Corporate social-justice policies that prioritise diversity over competence.
1773 posts • joined 10 May 2011
Corporate social-justice policies that prioritise diversity over competence.
Bypassing the Great Firewall of China and similar restrictive measures imposed by totalitarian regimes, whistleblowers, exposing human rights atrocities, corporate corruption...
Of course, many of those things are also against the law in the jurisdictions they cover. But if you believe that standing up for freedom and justice is subordinate to blind unquestioning obedience to the law then I'm afraid we're on opposite sides of a very ugly battle.
Pompus Git: Jeeze, how times have changed! A teacher doing that to a student these days would end in a public lynching of the entire school faculty...
Another thing I recall from about 1980 or so, was a craze the girls had for wearing black, very brief knickers called "bumhuggers." They favoured these because the dark material was visible through the gingham dress, which of course attracted attention. It didn't take long for the teachers to cotton on to it though and the school soon banned them, although I never saw the teachers go to the extremes you describe; any girl who came to school wearing black bumhuggers was simply sent home to change.
I suppose by the 80s the anti-corporal-discipline malaise was setting in. I remember in primary school in the 70s getting the cane for misbehaviour was a very real threat, but by the time I reached Year 10 it had pretty much been phased out.
"When I was at school ... the girls didn't dress like that."
Wrong school, wrong country, or wrong era perhaps?
I went through two diifferent high schools in the late 70s/early 80s, in Adelaide, Australia. Girls back then did wear school uniform dresses, which were generally some variation of a gingham or checkered style pattern; I don't recall any being tartan or plaid for any of the schools in my area.
The length of the dress depended on the time of year and the girl wearing it. In winter, dresses tended to be half-calf length to knee length overall. In summer, the "geeky" girls tended to keep their hemlines below the knee or at most only just above it. But the "popular" girls, on the other hand, wore their hemlines as far up their thighs as the school would allow - generally revealing between 1/2 to 2/3 of the length of the thigh while standing, and a lot more than that when sitting down!
Then there were the PE outfits we wore for sports: T-shirts on top, boys generally in footy/rugby shorts that left most of our legs exposed, girls wearing netball-style short skirts that revealed about 2/3 - 3/4 thigh length standing.
It appears, from the occasions I've had to pop into my local shopping centre after school lets out, that high schools today have much more conservative standards than they did back then.
"...fire the responsible party(ies), already!"
Sigh. Typical SJW torch-waving vigilante, always roaring for a witch to burn. Somebody offends your delicate little sensitivities? Sack them, smash them, ruin their lives, so you can rub your smug little hands together in sanctimonious self-satisfaction that others have been forced once again to grovel to your ideology.
My consolation is that idiots like you will be the first victims of the hell you seek to create for others, the moment you make even the slightest mistake.
While we're on Aesop's Fables, my favourite one is the shortest in the collection, but to my mind the most profound in its simplicity:
A Vixen sneered at a Lioness because she never bore more than one cub, while she, the Vixen, boasted she could whelp several at once.
"Only one," the Lioness replied, "but a lion."
"I have almost exactly the same experience but I've never yet managed to unblock enough shit to get Disqus to work."
One possibility is that since I have a Disqus account I've got disqus.com whitelisted in my NoScript. If you haven't, then it would no doubt be buried in the list of domains you haven't allowed yet which might explain why it hasn't appeared for you?
The biggest problem with NoScript these days is lazy web developers who just fetch scripts from 50 fucking domains to build the page. This practice should be regulated if not made outright illegal on the grounds of facilitating malware distribution.
After which your site gets nulled at my router and I never go back there again.
I've completely disabled Windows Update on both my Windows 7 machines. Both are used for 3D modelling and rendering, video work, graphic design, gaming and testing my websites to make sure they work on Windows.
Neither one has internet access any longer. Neither one will ever be updated again.
The only machines on my network that see the internet are Linux Mint boxes - one of which is being used to post this comment.
"Track down these ransomware peddlars and shut them down by any means."
Such as peeling the fuckers' skins off at a rate of one cubic centimetre per hour and streaming it live as a public warning to other sociopathic ransomware vermin that doing this to people carries the direst of consequences.
No matter how superintelligent an AI is, there's one infallible method that works on all of them; it's called "pulling the plug."
"And yes, the challenge question when you phone them is still my mother's "maiden" name."
With my bank the question is my date of birth. I don't know which is worse as a "security" question, but those are the two most common ones!
"Cysylltu pobl a Chymunedau" - I can translate that for you; it means "Shagging sheep on this vehicle prohibited during school hours."
You can bet Google's programmers will be going through that vehicle with a scanning tunnelling electron microscope to find the answers to your question.
I'm actually quite impressed; if a minor bit of boof-tinkle-tinkle, of the sort that happens every day between meatbag drivers, like this is newsworthy, the driverless cars must be doing something right. Especially given that the technology is in its infancy, it's amazing that nothing has gone seriously wrong, to the point where even a little fender-bender like that makes the news!
Nope. Anyone trying to escape the All-Seeing Eye by going innawoods will be rounded up and returned to the fold. All in the name of "preserving the environment" of course. Can't have all these Grizzly Adams wannabes cutting down trees to make log cabins and preying on the local wildlife now, can we?
Or don't use Wordpress.
Customising Wordpress is a nightmare. Masses of indecipherable CSS and PHP files all over the place like a dog's breakfast, directories within directories containing bits and bobs and god-knows-what, it's an utter pile of trash.
You might be surprised.
In my dealings with confronting feminists over the years, I've often found that, head cases like Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem aside, most female feminists are primarily concerned with women's issues and women's rights, and don't give two shits about what men do or don't do. Most of the directed misandry, and the weasel sophistry and goalpost-shifting surrounding the concepts of "privilege" and "patriarchy" is driven mainly by male feminists - sociopathic little political climbers like Michael Flood, Michael Kimmel and Allen Johnson, all of whom are "professors" in what I call the Socjus Triad - sociology, psychology, and gender studies. A surprising number of men take these courses, and they all consign other men to the misandrist yoke with their hypocritical rhetoric. This is why I rate male feminists somewhere between hedge fund capitalists and child molesters in the human shitpile rankings.
Interestingly, many of the men's-rights organisations are strongly supported, and in many cases even founded and helmed, by women - for example Sue Price, who founded Men's Rights Australia. Unlike their male-feminist opposites, who do it for social brownie points and to advance their political careers, the female MHRM supporters do it because they've recognised the systemic misandry present in most establishment policies and are concerned about its impact on their male children and relatives, and far from advancing their political careers, these women face considerable social and political ostracism and even harassment for their support of the MHRM.
Australia: May contain traces of nuts.
I believe the usual Reg euphemism is "Alleged Silk Road architect gets his collar felt in Thailand"...
The probe doesn't have to be carrying anything living for this to be a problem. An acceleration in excess of 15,000 G is going to turn pretty much any equipment on board plus the probe carting it, into an atomically thin sheet of graphene foil in very short order.
I've often heard it said that people always have two reasons for doing something: the good reason, and the real reason. So we have "protecting our customers' privacy from intrusive advertising." That's the good reason.
"And this is about fighting net neutrality in the advertising space, because most users don't like ads, and therefore there's nobody to defend the concept of neutrality."
Aaaaand... there's the real reason.
My first thought on reading this article was "this is an attempt to establish a precedent for undermining net neutrality." It's no secret that telcos hate net neutrality and have been fighting it for years, because it blocks them from milking some potentially massive revenue streams. So if they can implement a system whereby they can apply their anti-net-neut principles to something that everyone hates and thus gain popular support for it, they have a precedent they can use to violate net neutrality on multiple other fronts - and suddenly webmasters will be paying subs to ISPs to allow customers to view their sites.
I believe the threat to net neutrality this move poses far exceeds the threat posed by advertising. People can already block ads by installing ad blockers; they don't need their ISPs to do it for them. This needs to be opposed, and brought to the attention of the net-neutrality enforcement institutions.
"I still miss iGoogle and the Google RSS reader."
The loss of iGoogle, which was the best and most useful service they'd provided, is the main reason why I've never let myself become reliant on Google's services again. Along with services like Buzz and Wave, they've developed too much of a track record of hooking people into their services and then pulling the plug. The demise of Google+ was only a matter of time.
A brilliant concept. I would, however expand on it a little.
Some sites, most notably Reddit, have a practice called "shadowbanning." When a user is shadowbanned, they can still post, see all their own posts, and read and reply to others' posts - but nobody else can see their posts. So they continue posting away, blissfully unaware that they've been moderated out of existence and the rest of the community can no longer see their drivel.
My proposed expansion to your concept is a kind of "inverse shadowban." When some moralising SJW complains about a Facebook page, Facebook responds by replacing that page, only for that user, with a "This page has been unpublished due to offensive content" message - conveying the impression that the page has been censored for everyone else as well, when in fact it hasn't been. Thereafter, whenever said sanctimonious SJW hand-wringer returns to check that their word has been carried out, they see the "page unpublished" message and can brush their hands in self-righteous smugness, secure in the knowledge that their orthodox morality has prevailed over the world. Meanwhile you and I and everyone else get to see the page unimpeded.
In anticipation of the problem that their SJW friends who have not yet complained might see the uncensored page and spill the beans, this is where Facebook's profiling analytics comes in. SJWs operate in gangs; when one complains about something offensive, all their friends climb on the bandwagon to add their rants as well. This makes their behaviour easily predictable by even a base-level AI. So when an SJW complains about a page, the AI maps all of their friends who have posted in support of them before, and inverse-shadowbans the page for all of them - giving them the false impression that their social-justice vigilanteism has had the desired effect!
Peter R. 1 is spot on.
Normally I am adamantly opposed to the death penalty. In many cases people do make mistakes and they shuld be able to learn from those mistakes, make restitution, and resume their place as part of the human race.
This, however, is not a mistake. It is a calculated, deliberate act of malice conducted purely for personal gain, without regard to the lives of other human beings, by sociopaths with no concern for anyone other than themselves. Were you to ask those ransomware vermin how they felt about the little girl who died of cancer so they could be rich, they'd shrug and say, "C'est la vie."
That's not a creature I am prepared to share this planet with. I don't just say that out of outrage. Anyone who seeks to sacrifice others' lives purely to increase their personal wealth is a threat not only to those whose lives they destroy, but to all of us. You cannot appeal to someone who behaves like this. Doing so only gives them a further sense of empowerment at your suffering.
Killing them publicly sends a message to like-minded sociopaths that their own precious skins are at stake if they are willing to sacrifice ours. It sends the message that we are as prepared to kill to defend ourselves as they are to kill for wealth. And by making the deaths public, we rip away the shroud of secrecy that surrounds the death penalty and robs it of its impact, and confront these sociopaths head-on with the stark reality of the consequences of their choices.
I hope they do it in a country that permits public executions, because that's what these maggots deserve. If a case could ever be made for extraordinary rendition, this is a prime example.
Then we start doing it every time we catch one of these sociopathic fuckwads. Anyone with the kind of mentality to do this has nothing of value to contribute to civilisation. They are parasitic vermin, and they should be exterminated, like vermin.
"This stuff looks for and spreads to backups before it announces itself."
Which is exactly why at my company we don't back up from our web server.
We have an in-house development system that is airgapped from the internet. When we deploy a website, we burn a DVD (No USB drives are permitted on our development machines) from the dev system and upload that to our web host. If there are any changes to be made, a new disc is burned and uploaded to the web host. The only thing that comes back from the web host is the contents of the databases and that goes onto DVD as backup each day. This copy is then checked against an offline MySQL server to ensure the data has not been secretly encrypted. If it has been, then we know our web host has been infected and can take remedial action.
Should any of our sites become infected with malware, we simply reimage the web server and restore from the last DVD from our dev system.
It's clumsy and old-fashioned, and wouldn't work for a massive multinational site spanning multiple data centres, but for our small-scale ecommerce and SME sites it works like a charm.
I also use YYYYMMDD ordering for dates, since matches numerical with chronological file sorting. I avoid DDMMYYYY or MMDDYYYY like the plague simply because for the first 12 days in any month it becomes impossible to distinguish between US and normal date formats. I've had some really nasty errors crop up because some American customer provided 7/1/2007 as a payment date and my system parsed it as 7th of January instead of the 1st of July as intended (1st July is the first day of the financial year in Australia.)
To the point where, when I design ecommerce websites, all dates on orders, invoices, transactions etc, are displayed in YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss format by default; the customer can change the date format if they wish (since the board insisted on providng the ability), but I've buried the date-format control so deeply in the CMS and made it such an utter bitch to do so, that most people simply give up trying and accept the sensible format. So my crusade to make the world adopt the logical year-first convention is coming on apace!
"So, all in all, what is the point of this?"
Mining the public for scapegoats.
"The McCaul Bill might be the best. Tie this stuff up in a committee for eternity with no decision ever being reached."
Love it! That kind of thinking is exactly why I vote for independents and minority parties for both Senate and Lower House here in Australia and encourage others to do the same... not because I support what the independents or minority parties stand for, but because collectively they form an obstructive power block against the major parties whenever either tries to push through more draconian legislation.
If the government is effectively hamstrung by faction fighting, power squabbles and ineffective committees then maybe they'll leave the rest of us alone. This is why no Prime Minister has lasted a full term in office since Howard. I still remember with a shudder the shit that got passed in this country when that bastard had control of both Upper and Lower Houses. If I learned anything from the Howard years, it's that an impotent, hamstrung Government endlessly fighting a hostile Senate is the best way to preserve our freedoms and civil liberties!
One of the commonest warnings issued by Australian government travel-advisory site Smart Traveller to Australians travelling overseas is to ensure you only use legal authorised taxis because of the risk of fraud and robbery. The usual official warning is something like this:
Tourists have been robbed and assaulted when using unregistered taxis. Use of a prepaid taxi ticket on arrival at the airport or taxis from registered taxi ranks may reduce the risk of robbery. Official taxis are generally required to have their photographic licence displayed.
Countries in which criminals use fake taxis to kidnap and rob tourists would be at serious risk from services like Uber. Certainly such criminals would take advantage of Uber's system without question. Anyone who travels to a foreign country and uses non-official taxi services is seriously asking to get robbed.
I think it''s more to do with Cinnamon than Mint. Cinnamon provides a very easy-to-navigate UI that shares much of its layout genetics with Windows 7 (and visually it also bears a passing resemblance to OSX), so it's easy to migrate to from either platform.
A friend of mine who is a Gentoo fan has successfully got Cinnamon running on top of Gentoo, since he had the same issues with automatic updates on Mint that you've described here. For my part, I've had no problems updating my Mint install, so maybe there was a particular revision that bollixed things up?
My distrust is irrevocably immovable for the fact they disrespected my HOSTS file even once.
It's got amazing graphics and physics ability, almost on a par with what I can get out of full-blown Cinema 4D renders - and in real time. Plus, they don't lock you in to using any particular vendor or service, it's completely free to download and use, you retain copyright in your work, and all they ask in return is that if your game makes any money then they'd like a piece of the pie - which in my view is a completely fair and honest deal.
That'll drop to tens of centimetres the moment there's any fog or rain... even humidity will affect it at those frequencies!
"Powerline comms should be pretty easy to block - they get screwed over by certain power boards."
That's most likely how the buggers will do it, because they know the "luddites" will try to prevent the phone-home by denying access to their WiFi, and they really, really want to get into our homes. So I'd expect to see things like power boards, surge arrestors and even UPSes soon being "fixed" to remedy any blocking of mains networking.
I might sit down and scratch up a circuit that can suppress mains network signals, just to be sure. I can imagine something based on a couple of triacs and a nice fat cap should do the trick!
I know that anecdotes aren't a good statistical indicator of the public mood, so I do bear in mind that the "I can't wait for it to come out" bit only arises because the technology becomes the topic of conversation, and doesn't reflect the person's overriding mindset. On that issue, I agree that the public are mostly indifferent to it because they are primarily concerned with the day-to-day matters in their lives.
But when it eventually does come time to buy a new TV, fridge, washing machine or whatever, I suspect most people will choose a "smart" model over a traditional model because of the sales pitch and the extra features it offers. So while they might not rush out to get the Next New Thing, they'll willingly embrace it as soon as they're in the market for a new one.
Like you, I'm also in the process of moving over to Linux (this post is typed on a nice new box running Mint Cinnamon exclusively and all my internet interaction is now done through this machine) so I too will be wearing my Luddite (or should that be Rebel) badge with pride!
Every time El Reg publishes an article on the IoT, almost every comment to it is a statement of refusal to embrace the new technology. That this site is populated by a demographic ranging from tech geeks to IT industry professionals, who are traditionally the early adopters of new technologies, clearly indicates that the IoT isn't being marketed at this usual demographic.
Gadgets and tech toys used to be the province of geeks, and new-technology marketing campaigns used to be targeted at us because our adoption or rejection of it would make or break a new technology, but no longer; John and Jane public has picked up the ball and is now running with it with no knowledge or concern whatsoever about the implications for their privacy.
Quite a few non-tech-people I know, when I tell them about this, tell me they can't wait for it to come out because it's so convenient. And when I tell them about the privacy implications, they just shrug and say, "So what? Google and Facebook already track everything I do already, and they haven't done anything, so what have I got to hide? Why are you being so paranoid? What makes you think the corporations or the government are really interested in you and your little life?"
This, folks, is why the IoT is the Next Big Thing and why it is being pushed so hard. Most people seem to have given up the fight and have just accepted that everything they do is monitored. And our little geek demographic has been pushed aside in the big new data grab sales pitch to the masses. We've become irrelevant.
15 years ago we were the only ones who used the new technology. In 15 years' time we'll be the only ones still using the old technology.
Firefox doing this sort of shit is why I migrated to Pale Moon.
I don't like the idea of subscriptions. Subscriptions form a constant, ongoing drain on your finances that can easily go unheeded and accumulate to onerous amounts. Like those charity traps where your willingness to donate a few bob to a worthy cause gets roped into a monthly drain that is next to impossible to stop.
The problem is the evil "easy in, difficult out" tactic used by too many businesses and charities. You can sign up for a sub with two clicks and ten seconds of form fill-in, but cancelling it requires you to post by registered mail, notarised copies of your birth certificate, passport, drivers license, a CRB check, and a stat dec signed in the presence of three police officers and a magistrate to the effect that you want to cancel, to some address in Outer Mongolia which gets its mail by camel caravan once every six months. Meanwhile your sub continues to be deducted.
I've had this problem before, and my bad experiences with this vile shit make me very reluctant to make monthly payment commitments. In one case I ended up having to phone my bank and asking them to de-authorise and dishonour the payment from their end - which didn't do my credit rating any good, but there was no other way to stop the sub I'd foolishly authorised. This "easy in, difficult out" bullshit needs to be made illegal, right now.
What we need is an effective way to process once-off micropayments (say $5 or less) without loading them with transaction fees and surcharges, with a simple click-and-go authorisation process. That way, sites like El Reg could offer an option to have ads or click-to-pay 10c or something to read one article. Another way would be to have a rechargeable account, similar to a Metrocard (or Oyster as you call them in the UK) which can be debited 10c per article read or something. But it has to be manually recharged each time - I am not willing to authorise someone to repeatedly automatically take money from my bank account.
With this payment model, you only pay for what you use, and you don't end up being nickel-and-dimed into bankruptcy by a growing pile of "only a couple 'o quid a month, guv" subscriptions that are next to impossible to get rid of.
I agree with most of what you say here, but there's one small logical problem: 1) and 7), 8), 9) are mutually exclusive. If the ad splaffers can't track you, how are they supposed to know what you'll never buy or already own?
I'd demand 1) as a base-level requirement myself, but that means that I can't complain if I start seeing ads for lipstick or baby food, neither of which I have any use for. In fact, seeing such ads would form some small assurance that I wasn't being tracked.
But aside from that, your 1) - 6) and 10) I'm right with you on.
Given the extremity which you seem to consider as good security practice, I'm surprised you even use the internet at all!
After all is said and done, the only real defence against internet scum - assuming you are going to use the internet at all - is smarts. Ad blockers, NoScript, sandboxed browsers, AV software - none of it will protect you against your own ignorance and stupidity.
When you adopt this approach, then things like ad blockers, NoScript and sandboxes become tools you can use to decide what you are going to allow on your computer. They are merely a means to an end. But that end starts with you, and why you're using the net in the first place.
Imagine how people would react if a toy maker included on its packaging a notice like this:
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THIS TOY HAS NOT BEEN SAFETY TESTED AND MAY CAUSE ELECTROCUTION DURING NORMAL USE.
There are very strict safety standards that apply to all toys marketed at children. A toy company that sells a toy that presents danger of electrocution would find itself on the wrong end of the law in very short order. A toy company that openly states that its products may potentially expose children to attack or exploitation and washes its hands of any responsibility must be subject to the same laws.
Now as much as anyone here, I detest the "think of the children" excuse since it has been misused to endorse (or enforce) dubious political schemes so many times, but there are rare occasions when it does have merit. Dealing with egregiously greedy, corrupt and criminally negligent companies like this is one of those times.
"Would that be the Gulag that Max had to face in Mad Max III, "Bust a deal, face the wheel"? Or just your everyday Russian gulag?"
There's a Mad Max III? I always understood that was a non-existent myth, like the equally non-existent Highlander II...
But no, I was thinking in terms of salt mines. For the rest of their stinking, worthless lives. At least then they'd be producing something useful and it wouldn't cost a bomb to keep them safely locked up as it would putting them in chokey!
"Segura says CloudFlare is investigating the use of its network by malvertisers but says the ad networks have kept mum."
And these same ad networks have the fucking face to demand we trust them and bitch about people using ad blockers?
Every one of the executives and managers working for those ad companies belongs in the bloody gulag.
That's how we used to do it back in the Commodore 64 days... demo scene crews trading between here and Europe would snailmail floppies to each other via PO boxes!
Had to happen sooner or later. Naturally it happened in one of the most crowded areas on the planet. At least that bus driver will be immortalised in the history books...
Pity it didn't happen in Russia though, then we could have said, "In Soviet Russia, moon lands on you!"
No, it's even worse. More likely if you smash an IoT device, it and all its little buddies around your house will phone home advising every corporate and government snoop hooked up to it, that someone at your address is a potential domestic violence candidate and needs to be sent up for mandatory anger-management counselling. Cue a visit from half a dozen cops and a social worker.
I was considering using the Joke Alert icon but the way technology is going, there's a fair chance that IoT will eventually end up actually doing something like this!
“This has left the realm of law and is now in the realm of politics.”
Those words, by themselves, amount to one of the scariest sentences I have ever read.