyway punitive.

"But it costs society to incarcerate and is a net negative from the point after the accident on", Yes but we decided that prisoners shouldn't incur debt for being imprisoned for some very good reasons.

What of the victims? What benefits the victims more than giving them money after the fact is reducing the risk of it happening in the first place. A payment system has either a more harsh proportional punishment than the current system to decrease this happening further, or reckless driving will increase because it is more tenable for the drivers (or people are irrational when assessing jail time and money as punishment and the deterrent affect is not proportional).

So my main point is while I agree that it may be utilitarian to lower the cost to society after the fact there can be even more utility to play the ultimatum game before the event.