Ask Joshua

Thus, in total value to the employer, an H-1B is worth more. Remember, workers are all interchangeable parts, like an assembly line. With 3 months, we can make anyone a programmer!

I thought war bonds were not a tax, but an investment with an actual return. I probably get more value out of my tax contributions than I put in, but that's largely invisible to me.

They shouldn't be able to do that either. Just because they can doesn't mean we should extend it.

The only reason this is in the news is because it's plainly obvious the end result is not going to be religious tracts, but stalking and harassment.

The licensing office should be able to, given the licensee's information, say whether that person has a valid license. There is no reason to make all the information public. It is not a license to spam people with job offers, prayers, or harassment.

My minions cost more time than they save, and they have far more than 3 months of training...

My eyes are very slightly near-sighted, and have remained exactly this near-sighted since I was 14. I blame 11-year-old me's extensive use of the VirtualBoy (and my barely following through with its programmed 5-minute breaks between 30-minute sessions). It's nice to see confirmation that this kind of thing is bad (though the screens being very close probably contributed as much as the screens being 3d).

I have five fingers set up in my phone! Them's good eats!

That was unexpected

How is this even news? An employer wanted tax breaks. They discriminate based on a protected class, so they don't get tax breaks. This is the system working.

I use ports all the time, and I've never compiled my own kernel. From what I recall, everything available in the OpenBSD kernel is always enabled by default. The only reason to compile a new kernel is to remove something from the default kernel.

Removing the LKM means someone can't maliciously load a module that screws everything up. The malicious entity would have to replace your kernel and then force a reboot.

I, for one, love article summaries that condescend to me. It just wouldn't be Slashdot without condescension.

So if an actor gets photographed by a journalist, or is in a movie, they are fair game to have their privacy violated? Women should stay covered up at all times for fear that their body is seen? They certainly shouldn't ever use a camera or join a social media site.

This wasn't just a one-time "iCloud was hacked" thing. This is a continued and sustained attack against female celebrities. One of them decided to take what he had collected and go for some personal glory. Android isn't a magical island of security when everyone wants what you have.

We couldn't grow up and stop treating the naked body as a shameful thing (which of course is amplified if you're a woman and must be a pristine virgin flower until your wedding night). We couldn't stop treating these violations of privacy as a huge omgwtfbbq deal. No, we have to blame and shame the victim instead.

Who said they couldn't handle the risk? They're certainly handling the consequences.

Equating to buying stocks is false equivalence (there appears to be a lot of that in this thread). Nobody is shaming you for buying a bad stock. People aren't deliberately tanking the stock you bought in order to discredit or destroy you. Buying a stock isn't a social stigma (yet). Your gender isn't even involved in buying stocks (would anyone have looked for male pictures? would people have cared this much about them? how is Anthony Weiner doing these days?)

I don't think that we need to immediately go to the standard "We must prevent this tragedy from ever happening again!" brouhaha, and instead work on how we handle things like this. I know, it sucks that we have to grow as people in order to handle HEHEHEHEHEEH BEWBS as adults, but it puts the onus on us to reduce the impact that this level of violation has on the victim.

If we didn't care about the photos being displayed in public, would we be having this conversation?

Upvote this AC, please.