Comment Re:It's Not Racism In The Tech Industry (Score 1) 459
May you and your family enjoy the brightest blessings, AC. Would that all parents had even a tenth of the love and insight that your kids' parents have. Well done.
May you and your family enjoy the brightest blessings, AC. Would that all parents had even a tenth of the love and insight that your kids' parents have. Well done.
Now, it is also undeniably true that such talent is not present in proportional numbers amongst various minorities. That's a problem, but it's not of the tech industry's doing. There's plenty of blame to go around. Many of those minorities still suffer from inadequate education. The members of those communities must shoulder some of the burden as well - it is, all too often, still not cool to be smart in those communities. Intellectual achievement is often met with derision even within families. Girls are usually conditioned against pursuing STEM interests. Such observation is not racist, or sexist. The lack of achievement is nothing to with race or gender. It has everything to do with what the community is doing, or not doing.
And companies that collect SSNs or other PII that can be used to conduct ID theft should be required to take out an insurance policy to cover at least a portion of their potential liability.
That's probably not going to solve the problem. There's already a land-rush business in such policies for "covered entities" and "business associates" encumbered by HIPAA, and the general consensus is that they are not worth the paper they're written on. All include (not surprisingly) clauses that require the insured to have "implemented all required safeguards..." (or words to that effect). The problem is that there is no "standard requirement". The clause is just weasel-wording to ensure that no matter who diligent the policy holder may have been, a breach will have been "not adequately prevented". The net effect of this insurance push will be to lean on that rather than proper security, with predictable results.
The questions now turn to how this practice was allowed to continue unnoticed for so long and how the banks will go about getting their near $3 billion back.
They shouldn't be getting their $3 billion back: they took a foolish risk and need to suffer the consequences.
Unless they are Too Big To Fail (tm).
The occurence of this sort of fraud in the 19th century led to the emergence of the role of auditors, whose responsibility is to ensure that the accounts are telling the truth; as a result this sort of fraud is rare in Western countries. The question now becomes one of who the auditors were - were they ones who should have done the job, or were the banks fooled into accepting a poor audit. In either case however the auditors will be on the hook unless they can prove that the CEO was doing a VERY good job of hiding the facts.
Surely, you aren't suggesting some sort of malfeasance on the part of auditors or regulators? Not in South Korea?
Yeah, that's all well and good, except for the fact that Facebook has reached a critical mass; resistance may not be futile but it's damn hard:
1) I have friends all over the world; literally, on every continent. Is there a better centralized method of communicating with them? Should I send out a broadcast e-mail to all of them every time something noteworthy happens in my life? (Noteworthy actually means noteworthy in my world, I'm not logging check-ins every time I go to the grocery store....)
No. Most of the don't care to know about every bullshit event in your life, even though you might think it's "noteworthy".
2) I have friends that only communicate via Facebook. They won't talk on the phone, they don't text, and they rarely check/answer e-mail.
Your friends are stupid and have given up the relative privacy that those mediums offer. Doesn't mean you should.
3) Ever tried dating in the modern world without Facebook? It's instantly assumed that you're hiding something, which to be fair is frequently the case for people that refuse to share Facebook with would-be mates.
I'm glad I'm not dating now. If they only candidates are so invested in Facebook that I get crossed off the list for not being similarly vapid, it'd be a long dry spell.
4) There's an ever growing list of companies and events that decline to maintain a webpage or otherwise keep it updated. If you want to stay abreast of their developments the only way is via FB or Twitter.
Driven by marketing departments filled with vapid airheads who think that Facebook is the Internet.
Facebook is a necessary evil.
No. It's not.
I expect to see opposition to this from some pro-choicers.
Uh... why, exactly?
Considering that every time someone says something like wanting no religious accommodation in schools. Muslim groups start screaming "islamophobia or islamophobe" some other type of crap, it does seem to be particular to them.
Really? You've never seen or hear the various xtian groups whining about their religion being excluded from public schools? Please...
I too am 100% positive things that I conjecture about with no evidence.
We agree that it is conjecture, and therefore we must agree that the phrase "100% positive" is semantically awkward, but there is definitely ample evidence to make the conjecture credible. Or to put more appropriately, I would not be at all surprise that the government has leaned on Stripe here, and only a fool would assume otherwise in the face of that government's recent behavior.
Blame the following issues on Obama's amateur hour policies:
1. Isis - directly resulted from Obama's premature pullout in Iraq and subsequent flip-flop on intervening in Syria 2. Benghazi 3. Gridlock - if he hadn't rammed through his healthcare bill without compromising with Republicans, they'd be much better at doing the political horse-trading it takes to work across party lines to get things done. By pushing it without any buy-in from the other party - something that has never been done for a law on this scale before - he inaugurated a new era of do-nothing politics. The Republicans have held a grudge ever since. Hopefully when Harry Reid is out of the Senate majority post next week, we'll finally get some bills to the White House, where they're sure to be vetoed. He's been protecting Obama for years, preventing him from taking a formal stance on so many bipartisan initiatives by preventing bills from coming to the senate floor for a vote. O's going to pay a political price for each veto, I'm sure. 4. Mexican drug cartels invading Texas and Arizona 5. Russia's return to cold war stance, thousands dead in Ukraine 6. China's emergence as a belligerent military power in the pacific region 7. Botched diplomacy with China, Brazil, India, Russia, Europe, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on and on...
This is sarcasm. Right? You don't actually believe that list of Fox News dog whistles, do you?
You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.
If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little.
Not to hear your typical Republican tell it. You have to hand it to the Republican party. They have managed to place those "meaningless" issues front and center for over two decades now. Despite their bald hypocrisy on such issues, they have managed to keep a large block of voters convinced that keeping homosexuals from getting married and depriving women of the right to control their own bodies were issues of critical importance, enough so that the sheep continue to vote against their own self interests.
Truth has always been found to promote the best interests of mankind... - Percy Bysshe Shelley
