Until very recently the trademark search from the UK government had office hours, it was turned off on weekends .. UK gov really don't seem to get how the internet works do they. Unless it's down for security problems then it should be up, presumably taking it down is necessary as modifications to the site aren't staged?

Doesn't BBT say that men working in STEM are actually just dumb kids but women working in STEM are intelligent, rich, well respected and never put a foot wrong? Bernadette and Amy never seem to make goofs or mope around like little kids but the men are so brainless they can't even fix themselves a meal or plan a vacation, it seems. Indeed the most brilliant can't just be an amazing scientist but has to be mentally deficient. Even the supposed "dumb blonde", Penny, merely has to look at the men and she has the idiots eating out of her hand.

Now that stereotype of men in STEM maybe has a lot going for it, but holding up BBT as supporting men as cherished scientific role models seems pretty far off the mark.

Link to the videos?

>To expect someone to make lame dick and c*nt jokes in source code? //

Yeah, who'd expect to find something that doesn't meet with their own standards of decency on the internet of all places ...

>*most people like to get through their workday without having to deal with a bunch of skeevy guys who believe wagging their dicks all over is the height of sophisticated masculine behavior.* //

Most [Western] countries have laws that make exposing your genitals to anyone at work, out of context, unlawful. In other countries you'd probably just be laughed at and fired. Both reasonable responses IMO.

In your own time however, most democratic countries will preserve your right to dance around and wave your genitals in private with like minded individuals no matter who thinks you're immature or "skeevy" [is that like slimy?].

Certain groups of men, and women, have different mores. What gives you the right to set the public standard of behaviour for everyone?

Can I maybe suggest that either you don't contribute to this project then or if you choose to that you don't put it on your CV?

There, problem solved.

Some people don't care what other people's definition of "professional" is.

>*the idea of a software repository, and open source projects, is that anyone can contribute* //

So because of this one project suddenly the whole repo is unusable or the whole idea of OSS is untenable?? Like because one guy flicked a booger in a restaurant now no one in the world can eat at a restaurant - the whole concept of restaurants is tainted and all chefs must commit seppuku?

On a wider view it could well be argued that you're simply trying to deny something inherent to the character of many males. Personally I'm not in to jokes about genitalia, and toilet humour but it seems pretty widespread amongst men and not entirely uncommon amongst women. So do we stop men being men?

Does this mean that women in majority female employment have to stop discussing soap operas and fashion - stereotypically female mores. If not why not, many men find them toxic and unhelpful and that a pre-occupation with such things excludes them.

I choose making strict - democratically agreed - boundaries within working environments, assessing work on the merit of the work, and leaving people who want to make adolescent jokes to do so as they please so long as they don't do it during work and it doesn't affect their performance.

In defence of Latin you can probably read it on monuments, tombs, and in old buildings in every major city in Europe; it provides loan words and base words for most European languages; it's useful for lawyers and historians at least; you can look intelligent by making quotes in Latin. /Ipsa scientia potestas est/. ;0)>

>He never actually said he wanted to ban encrpytion. That was the tech media taking some vague statements and running with it.
>He said that he wanted to make sure that the security services could read any communication.

So he doesn't want to ban encryption only useful, working encryption? Not sure that really changes anything.

Logically your alternative doesn't work - if I die and the password dies with me then SS can't read the communication. Even just making it a crime not to assist with decryption doesn't make the SS able to read communications. It can't be done without breaking privacy - it's an either-or; either we have private communications or SS can read any communications they wish (ie all communication's privacy can be compromised).

>Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do. //

Go on?

Suppose I create an SSH tunnel or use a VPN to a machine that I run TOR on - you're going to enforce a ban on that and it's "quite easy". Pray tell how?

Suppose you're going to be super-naive about it and just block TOR traffic at the ISP user level - it's encrypted and can be passed on common ports like 443 - how do you stop that traffic?

>reporting vulnerabilities doesn't get you put in Jail, however manipulating sites without permission to look for them does. //

Except that in this case the report is evidence of having "manipulated" the site "without permission" *.

* web accessible documents have an assumed permission IMO; the removal of permission is performed by making the page only accessible with a password or similar auth.

If the law sees it that way then you need to start selling to businesses and include small print that says "by accepting these goods you sign over all property, goods, chattels and monies under your or the accepting company's ownership, stewardship or control to us without let or hindrance from the date and time noted".

The court then to remain consistent would need to ensure that this small print is held to be equally valid ...

>I've only ever been subjected to one, and it doesn't seem to meet any practical definitions of failure.

People dying through poverty brought on by the actions of super-rich isn't a failure in your model of capitalism?

>But I worked for a company that got $88,000 in fines in a single month. //

And still found it profitable to harass people by phone? Usually such fines are miniscule compared to the companies operating funds and so just get absorbed in to the costs of doing business rather than altering the company's behaviour.

If there was really a prohibition against "creating visual depictions of figures" then there would be no TV or photography in use by muslims. Writing certain languages would be right out too, anything with characters based on pictograms of [human] figures.

But there isn't, it's a very new thing. IMO it's been brought in as an excuse to justify violence that would be otherwise so abhorrent to most people who call themselves muslims that they'd probably risk death in favour of apostasy. If however those who want to control the muslim population feign offense and cry that they're only trying to protect Islam then they can win over "cultural" muslims.