207 karma · joined February 20, 2017
[0]https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=f7T153gAAAAJ...
iPhone X 623 6 hours ago | 1290 comments
Edward Snowden Interview: 'There Is Still Hope - Even for Me' 74 points 4 hours ago | 16 comments
As they move past from their earthly feelings of shame, whenst they stuck their heads in the sand, now they revel in their vice.
>Say a company buys and sells insider trading information... Would it be legal? So why is buying/selling 0 days OK?
Insider trading is a Victorian-esque and arbitrary law. The same way sports ban PEDs under the guise of "fairness" (when in reality everyone uses steroids and PEDs, and most everyone does insider trading) so too do these outdated laws do nothing but put the SEC on a moral high-ground and bolster the tax bucket.
>Both are selling information that will be used wrongly in the wrong hands, the kind of information you don't want a "broker" to know about, the kind of information you don't want a broker to find clients for.
May be used wrongly. Zerodium is a grey hat distributor. They can sell to the companies themselves, domestic and foreign governments, or terrorists. The first three can be used for good (and it could be argued so could the terrorists if their idealogies converge with some oppressed opinions among a populace). It's not 100% and it's likely, but "good" comes out of it.
>And if there's only one potential buyer (the target), they're basically black mailing 0 days targets: "become a client or... who knows what will happen... maybe the NSA or hackers will buy it?"
In a perfect world, you shouldn't have to have a coal tax and companies would care about the environment, but we don't live in this world. We live in a world where the only that matters is asset value, and good security is rarely seen as increasing asset value (only stopping asset decreation from scandals).
I assume most don't care. The dichotomy is unimportant to them.
>If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.
I get it.
>it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. .
Sleep tight.
>You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer
Already a user. Got in before people realized how much of a game changer this is.
>I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.
This is true. I have a habit of skimming and assuming if something's unclear.
>What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.
Damn. If I came off as combative, wasn't my intention. Crypto's got a lot of uses. Fighting censorship through decentralization is one of its most notable features. Speculation and decentralized asset manipulator is another.
>You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.
I don't understand.
>If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.
I don't understand.
>Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?
Exploitation of networks will be easier to carryout and forensics will be easier to fudge on a decentralized network. Having everyone run through the same nodes and the ability to mask my traffic as a benign pass-thru will greatly enable cyber-crime, even more-so than our current clearnet. Censorship will lose its foothold on oppressing, but it will now enable the other type of independent criminal.
On tangles: I think, if I'm correct in assuming how directed acryllic graphs operate, this will be a boon for anti-censorship, but its still has the same pitfalls. I can catch a ride and spoof myself as a benign fellow network user. I don't know much about this, but I've put one of the whitepapers on my to-do list.
Digital currency is an all encompassing term for any money that solely exists electronically. Example: Money deposited into a bank account is digital currency. Investing into digital currency can mean a lot of different things. A few include, taking positions on exchange rates (such as the conversion of USD to EUR), taking a position on lending yields, or even simply a position on inflation. An economically-proficient reader might opine that these are all the same things, but there is a very fine line that distinguishes them all. Sort of like the line between digital currencies and crypto-currencies.
Crypto-currencies are a subset of digital currencies. One who "invests" in crypto invests into digital currency, but one who invests into digital currency does not always invest into crypto.
There is a distinction, even if we all instinctively knew what the authors were trying to get across.
These are small fish and focusing on them lets the big players make even more moves.
If we assume all 2,000 people that use daraprim daily at $120 a daily dose, it comes out to $87,600,000 yearly.
If we assume half of Americans don't have insurance (160 million), each American would see a hefty 50 cent increase in their yearly premiums.
This is a gross simplification, but $100,000,000 is a literal drop in the bucket.
1). "Results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with Things versus People"[0]
2). "Boys and men prefer occupations related to objects (e.g., auto mechanic, chemist), whereas girls and women prefer occupations involving work with people (e.g., day care worker, art teacher).[0]"
3). "Our results suggest that typical women, who are exposed to low levels of prenatal androgen, participate less than do men in STEM careers partly because they are interested in working with people. This is consistent with evidence that women value communal goals, which are perceived to be at odds with STEM careers (Diekman et al., 2010) and that women who enter STEM careers often do so in people-oriented professions, such as medicine (Benbow et al., 2000)."[0]
It's the paper that is concluding women are biologically less inclined to engineering.
This includes Japanese, Chinese, both Koreans, Taiwanese, and Mongolians. Commonly, anyone with epicanthic folds.
In this case, I don't think the OP was talking about biological differences. It's widely known that the aforementioned cultures (especially Japan and China) are very big on having their careers and studies at the center of their lives.
In this case, it would be nurture giving these groups an advantage over their Western counterparts. Who, ignoring the top-tiers, on average are not known for their industry.
Progress isn't made when both parties refuse to cooperate. And one side isn't absolved of responsibility just because they believe the other side to be not worth their effort. This is petty.
>No, not really. What's the universal generalization or group here, of which Damore is a counter-example?
"Sincere people."
There's also tinges of "wishful thinking."
And a correction on my part, Damore is filing a labor complaint.
> Google is under government regulation. They cannot discriminate against others for their opinions of what they say.
This was a simplified point and I have to apologize for being vague. Google, in certain circumstances covered under the law, cannot discriminate against someone for what they express or what they would otherwise express.
This is shown in under the EEOC links as "illegal to retaliate against employees that speak out against discrimination in the work place." Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Whether he wins or not, I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics. However, this doesn't change that it is possible he has a case.
> Again, no, it isn't. And you keep mixing the law of different countries with opinions from the UN. Pick one. You wanna talk about laws, let's talk about laws. But stop switching from one to the other whenever your argument has no ground. It doesn't matter if there was a legal case in Canada, it is completely irrelevant to the case being discussed here. Or even the UN. None of that matters to this context.*
This is incorrect and I have to accuse you of not reading the sources I provided you. The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document.
> So if you really want to cite sources, a decision by a federal judge, the SCOTUS or the NLBR showing that an action by a company that is exactly like Google's falls into illegality will do. Anything else makes no difference here, either requiring your own interpretation, or being foreign to the laws of this country.
Exactly is impossible and exactly is not how precedent is set. There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated: http://www.quarles.com/publications/employers-take-note-nlrb...
Geekdom is a blood pact that one carries with them wherever they go. There's a lot of "us vs. them" mentality, especially in more introverted circles that feel as though normal society is not for them and they will never fit in.
This hostility is aimed at anyone who, to use their vernacular, is a normie. Someone that, as they see it, has had the luck to be able to fit in to the molds society demanded of them, is not "one of them." This includes men, specifically the "high-status," attractive, promiscuous, and athletic men. As well as normal women, who by the real life random number generator we call chance, are a much greater portion of their gender than men. This is one possible reason it may seem like there is large hostility targeted specifically at women.
Women, using only the frequent amount of stories I've heard, are known for their affinity to want to insert themselves into groups they don't belong in and feel like a great injustice has been done upon them by this. There are certain groups of people that your average woman will never be able to fit in, no matter how much activism she engages in. To tie these two paragraphs together, the largest problems I've seen arise of clashes between geeks and normies, are people who want to "be part" of the group in name, but don't want to be part of the group in lifestyle and essence.
These groups are very welcoming to anyone who shows similarity to their members, but like most groups of people, will not tolerate those who wish to disrupt their bubble and way of being. It's like joining a smoker's support group, but coming in and chain smoking in everyone's faces. Then declaring that the hostility you receive is unwarranted. That it is them who should change their ways, not the malefactor.
A better statement would be: "Will the Evangelical write a 10 page memo "explaining" why there are naturally fewer Atheists in church organizations because their beliefs makes the inherently less interested in it?"
The answer would be yes. But it's not a good example.
To play devil's advocate, what makes it right for certain groups to be able to be preferred over others? How come perceived racists, homophobes, and anti-semites are pushed out and the subjects of their hate allowed to stay?
What if we flipped your statement around. "As a misogynist, I could not work with a woman. As a homophobe, I could not work with an out homosexual. As a an outspoken anti-semite, I could not work with a reverent jew."
Let's say for the sake of this example both parties are the same in efficiency. But, come due time one party starts to openly resent the other and demand they be fired from the company because they cannot work with [insert group here]. Now, I didn't say this was the anti-semite or the jew. It could be either, so let's not shut down here.
Group A says they cannot work with Group B, because Group B holds X idea. Group B can work with Group A, even though Group A holds Y idea.
Is management really right in, in this isolated fairy tale example, in firing Group B because Group A cannot work with them?
Let's reverse the roles in the Google fiasco. Let's say it was the detractors who were fired instead of Damore. Do you think this would have been unfair?
If so, why do you believe it's okay for the original situation to happen? I'm aware there are other variables, but this is what it boils down to.
Brokering fees are not calculated in with the base prices, though it would be once it's time to calculate returns.
The first party was the Centre for Law and Democracy (based in Canada). The second party was Article 19 (registered in UK) -- however I was informed I misread the print on this one. The third party was the Office of the United Nations (based in USA/NY and SWI). The fourth party was the California Labor Code.
You have offered, in this entire comment chain:
1). Your opinion on how freedom of expression should be restricted (unsourced)
2). Your opinion on what constitutes a societal sanction (unsourced)
3). Your opinion on what constitutes fair grounds for dismissal (unsourced)
So I will rebut, once again, with sources countering your claims.
You: "They [Google] can [discriminate on what you say], except in some cases (protected speech). And being regulated by the government doesn't make you the government."
Employees are protected under "anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, RCW 40.60 (the Washington Laws Against Discrimination or “WLAD”) and various local laws. "[0]
Local laws include California's Labor Code - LAB § 1101: "No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees."[1]
Google would also be in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964"[2] for retaliation against objections of its discriminatory practices against men (section n, paragraph 1). Which Google, under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, did: "Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex...
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment."[3]
I ask of you to show me the courtesy of not wasting my time if you don't wish to take this seriously.
[0]http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/freedom-of-speech-i...
[1]http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/labor-code/lab-sect-1101.html
leading to: