Rather, what actually happened is that the spy agencies watched everybody, and by and large didn't care about people who weren't throwing up red flags. If it weren't for Snowden and the Internet-fueled rage he spurred, you'd never know that you'd been investigated at all.

And if you never found the camera your neighbour installed in your bathroom you'd never know he'd been watching you and your family naked, but that probably wouldn't stop you being pretty pissed about it when you found out.

When your government begins using mass surveillance on the entire population, and does so in secret and against the protections your government tells you that you have, it should be a pretty obvious sign that you can't trust them.

So, you've come back to respond and highlight how your use case is even less appropriate for on-line storage providers than it already seemed... somewhat emphasising my point about it being stupid to compare what you're doing to online storage solutions like this when they are entirely different.

Exactly. It sounds incredibly stupid.

What he's doing isn't stupid if he is willing to pay the ~$1k+ premium of running & maintaining that set up + viable backup for the benefits he feels it provides.

It is however incredibly stupid to compare it to online solutions like Google Drive and this Amazon service. It's like comparing buying chopped tomatoes with having your own tomato farm and processing plant because you want to know the origin and factory conditions.

that could make sense if the addition was 3 million / 30 guys - not 1 billion. 1 billion extra needs some manufacturing contracting price to rise.

Not at all. You're confusing the cost of staff (which he didn't talk about) with the cost impact on the project of a drop in staff quality. When you're making decisions about things that cost millions, or billions, then losing a top talent with experience could lead to gigantic cost increases. The difference in shock resistance between a $200 million design that can withstand launch and one that can't will be small, but get it wrong and the worst case could be throwing it out and starting over.

Will I look back on my life and consider it a success if I watched these shows?

No, but you're spending your time on /. attacking an innocuous measure of how seriously female characters are taken in film so I imagine this is way down on the list of things you'll have to deal with to be able to say yes.

This point can't be made often enough. We're already seeing any meaningful discussion drowned out by claims even checking for sexism is sexist, that they should have something better to do etc, and they're hiding an underlying issue.

Checking whether two functions coded by different women interact is a really poor proxy for the lack of gender issues at a firm. It would comically easy to game, and I can't see what it offers that simply looking at the proportion of women employed in coding roles doesn't do better.

If you can substitute the term "white male" into your premise and suddenly find it offensive, then was actually racist/sexist all along.

Why on earth would you find this offensive if you made the swap? Because you're a white male and it would highlight how virtually no software fails the white male test, but a huge amount fails the female test?

No it isn't, though it does happen. I don't think anyone is suggesting that their aren't raids anywhere else in the world than America, what they are saying, and for some reason you're trying to re-direct away from, is that using armed raids as often as they do in the US is probably not a good idea.

Where the calls originate doesn't really change the discussion of whether police in one country are too heavy handed or not.

I've had to use it precisely once. It's fine for establishing a baseline in young children, because they don't accept abstract arguments. If they ever question another punishment regime like the naughty step, that's where you have to go

It may have worked for you in the circumstances that you chose to use it, that doesn't make it something that everyone has to use at some stage to draw a line. If you'd used physical violence, then your child had done the same thing again would you have done it again? What would you have done if they then did something worse? Then did something worse again? By your own logic you'd need to ratchet up the punishment because consistency is key. I don't think violence is lazy, and I think bad parenting is an unhelpful allegation, but I've never seen a compelling case made for why it's the better option.

Its a pretty damn meaningless term, and it seems to get thrown at scientists and academics a lot on this board.

It's very helpful when you use it in reverse. If you hear someone being called a SJW you can pretty much assume that the person doing the calling exists on a spectrum starting at "can barely interact socially, and feels oppressed for not being allowed by society to be the douche they want to be" and continues down to some pretty fucking disturbing sub-humans.

A pointless distinction given that it also highlighted a 70% increase in hospital admissions due to self-harm over a decade. Unless we have a plausible alternate theory for why there's such an increase in that time period then it's compelling evidence to start from.

And there it is! That European smugness.

America the brave. Land of the free. God bless the USA. Leader of the free world. The American dream. Manifest destiny. American Exceptionalism.

America where it was controversial for a drama to include someone saying America wasn't the greatest country in the world.

But how dare those Europeans think they've made a better choice by now having the police routinely SWAT houses like they're playing at urban warfare!?

employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job.

Yes, and the fact it is still something they need to do means that it is still common for things like visible tattoos to have some impact on careers; which undermines the rest of your post. Things will change, they have already changed hugely in a lot of places, but that doesn't make it the norm now.

There clearly is because the whole concept of SWATing doesn't seem to have made it to Europe. I can't help that's because we just don't seem to do the full on wanna-be military style raids as standard response to so many crimes.

So yes I agree completely that overusing extreme force is an issue and should be dealt with, it still doesn't mean that you shouldn't target the people trying to make the police use that force to SWAT someone. I find it hard to believe that in more than 50% of SWATing cases you couldn't put together an evidence chain strong enough to justify a warrant against a suspect for less than $10k, which would be a price well worth paying to vastly decrease the number of SWATings happening.