xviia

In other words, "if we think you could sue us and set a precedent, we will give you your money back. But if you're poor, we won't respond to your phone calls."

Google is trying this with their YoutTube Red, which removes all advertising from YouTube.

I believe it is actually kore profitable than advertising. With ads, an average person is worth between $0.01 and $1 a month (depending on what type of ads), much less than the $9 for YouTube Red.

Hello sir, we're performing an investigation. We accept cash, check, and credit card. Just hand us your wallet, sign here, and then realize you can't afford to hire a lawyer because we took all your money.

BECAUSE THIS IS GREAT.

Hey that's fine, no need for a warrant. You just have to let the judge know that you think that person is a terrorist. And also what reasons led you to think they're a terrorist. Oh, and also what it is you're looking for, and why you think you'll find it.

So... basically a warrant.

Often there are things that "are not in dispute", i.e. both sides agree. That's pretty close to a definition of a fact.

In this case, there is no disagreement that the FBI had CD's containing documents from the defense.

If by "continuing effort" you mean, "parsing new errors in your build, realizing that functions you used have been removed, and finding no information on the web", then yes, I absolutely agree

Google probably doesn't care whether developers use their open source projects -- they hardly make any money from it and they make 95% of their money from advertising.

I have determined that relying on Google products is just a bad idea.

I once included Google's V8 engine on a project I was working on. Google would regularly make breaking changes with no documentation. Developers were required to figure out the new interface on their own... occasionally you would find someone else on a forum somewhere who had reverse engineered it, saving you the time.

Sure, Google can do whatever they want. They have no obligation to people using their open-source projects. But he result is that many developers will be reluctant to use those projects in the future.

The show is interesting because it combines a late night talk show format with a news format. Their special segments are often in the same format as a nightly news program, where they take an issue, perform research, and prevent a side.

Should we hold these types of shows to a talk show standard or a news standard?

When CBS presented a fabricated military report about George W., they were rightly condemned for presenting false information and presenting it as fact. If, instead, the fabricated document had been shown on John Oliver, would we think it's OK simply because John Oliver is partly comedy?

It's not just techies or criminals that want this level of security: companies also want to keep things secure, trust me. In the oil rig industry we used TrueCrypt to secure (1) employee/vendor lists, and (2) location scouting information. Given how difficult it is to obtain tis information, competitors would pay big dollars for this information, regardless of how obtained

How do we know which plugins are secure? If I wanted access to people's browsing info, a plugin would be the way to get it...

Strange how someone can make the right decision in the right place at the right time over and over and over...

Real lucky, I say!!

Obligatory article about YouTube: they reduced the size of the page from 1.2MB to a 98KB. All of a sudden, average page latency INCREASED because people in remote areas could now access YouTube (where previously browsing the site was too slow)

http://blog.chriszacharias.com/page-weight-matters

Facebook once changed all e-mail addresses to @facebook.com

Facebook can sync with your contacts and make a huge jumbled mess

Facebook app drains battery

Facebook app demands elevated privileges that it shouldn't need

Facebook may or may not be listening to your microphone

Truly the most transparent administration in history.

Good thing everyone has been so honest about data capture of Americans ...

“What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls and the NSA cannot target your e-mails.” President Obama, June 16, 2013, on the Charlie Rose Show

During a March 12, 2013, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Ron Wyden asked DNI Clapper if the NSA collected any type of data on millions of Americans. Clapper said: “No, sir.”

“We don’t hold data on U.S. citizens.” DNI Clapper speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on July 9, 2012

“Provides the government the same authority in national security investigations to obtain physical records that exits in an ordinary criminal case, through a grand jury subpoena.” Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein speaking on the Senate floor on May 22, 2011

This is pretty unfortunate. But we don't know if the company would have done the same for a male.

Except when they overcome those market forces through collusion. See: wage lawsuit against Apple, Google, and other tech Titans

In these cases, though, we're relying on the employer to institute those salaries. However, the employer usually does not have an incentive to pay more if they can get the same thing for cheaper.

How much of that is the result of intrinsic gender differences vs. learned culture?

Of course Google and Facebook are not going to send candidates to negotiation classes; they would stand to lose from such an arrangement.

Rather, there are many ways to approach this:

1. Salary negotiation could be included within curriculum at CS schools. (Schools would love if alumni made more money!)

2. Techniques could be included in books (like "Soft Skills"), podcasts, etc.

3. The culture in Silicon Valley could emphasize the importance of negotiating a fair wage.

Left to their own devices, companies WILL exploit those who believe that negotiation is "bad". Companies might not even do so intentionally, but might do so merely by hiring the cheapest employees who have the highest skills.

A side effect is that even if only 75% of employees negotiate to higher wages, the "market rate salary" for employees will increase. If, instead, 75% of employees did NOT negotiate, you'd see a depression in wages.

Without salary negotiation, the company gets to choose the price. Unfortunately, Silicon Valley has shown that it is willing to collude to keep that price down. Therefore, when companies argue that they're banning salary negotiation to "promote equality", you should assume that this equality is merely a gimmick to hide the true purpose: lower wages.

If there really is a difference in negotiating ability between women and men, it would seem far more beneficial to teach women how to negotiate for a fair wage rather than abolish the entire thing altogether. In fact, teach all employees to quantify their abilities and how much value they will provide to their employer. Demonstrate that if companies are unwilling to pay them a fair wage, that they should not devalue their employment.

But the most recent steps toward banning negotiation will ultimately hurt all employees. When companies like Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley companies agree not to hire employees from each other, and threaten to replace tech workers in the US with less-expensive H1B visas, we should question their true motives. This newest idea of "banning negotiation" is nothing more than another tactic used by a profit-maximizing entity to reduce costs.

It surely didn't start in the last decade, and it won't stop this decade, either.

Just look at COINTELPRO in the 1960s:

COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations.

Hopefully, firms will start to pool resources to fund legal defenses.

If settling out of court costs $100,000 and losing a lawsuit costs $1,000,000, teaming up will be the dominant strategy as long as more than 10 firms pool resources.

Thanks! Always good to learn new things

How would this be done? What kind of language, etc. would enable this?

The student may have come from a place where cheating is OK, but he came to a place where it's not OK.

(I don't fault the humanities professor, he may have grown up in a culture where it's acceptable to be full of shit.)

This isn't wrong, assuming that you can get the real stuff. Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) has a higher smoke point and will survive cooking. Unfortunately, if you purchase olive oil in the US, there's a good chance that it's been processed, even if the label claims it's EVOO! A study by UC Davis found that 2/3 of oils labeled EVOO did NOT meet the standards.

The processing step that the fake oils use will degrade the antioxidant capacity that you'd get from real, cold-pressed oil.

So, in summary:

PUFA's go rancid easily in absence of antioxidants.

Pure EVOO, though PUFA, has antioxidants that protect it.

If you buy "EVOO" in the US, it has possibly undergone processing (despite the label!), which means that it will have lower antioxidative capacity

Wiki article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil#Adulteration

The worst oils for cooking are the "healthiest" ones for adding to salads. For example, olive oil and avocado oil "burn" really easily and at a low temperature. On the other hand, butter and lard can survive the high heat better.

This is because poly- and mono-unsaturated fats had double bonds that oxidize rapidly. A free radical colliding with one of those double bonds will set off a chain reaction, resulting in rancidity.

In comparison, saturated fats have single bonds that do not oxidize as rapidly after a free radical challenge.