Link to Original Source
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
Don't change the subject. We were talking about what an idiot you are.
Just in this thread, you've managed to:
- 1. Completely misunderstand what an ad-hominem argument is.
- 2. Fail to read a simple definition of adhesion contracts.
- 3. Misuse the modern vernacular "hater".
I'm not even addressing your childish Ayn Randian pseudo-philosophy.
Please, don't hate.
You seem to be having a lot of trouble with basic ideas. Let me help. Here is urbandictionary's top definition for hater:
A person that simply cannot be happy for another person's success. So rather than be happy they make a point of exposing a flaw in that person.
I promise you, I am not jealous of you. You're such an asshole that I feel compelled to call you out on your idiotic bullshit.
Haters gonna hate.
"Hater," in the sense you are using it, implies some kind of jealousy. Nobody is jealous of you.
No, jackass, it's a contract of adhesion.
(Khm, an up-moded ad-hominem -- I must be deep into a hostile territory...)
There was no ad-hominem argument, it was an accusation. You talk like a jackass, so I called you a jackass. You are a jackass.
Well, the "contract of adhesion", according to your own link, is one characterized by:
Learn to read. The article said those items you listed factor in to court decisions. The definition was the first paragraph.
The first sentence of the definition was:
A standard form contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by the weaker party (usually a consumer in need of goods or services), who must adhere to the contract and therefore does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract.
Mandatory, non-negotiable employment contracts are adhesion contracts.
You're exactly the kind of asshole who will argue that the sky is not blue, when it's plain as day. That's why people always mod your comments down, because you're a fucking idiot and a troll.
Banning enforcement of certain aspects of a contract may be useful. But it deprives the parties of the freedom to meaningfully enter into such contracts, and I'm not at all sure, the utility ought to outweigh the liberty.
As for the freedom level I find the argument unconvincing.
mi does not actually make arguments. In this case, Stanford academics made the argument that the utility DOES outweigh the liberty, and supplied evidence worthy of peer review.
mi just waves his hands and spouts simpleminded diarrhea, pretending to have some cohesive philosophy.
It's only freedom if both parties are equal in the negotiations. That is rarely the case in employment contracts.
Both parties enter into the agreement willingly, without either side being compelled -- that's all, that matters.
No, jackass, it's a contract of adhesion.
You're a troll and an idiot.
They are talking about bans on NONCOMPETE contracts. Competition is supposed to be the driving force that makes capitalism work.
If you would take off your kindergarten thinking cap and act like a real adult, you would see that some regulation is necessary to keep everything free.
In my state (Georgia), non-compete contracts were specifically banned in the constitution until the Republicans snuck through a constitutional amendment with some amazingly blatant doublespeak.
The ballot read:
Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?
Unfortunately, the state is full of enough weak-minded sheep that the amendment won 2:1.
That sounds reasonable to me. If were running a security group, I would take care of as much in-house as I possibly could. I especially wouldn't allow business partners to scan my gear.. There is just too much risk there.
There are a couple differences with Anthem, though.
- 1. They are being audited by regulators, and your business-to-business relationships are different.
- 2. Anthem was not able to document its internal vulnerability scans, while it seems like your company is diligent about this.
Here's a quote from the OIG:
"However, Anthem provided us with conflicting statements about its procedures, and ultimately was unable to provide satisfactory evidence that it has ever had a program in place to routinely monitor the configuration of its servers."
That sounds more like a company with shoddy security trying to hide its failings behind a specious policy.
You seem to be arguing that disallowing third-party scans is normal, but you admitted your company allows Rapid7 to conduct biweekly scans.
You're being sarcastic, right? "Obamacare" doesn't insure people. There was no public option In the healthcare debate.
This will definitely provide fodder for all the class action lawsuits that are in the works.
I wonder just how reckless a business has to be with their security before they risk charges of criminal negligence.
I enjoyed what this guy had to say, too, but I was curious about what he is going to do for facebook. For that matter, what AI can do for facebook. The closest I could find was this:
Facebook can potentially show each person on Facebook about 2,000 items per day: posts, pictures, videos, etc. But no one has time for this. Hence Facebook has to automatically select 100 to 150 items that users want to see -- or need to see.
I thought the whole point of facebook was to keep up with your friends. *shrug*
Here's part of the problem:
The six universities involved are Norwich University in Vermont (the oldest military college in the United States), the University of Washington, George Mason University, the University of Texas at San Antonio, Drexel University and the University of Colorado.
The only one of these universities with a respectably ranked CS program is U of Washington.
What part of that privacy notice bothers you?
Google requires you to have a Google account, but it explicitly says that data such as URLs you've visited or communication content will NOT be associated with your google account. There is no mention of targeting ads to your browsed websites or deep packet inspection or anything like that.