The Keurig was free at my last job. So were the snacks.

Yeah, private enterprise is good at being cheap. By cutting every corner. While no one is looking.

That's the problem.

It's good on so many levels. Entitled old bastard, attempts to screw society out of a bunch of money in secret, the corrupted officials try to secretly pay him to go away, but the whole thing blows up in everyones faces. Entitled old parasite gets nothing, corrupted officials are exposed and its a happy ending all around.

Confidential agreements should not be enforceable in the first place. I love seeing people who sign them get fucked over.

Maybe this type of work, so important to all mankind, shouldn't be left in the hands of private enterprise?

If their first impression is based on trying a friends computer running "Windows 8.1 + Adware", it will probably make them hate it even more

If you sign up with Apple, they have complete control over your device from the hardware to the software, they know who you are, and they'll tell the authorities anything they ask.

If you buy an Android phone, there is no one entity that has control like Apple does.

Your position is based around the motive of the "hackers" being economic. If they're just scammers trying to steal money, then yeah, Apple is probably more secure.

I believe the motive of the majority of malware does not come from such people, is not economically motivated, but is rather written by government agencies.

No one is really that interested in stealing your identity for money. It's just fear-mongering.

Contrasted with what, Apple?

Here's a hypothesis: Most malware is written by groups associated with the US government and their allies, the UK and Israel.

It's easier to just call Apple because they completely own anyone who buys their products already and Apple will do what they want.

Android isn't secure, true, but at least it isn't always owned the moment you get it, though Google does try.

Thus, the malware targets the devices that are most secure, from the perspective of those on the attack.

Add in some foreign governments and the odd purely mercenary criminal group, and there's your malware scene.

Just a hypothesis...

Sounds great. You should get buzz cuts, start a company together, build a campus shaped like a vagina and live there happily ever after.

Sorry, but I don't really care that terrible much about the fucked up little bastard you adopted. Children need to grow up in a home with the mother and father who created them to grow up into healthy, well adjusted members of society. If they lose that, they're permanently psychologically fucked up by it, and it doesn't really matter too terrible much what you do at that point, Humpty isn't getting glued back together.

Furthermore, your statements about the economic ramifications of marriage are lies. I left the financial industry because my job consisted of helping rich clients exploit these types of loopholes and I felt it was unethical for me to continue. I know your statements are lies.

One of the huge reasons gay rights are such a hot issue right now is because gay boomers who spent their whole lives concerned with their own decadence are suddenly realizing that their policy only covers them and not their committed sexual playmate, and they want the chedder.

Same thing is driving socialism in the US. When the boomers were young, they didn't want to be forced to care for anyone, and it worked, because most elderly had a half a dozen sons who would carry 1/6 of the burden because they love their parents. Now those boomers are old. They didn't reproduce themselves. They created a culture that devalued what few children they had, and taught them to treat altruism with contempt. Bad place to be. But there is a strategy... shift to a socialist society, ramp up immigration, use propaganda to steal young people away from other cultures and force these young to care for the elderly.

This culture is so twisted and evil it makes me nauseous if I dwell on it too long. Words don't really serve any purpose under these types of pressure... you can't convince a tick to voluntarily starve to death by forcing it to see that it is killing the host. You either decide you don't care enough to save the host, or you kill the tick.

Let me see if I have this straight:

A: 12 years ago, we expended the resources necessary to educate a *relatively* large number of women in computer programming
B: The objective of that resource expenditure was to increase the net number of computer programmers in society
C: We do not currently see a lot of these women from 12 years ago in the workforce as computer programmers

It may or may not be in the best interest of womens development to spend resources educating them in computer programming. But, unless A or C are factually incorrect, the evidence seems to suggest that, if your primary goal is to compensate for a lack of computer programmers in society, educating women as computer programmers is a piss poor way to do it.

We could try forcing them into the trade with the threat of punishment. We could try to create an even more unbalanced economy, increase the level of poverty among the masses and hope that the carrot becomes sufficiently appealing to motivate them to "freely" seek a career they wouldn't otherwise choose.

Or we could just acknowledge that, even though they're not going to be the ones taking responsibility for these programming problems, we're not going to pressure them, because they have lots of intrinsic value just the way they are.

The people behind this article seem to really be unsatisfied with women. Like a man who always wanted a son and tries to turn his daughter into one.

Marriage is not a contract between two individuals. It's a contract between a man, a woman and their community. The community subsidizes the creation of children by reducing the economic burden on the couple, and in exchange, their children care for us in our elder years.

That is the purpose of marriage. That's why if two people can't mate together, it's annulled as a non fruitful union without shame.

I never minded working a little harder to cover for a couple who are raising a family and paying less tax. I'll get my return back in 20 years time.

But the idea that the CEO of Apple can have a tax break for marrying a dude and me and my male roommates have to continue paying elevated levels of tax to cover for that makes me angry as fuck.

This whole Gay thing needs redefinition. GLBTetc all have one in common, and they share this quality with a lot of straight people: The idea that sex is, for them, only a means of recreation and not a sacred act of procreation.

People who sleep with the opposite sex but always use tools to prevent conception and don't intended to ever procreate are just as gay as some dude with another dude.

Let's stop being prejudiced and focus on the practicalities. If some dude does right by his wife and kids but gets together with his friends for football and buggery the odd weekend, he's OK. If some man and woman never breed because it would interfere with their ability to travel every winter and make their neighbors jealous, they are gay.

If you're not a member of the flock, it doesn't really matter why.

War hammers, smiths hammers, sledge hammers, ball peen hammers... None of these are for driving nails.

The funny thing is, Ubuntu was poised and could have taken the desktop, but they brought out their own version of Metro before Microsoft did.

We are a victim of the "Designer". The "Designer" isn't a critical thinker who solves problems. They're not a project manager who understands the needs of the people doing the work. They're not process improvement specialists.

They're fucking ARTISTS.

Here's their job:

In these stories, there is always an executive. He makes the decision if things will go ahead. But, he never sullies his hands with tools like ordinary people, and has no real understanding of how things get done or what qualities a tool should have. He's completely ignorant as to what SHOULD be done, like the designer, and he's too full of himself to learn what he needs to know. So, if he can, he green lights the project that was brought to him by a slutty blonde, and if there's no slutty blonde, he green lights the pretty looking project and goes home.

That's how these things work.

So, when you're looking at Metro, and Unity, and Gnome3, and wondering what the hell happened to the powerful tools you rely upon and used to love...

Go take it out on a designer.

What about offering tools to exploit you by making you pick an option without considering if it's in your best interest?

Does that qualify?

Better than nothing, I guess. Thanks.