Reading properly instead of fuming at the mouth would have revealed that I simply stated the counterpoint to the GP and said that without evidence, they are equally plausible.

Here's what problem I have with this, as someone who has written and implemented policies: The longer it is, and the more content that the reader thinks of as boring and "why the fuck do they even mention this?", the higher the chance it won't get read.

If you want your employees to actually read and know your policy, it must be short, to the point, and use redundancy very sparsely and intentionally.

You're committing the "gateway drug" fallacy. Do you have any evidence to back up that sexual jokes promote rape, or did you pull that out of a hat?

And not "obviousness" is not an argument. I can just as well claim that it is obvious that if the environment allows for the harmless discharge of sexual tension, more serious offenses would be contained.

The GP is right, lumping these things together is evil. The human mind likes to group things that are alike, and it commonly makes the mistake of believing that things that are grouped are alike. But especially in a scientific environment, those assumptions should be questioned, and proved before they are used.

A lot of security experts (myself included) have been saying this for years. It's nice to have an actual paper out on it, but it is quite trivial and obvious.

Password systems and the core elements of even most modern password policies were developed at a time when you had 3 or 4 different systems you needed to access. And when almost everyone doing it was a geek and could actually remember 65**L;)Y\BLe-A (an actual "secure password" I just generated on a password generator website).

Once you add normal people and 50 or so additional systems to the mix, you would have to be a total idiot to believe that users actually use 50 different 65**L;)Y\BLe-A style passwords, or that it is even within the capacity of the typical human mind to remember those.

In the real world, if your password policy is crazy, people will either break or circumvent it, most commonly by writing their passwords down. Which, of course, does not exactly make you more safe.

Answering your own questions much? Up until now, Thor had a lot of powers not derived from Mjolnir. On the contrary, Thors soul is imbued in the hammer, not the other way around. Mjolnir is a part of Thor, not Thor an extension of Mjolnir.

To change that is very much a retcon. To call a new, different character "Thor" means changing "Thor" from a name to a title.

It's a publicity stunt, and a pretty stupid one. In so far, you are right:

Yes, I do in fact think that it is a misguided attempt at catering to a very specific, ideologically driven "audience". It's the attempt to cash in bonus points with the crowd that wants more female characters, but without the hassle of actualy creating one.

Yepp, totally fine. Because I understand the concept of "based on ..."

Which is why they call the new character "Thor", yes? Because "Thor" is an old norse word that means "whoever holds the hammer", yes? Are you really so easily tricked by comic-book-retcon-handwaving?

It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.

Because everything that doesn't bow down to radical feminism nazi shit and kisses its feet is automatically misogyny?

There are male characters in mythology, and there are female characters in mythology. If you want a female character, a strong warrior type with power, who commands respect and is listened to by the other gods - the norse mythology has several you can take.

Making an inherently male character female is at best stupid, and at worst both misgoynic and misandric. If you have to look that last word up in a dictionary, you've just revealed your true nature.

If I were a feminist, I'd probably hate this. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.

The only people who I can see to support an idiot move like this are feminazis, the people who're not really interested in equality of any kind, but believe in women being the master race. They are the only people who can possibly have a problem with a beloved male comic book character not being a woman.

Everyone who simply would like to see more female characters on screen, in books or elsewhere would understand that this new "Thor" is not actually a woman. He's a male character in a female body, that's all.

Are you for real?

The norse mythology is radically gender-equal compared to most other ancient mythologies, especially among the western ones. It has plenty of strong female characters to offer.

No, it's ridiculous, stupid and if I were a feminist, I'd probably hate it. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.

Turning a male character into a woman is probably the most idiotic non-solution you could come up with.

That is what makes it doubly stupid. If this were a pure comic book character, the dissonance would be much less.

You can wish the moon was made of cheese, and you can announce it is, but it won't make it so.

Thor is a male norse god, no matter how you try to retcon it. The new character will not be Thor, period. It'll be a female character called Thor.

I don't know why they did this, because it's completely stupid. The norse mythology is rich with strong women, equal in power to their male counterparts. They could have easily built up any of them into a major character.

You are, indeed, trying very hard to miss the point.

The parliament is specifically elected for the purpose of passing laws in the name of the people. When it passes a law, it does what it is supposed to do. If you don't like the law, you could've elected a different parliament, and you can elect one that changes the law the next time.

Last I checked, the official job description of the president did not include a section on his sex life. He's not elected in order to fuck (or abstain from it) his staff. His job is to run the executive, and if it weren't for America and its strange fascination with gossip, celebrity and sex, nobody would give a fuck what he does with his private part.

You basically set out to find the only thing that the two have in common and then think that because tomatoes and fire engines are both red, they're absolutely the same thing.

What a stupid strawman.

The fact that you can survive sprinting through a minefield and you know someone who did it does not mean that it's a good idea or that we shouldn't clear them.

...completely fabricated. This is not about data that the company can't access (legally, or technically), it's about data it could produce at the push of a button, if only it wanted to.

The government is actually right. Without a ruling into this direction, corporations can easily hide any and all data they own from any and all legal consequences.

Firstly, they could simply keep it somewhere with almost no laws and compute it on-demand. Secondly, it is easy to split it up into chunks so that each individual chunk contains no data. Again, re-combine only when needed. Thirdly, in the near future (today it's too computationally expensive) it will be possible to do computations without actually assembling the data. We already know how to do computation with encrypted data without decrypting it (and without knowing its content even during computation).

Irrespective of this particular case, unless we really want to live in a cyperpunk world, there has to be a point where a multinational corporation answers to the law, its guilt or innocence determined in a court, without playing tricks like this.

Are you intentionally trying very hard to miss the point or did I switch on the chinese keyboard by accident?

Clinton's private life is neither here nor there. But even if you want to bring it on, it was an individual action, not a law passed in parliament. The thing we are talking about here, however, is.

Quite frankly, comparing the passing of a law with a private sex adventure is borderline crazy.

I didn't claim the law is the morality. I do claim that it is the expression of the will of society, more or less (i.e. taking imperfections in the system into account). The corporate policies of a multinational corporation, on the other hand, are not.