You stopped just short of where I was hoping you would go - Narcissism.

Facebook is a mirror and Twitter is a megaphone, according to a new University of Michigan study exploring how social media reflect and amplify the culture's growing levels of narcissism.

Facebook offers the chance to seek approval and validation, as well as feedback to alter your behavior - the link refers to this as "curating" your online presence. If you do curating that steps over into reputation management, you can look like you're trying to hide something instead of show something.

LinkedIn and similar sites about careers and such are still social media, but they are more about professional networking to increase the chances of you knowing the right people for a job change. Almost goes without saying these sites are not helpful when you are new to a career, unless you know key people, in which case you're already set.

The specific personality they want may be a narcissistic extrovert, who would do well in banking and finance, or as a CxO. Perhaps they are looking for sociopathic tendencies, because they tend to rise to the top. Or maybe they know better.

It's not just about introversion/extroversion - there is a huge amount of insight that a person will get in how you choose to express yourself, maybe not to the point of individual personality disorders, but just a gut feeling that someone is a little too this or that.

I have a tendency to detect flaws in logical arguments, or basic failure to reason, and it drives me nutso. I have posted many a tirade here pointing out those flaws, even when I agree with the premise. Sometimes people correct me, and I learn. I post mostly anonymously so I can float some trial balloons from time to time and see what gets shot down. My online presence is finding and pointing out flaws, or arguing the other side so that people can either see their own flawed rationalization or actually strengthen their argument. My job involves finding problems with requirements, design, or architecture, and being able to argue that point, so now that I've considered it for the first time, I see it as a natural extension.

1. Do not create an unnatural online presence - only do what feels right, which could be nothing at all
2. Do not create something that feels burdensome to manage, as it will go stale and you will look silly when I interview you
3. Do look at what other people have done. A lot of it has built up over time, time that you may not have. Nothing you can do about that.
4. If your employer wants your online passwords, and you don't have them, they may not believe you. You don't want to work for that company, not one bit
5. To follow from that, if your online presence helps you get a job, did you really want that job? Or would you prefer a harder-to-find employer that fits your style better?
6. Online presence means people can troll or otherwise make you look bad. Even if you do not allow comments, or use a platform that lends itself to discussion, they can show up in search results with a clear link back to your presence. It's just something to consider when you decide where and now to set up, or not to.

How does it raise the bar? The site is a binary download, which asserts that it takes my privacy seriously.

Can I download the source? Oh, sure, but between the Obfuscated C contest, Underhanded C, and compiler bugs/"quirks", can I really trust it?

I would prefer the recommendation of a privacy group, not Anonymous Coward. And for the record I would trust Linux and GCC if I were to compile from source. I wouldn't trust a binary from a random ass website.

Second reference by AC linking to nothing, with no substance, implying this is a bad company. I have not heard of it. Why should I accept your claim?

Again, I have not heard of this company, or maybe it was long enough ago that it made no lasting impression.

Would you give some context so I can evaluate your claim?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. I have actually not heard of Adecco. Should I have? Should I trust an anonymous coward?

Of course not, you posted a link so I can evaluate your statements. Oh that wasn't you, Trepidity (597) posted a link to The Adecco Group's home page. Which, as I see it, is propaganda, not truth.

Lots of things linked to lots of stuff, by some group... What is your point?

Honestly, this is my question. I have not heard of this company, and you posted nothing. another reply posted a link with the home page and more questions, but I don't see anything that makes me question anything other than the marketing contract's future viability.

Why in holy horseshit are you +5 insightful? You had a personal paraphrase of a hypothetical, one-sided exchange between two parties to which you, apparently, are a non-party.

I am 100% certain that some person attempted to contact Turner. Engaged is the term when you don't do this yourself. They made him some apology, he said GFY.

I hold the opinion that "Around the world in 80 {x}" is public domain, and if you happen to choose the same X as someone else in a short timespan, maybe you had the same idea independently.

I cannot judge who is correct in this case, as I am not a judge. But I won't try to paraphrase one side as to suit one side.

Speculation really doesn't help here. And I don't see how 4.1 MIME content headers relates to displaying a clickable link. The headers tell the e-mail client where to look for e-mail content, not how to display links. Maybe I missed something.

No.

I only reply because you somehow got up to +5 interesting. The patent trolls will take action against the people who make money by displaying e-mails. So Microsoft (Outlook), Google (Gmail), you know - they guys with lots of cash.

If they were to send the lawyers after the end users, it would be the people viewing links - you and me, reading non-spam, and not the spammers because they are not infringing this patent as far as I can tell. And I use the term patent extremely loosely.

You're talking about the right "against unreasonable searches and seizures" ?

It's not clear whether "the people" means the people of the United States, or everyone, since the Constitution usually says "citizens" or "persons". So it could apply only to US citizens. If that's the case, the NSA doesn't know if it's data about a citizen or not, and once it figures that out the data gets dumped.

If it should apply to everyone, then we have to define what is reasonable. Is it reasonable to capture all available information in the hope that it cracks open a lead? That's the current argument.

If you intentionally use SSL, Tor, PGP, or any other privacy tool, do you have an expectation of privacy?

This is an important argument. If you send a letter in an envelope, you expect that it will remain unopened until it gets to the recipient, and society generally agrees. If you send a postcard, you have no expectation of privacy. If you are convinced that all mail is private because sealed letters are private, you have an expectation of privacy. But most of society would see that no such expectation is legitimate.

If you use HTTP or POP or some instant messenger, all without encryption, you may *expect* privacy even though you are sending data to third parties, and it might get copied, and not just moved. Society in general would agree that people would expect it to be private - but if they knew how the internet works, they would probably change their minds.

If you use Tor, you obviously expect privacy, and society would agree. But here's the tricky part. The exit node has unencrypted data. Considering that some data includes IP addresses inside the packets, not just in the TCP or UDP headers, you are not always as anonymous as you think.

Now, if knowing the technical details makes you change your expectation of privacy, do you really have an expectation of privacy? There are lots of people who are prosecuted based on social media like FaceBook. They expected privacy, and obviously are just idiots.

Phone records and backing information has been "knowingly exposed" to a third party, even if you expect them to keep it to themselves. Police can just ask for those, and the phone company or bank can just hand the information over. They can refuse, but do so infrequently from what I can tell.

When you use HTTP, you may not consider your ISP, the hosting provider, or any intermediate hops, and society as a whole may expect privacy there, not knowing the technical details. When you use Tor, however, it is reasonable to assume that you know a little about it, at least enough to know why you want to use it.

The front page of the Tor project leads you to believe you are perfectly safe. The "Learn more" link shows red links that are "in the clear". Because Tor is an "anonymizing" solution, it never makes the claim that your information will never be revealed - only the source of it.

If an exit node can save every bit of data that goes in and out, do you really have an expectation of privacy? Or have you exposed information to a third party, which removes that expectation? I would argue that the ignorant masses would agree that HTTP does have an expectation, while the more informed Tor users knowingly give information to a third party, removing that expectation. Tor users retain an expectation of anonymity, which has nothing to do with the fourth amendment.

For the record, I believe that siphoning all Tor data is not what the founding fathers intended. But a legal challenge will only cement it in case law, eventually. Especially since the policy is to dump data that is essentially inside the US only. We don't have to trust them - they are interested in foreign data.

It is unlikely that a US citizen would have standing to bring a lawsuit to even challenge this. Once they know they have US data, it becomes uninteresting. Until then, they don't know that's what they have, and you are unlikely to be able to prove that you were harmed without identifying your data, which involves you revealing your *identity* to the NSA, defeating the purpose of anonymizing. If you have standing to sue, you would have to be using Tor for the sole purpose of having your data captured so you have standing to complain about exactly what you knew would happen - removing your expectation of privacy.

What kind of horseshit rhetoric is this? From all accounts, there are not enough TOR nodes to support much torrent activity. TOR project itself has explained this as well as common attacks against TOR users. I doubt performance is much better in 3 years. So let me re-phrase.

You cannot use Tor to download as the speed is too slow. In fact, you will most likely use it for communication purposes such as e-mails, web browsing, instant messaging, and other low-bandwidth activities.

TCP, IP, UDP are communication protocols, and anything that happens over them is a form of communication. Sharing software like linux distributions, source or binary, is communication. You're not going to do a lot of it over TOR.

An individual or group who believes it is acting in the interests of the state cannot objectively evaluate whether it is correct. Snowden did what he thought was right, based on his understanding of documents that he says came from Executive Branch organizations. We can assume from this official charge that he compromised some security, not that he shared factual information. And he could be prosecuted just based on his own statements, with his defense being that he fabricated the documents to support things he actually misunderstood.

On the other hand, a government organization is just as incapable of deciding whether it is acting in the interest of the country or just in its own self-preservation. After all, the American revolutionaries would be called domestic terrorists today, since the purpose was to overthrow the government. Taxation without representation, and other abuses of King George's court against the colonies, were clearly not in the interests of the governed people. In hindsight, Britain lost the tax revenue and resources of the colonies, and lots of colonists got shot. So it wasn't good for either side.

We had a little disagreement about slavery and states rights, with opinions so staunchly held that we fought each other. And both sides thought they were right, that they were acting in the best interests of the people. Timothy McVeigh thought he was going to spark a revolt against tyranny, and all he accomplished was killing a lot of people. Maybe he was right, but that stopped the moment he set the bomb off and failed. If he had tried another approach, maybe he could have started a change that meant something and been a hero. But no, he's just a delusional mass murderer.

Note: I'm not saying McVeigh was right about anything. He saw a government that had to change direction, and thought he could start turning that boat around. He believed he was just as good for the country as George III did, and as the revolutionaries did.

If Snowden exposed abuses without compromising US interests, he's a hero. But we don't know everything he has, and the impact it will have. He could expose abuses, and reveal information that is as damaging as what the Rosenbergs revealed, and they were executed.

Of course, exactly what the Rosenbergs revealed is still in question, even after numerous memoirs, interviews, transcripts, etc. Their intent seems pretty clear, but what they accomplished is not. And that's really the point. History will reveal the intent of BOTH parties. The truth may never be known, or multiple truths may be known as in the case of the Rosenbergs.

He can't be both a hero and a traitor, so until we know the whole story, we can't really declare him anything. It's way too early to take sides.

Technically though under the constitution, foreigners get the same rights as citizens

No. The Constitution talks about "citizens" and "persons" and fairly clearly distinguishes that they are not the same thing. An immigrant non-citizen in the USA is a "person" and does not have the right to vote, but does get other rights as a person.

Not until 2008 did the question of foreigners outside of the U.S. get a formal statement, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, regarding whether they get protections. The entire purpose of building GITMO was for foreigners held outside of the U.S. based on this premise.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's pretty clear that we have at least 3 divisions - citizens, persons, and persons in a state's jurisdiction. There is enough legal wiggle room to say that this excerpt does not apply to the US government, because it is not a state. And the meaning of "due process" as it relates to foreign nationals is one of those arguable bits. It gets to be a legal quagmire at this point, which is why in my earlier post I said the government can do pretty much anything it wants to to foreigners outside the US.

The legal system means the Executive branch gets to do first, get caught, and years later get told it can't do that anymore, typically with very little punishment. Million dollar settlement? Not even a blip on the radar.

The Constitution APPLIES to everyone, that is clear. The rights granted are NOT granted to everyone. And the crucial bit is HOW the Constitution applies. Unless something else has happened, "due process" could be as simple as declaring what the process is and waiting for someone to complain.

I'm pretty sure it's about the boundaries of the various intelligence agencies. CIA and NSA are for foreign intelligence, and are not supposed to be spying on US citizens. FBI would investigate US citizens.

Regardless of whether that is correct or not, the US Constitution does not prevent government agencies from doing anything it wants to, to foreigners, unless you consider the allowance for international treaties.

If I were to summarize the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution in a very simple way, I would call them a reaction against abuses of power, intending to limit what the government could do to citizens. The question of whether someone is a "us person" is therefore crucial to every aspect of the US government.

For example, from the tone of your reply I assume you are not a "us person" and therefore you could be exported to GITMO with little fuss. I could not, because I'm a citizen. I would have to be declared an "enemy combatant" and therefore not subject to the protections of the Constitution of the country I would be accused of trying to destroy, then I could be shipped to GITMO. Huge difference, as you can see.

You should have been more clear on the used games bit.

game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers

http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/license

Basically, go fuck yourself, the horse you rode in on, your mother, and anyone you feel like, because that will fill the time you aren't playing used games. Most publishers will allow it, but that is a statistic, and the outliers will surely be the biggest targets for piracy.

How it will shake out: if you can pirate the game somehow, you will not be allowed to buy it used. This matches everything we have seen from most software publishers, and the biggest game distributors. Not game studios, because they produce a game. Distributors because they add DRM and whatever else they think might be a bottom-line improvement.

I expect a few lawsuits between game production companies and their distributors. Or if they are smart, contract changes.

There is nothing to get - that's the point. Stop overthinking it.

1) Whatever accompanied the license has no terms, including nothing about stripping the copyright notice.
2) The license itself has a license, which only asks that if you modify the license terms you have to change the name

It's not even public domain - it has no legal definition, and is not restricted in any way, including a lack of restrictions on re-copyrighting.

It's also obviously tongue in cheek, since no professional is going to release anything under this license. The lack of restrictions on marking something as being copyrighted make this a difficult legal area, if a dispute were to come up.

But a dispute with one side obviously lying is certainly better than a state prosecuting copyright violations when the author is not aware, nor wishes to have charges pursued. They wanted people to use the code, but did not license it explicitly.

The liberal licenses which retain ownership while granting a license are much more legally sound, both from a creator and a consumer perspective - that's even more of a selling point than short and easy to understand.

The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. If we require a statement, the burden is either partly shifted to the defendant (not the defense, just the accused), or the threat of perjury is now very real. While typically not prosecuted, a reasonably solid case plus threats of additional charges like perjury and obstruction of justice make it easier, and more affordable, to plead guilty or no contest.

(btw parent - torture is explicitly off the table, as apparently its no big deal to society if a confession is tortured out of someone because they can always come back and get justice, in every case, without fail, so your comment is irrelevant. instead you should have gone with "any coercion other than what is not legally considered torture nor duress" which I think OP has some other weasel requirements to invalidate but can't be arsed to figure out which)

You (OP) have to consider this within the structure of the justice system, and all of its leanings toward potential abuse. As a defendant, with little or no power, a lengthy appeal process, and if vindicated a lengthy and expensive road to exposing abuses, you are automatically at a disadvantage even if you don't self-incriminate.

Scenario: I talk with the police, or prosecutors. At any point in the future, I mis-remember or mis-state something, on the record. Immediately anyone can say we have evidence that you are at best unreliable and more likely lying. Nothing I say at that point holds any water. I have damaged my own case, and it would be far better had I not said anything if it were optional.

In this example, we can consider the types of evidence that lead to Innocence Project victories because DNA evidence proves that the evidence was really just circumstantial. This isn't just clearly circumstantial evidence, which cannot be used as the sole evidence in a criminal case. This is the kind of rock-solid, 5 eye witnesses, your vehicle leaving the crime scene, you are guilty of murder evidence. But you didn't do it, and you are set free after years in jail.

Let me interrupt you and say that Innocence Project victories are not the subject here, they are only proof that people get convicted of Very Serious Things (c) on very shaky evidence, so don't claim that this type of scenario is impossible.

Instead of mis-stating, I can remember more details which are relevant, and share those when I have to. Either I was hiding them originally, or I'm making them up now. I am undermined, and two eye witnesses who claim it was me now outweigh me, an obviously guilty person lying to stay free.

False memories are surprisingly easy to create, especially accidentally. Depending on the timing and nature of the questions, you could develop a false memory. Your statements will be different because you remember what happened differently. Better to write down what you remember and put it in a locked, unpredictable location.

Any number of variations on scenarios like this boil down to one thing: the moment you appear to contradict yourself, your ability to defend yourself is diminished.

Very clearly, "frequent contributor Bennett Haselton" has never been in a situation with another person where he/she had to say "that's not what I meant." And even more clearly, has not uttered the words "that's not what I meant and you know it." I'm going off into the gender stereotypes here, but I'm fairly certain that everyone over the age of 15 has met that one super-bitch who decides what your words mean, and can recite everything you have ever said when it best suits her argument. Even if that super-bitch is a dude. When the police or prosecution have a record of your statements, "that's not what I meant" works never.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

That's all there is to it, really. But I'll ramble more.

I'm having an affair, and my lover is the only alibi I have, along with hotel receipts and probably security video placing me anywhere but the crime scene. Were I allowed to take the fifth, I make the prosecution find more evidence and hopefully find the actual criminal, without exposing myself any more than I already have. If I share my dirty little secret, that leverage can lead to pressure to allow more invasive searches or questioning. If I instead make up another place and claim I was there, that's lying and obstruction even if I clear things up later. All of which can be used in the event they decide I'm the only suspect and proceed. Just hand over the paper trail, it's all a misunderstanding, and everyone laughs, right? No, your question was the benefit to society as a whole. Like it or not, married people will have affairs as long as single people, or other married people, are willing to be the mistress/poolboy, so there is no net benefit in outing a frowned upon but natural behavior. And dragging the innocent through a legal quagmire is hardly helpful in catching the real bad dude.

What if 10 of my friends say I was at the lake, but I say I was at the hotel, and my girlfriend (who obviously will just say whatever I tell her to say) is my only record because I paid in cash and avoided all but the most grainy video surveillance? I have no paper trail for the lake either because that was my cover story. Now I'm looking like the number one suspect. I can't imagine any world in which there is benefit to society in trapping me in my own web of lies which are completely unrelated to the crime, while the actual criminal is out there.

Now, you shouldn't have to answer questions that are none of anyone else's business; if your alibi for the night of the murder is that you were at a somewhere you're embarrassed to mention, you should be allowed to say, "I didn't commit the murder, but I would prefer not to tell you where I was." But Fifth Amendment absolutists would say that you don't even have to answer the question of whether you committed the murder at all. That, to me, seems absurd. Isn't society entitled to know whether you committed the murder or not?

Yes, society is entitled to know. Is society going to believe me when I say no? The answer is no. Society gains nothing by me answering yes, because that is a false confession. Society gains nothing by me answering no, because society doesn't just take my word for it and move on. Separate from railroading and abuse, when a prosecutor has a good suspect it doesn't matter if you are innocent or guilty - only whether prosecution can meet the bar to get you convicted. No corruption, no railroading, just well-intentioned people on all sides going with what seems to be the obvious answer. I'm guilty, and lying about it.

If you consider the benefit if someone is actually guilty, it is hard to come up with a good scenario. But guilty is decided after the presentation of all evidence, not when you have the chance to decline answering questions. And guilty is not the record of what actually happened, it is the decision of a judge or jury based on evidence presented, which becomes a legal fact, possibly altering history if you are legally guilty of something you did not do. Unless you assert that you can tell when a person has been correctly imprisoned every time, there is no way to work your way back and say we would have let a guilty murderer go if not for his self-incrimination, therefore the benefit to society is obvious. Because after 10 years in jail, he too could be an Innocence Project victory, and your argument shrivels into the pointless mental masturbation that it truly is.

Christ on a cracker, I can't believe I wasted that much space on stating the obvious.