Quote from: Verbatim on October 29, 2018, 05:35:17 PM

Quote from: Mmmmm Napalm on October 29, 2018, 05:21:06 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 29, 2018, 05:15:35 PM

Quote from: challengerX on October 29, 2018, 04:30:34 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 29, 2018, 02:19:47 PM

Quote from: Eli on October 29, 2018, 02:17:03 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on October 29, 2018, 12:17:50 PM

i stopped almost two years ago, so

you haven't given it up entirely though if i'm not mistaken

yeah i've heard horror stories about build-up, so for health concerns i take care of it every month or so

but i don't use porn for that

But you didn’t stop.

yes i did

So you are saying you ceased to consume pornography.

which doesn't quite drive the point home that i masturbate maybe five or six times a year, and not even for the pleasure of it

it's a literal chore

some people masturbate using their imagination, which is how you could construe a statement like that

But you still do it for the health benefits, that’s the point.

Verb's still pining for that cancer at this rate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-ejaculation-prostate-cancer-idUSKCN0XJ1YC

Going to start my own .ltd company soon. I'm keeping my current job since I want that PhD before anything else but I think it's worth it for the additional esports talent/casting and legal counsel I do.

Anyone's got any experience with or advice on this? Also, suggest names for Flee.ltd.

Quote from: Desty on October 26, 2018, 01:42:06 PM

Quote from: Rescue on October 26, 2018, 01:29:55 PM

I got paid exactly $251 the last two weeks and that has me sus

What has you suspicious

I should be making about $2OO a week and actually less this week because I didn't take out that many orders this week
I added it and it should be $17O this week
I'm not going to complain but I wish it would add up

Is that minimum wage or do you somehow escape that as a delivery driver? It seems strangely low.

thread successfully hijacked lmao post statues

>prominent nipples
>impossibly straight jaw and cheekbones
>biceps and forearms bigger than an entire head

Get this objectifying filth out of my face.

I almost forgot how awful the GTS is. Ah, so you're looking for (completely ordinary pokemon)? Here's 15 people asking legendary and mythical pokemon for it, 10 people who want a level 91+ Milotic / Dragonite / Salamence, and 5 people who think they're hilarious by asking for an impossible pokemon (female Volcanion level 10 or below). A+ experience right there.

It's also horrible design that you can't look for pokemon that others want. It baffles me that they still haven't put this in after having the GTS around for like 4 games or so. "I want to trade my X. Show me all offers from people who want one." It would improve the whole process so much.

Quote from: Flee on October 19, 2018, 03:54:33 PM

We have to take a Ethics in Computer Science class, but that's it. It's also scoffed at by pretty much everyone, which always bothers me.

Also, write a blog so I can grave my eyeballs with your thoughts more often.

Programmers and software engineers tend to have the worst attitude when it comes to ethics and law. It's an enormous shame that so many of them let their own preconceptions and prejudices make them so close-minded. Stuff like computer ethics, data protection, fairness by design and system transparency should be mandatory in any computer science program. I'm happy to see that some people like you still see it differently.

And I regularly write for legal blogs already. My latest one was on cyberwarfare and what AI applications in conflicts mean from a humanitarian law perspective. Very interesting stuff, especially when you look at how the private sector and companies like Google play an increasingly important part in it. Unfortunately it's all under my real name and I don't really have the time or interest in doing more under a pseudonym. Always open to answer questions or share my thoughts on a particular topic though.

My brother is in a PhD program and OMG I don't even want to think of all the money it's costing him.

Having to pay for a PhD is something that has never sat well with me. I feel it almost devalues the achievement because it opens up the degree to many more (probably) undeserving candidates. As I said earlier, you've gotta be smart about higher education. I secured independent funding for my PhD so I'm getting paid to write it. You might want to talk to your brother about doing the same.

Quote from: challengerX on October 21, 2018, 07:12:42 PM

Quote from: Batch on October 21, 2018, 06:55:41 PM

Education is a waste, fuck that off and climb the retail ladder and earn more in the long run without the giant debts you have to pay back.

This is the worst advice I’ve ever seen in my life. I’m not exaggerating.

Well its subjective to where you live. I dunno about the US but the size of the Hex (College/Uni loans) debts are astronomical here in Australia and you're basically in debt for half of your working life.

Plus it worked for me, but thats not to say its the same for everyone.

The key with higher education is to specialize and make some waves. Anyone can get a general degree from your everyday college. It's no longer special and, while it's still nice to have, will ultimately mean relatively little.

1. Prestige matters. Going to a top college is often more expensive but it can often pay for itself if you can mitigate the cost with scholarships and then land a good job.

2. Stand out. Try and publish research articles, participate in events, stuff like that. It helps a lot.

3. Specialize. Don't settle for some general degree that says little to nothing about your capabilities. Become an expert at something. There's a million English majors out there whose workable skills are limited to knowing slightly more about books and aspects of a language that everyone around you is already fluent in. Focus on something. Ethics in journalism, media bias, filter bubbles. Get into the law on media, telecoms and IT infrastructure. Different international attitudes towards the role of the media. Content watchdogs, restrictions on certain types of media (video games, perhaps) and stuff like that. Having an area of expertise is what gets you to the interesting jobs and subject matter.

Do that and get good enough at what you do and chances are that the jobs will start looking for you instead of the other way around. I've received several job offers from recruiters, law firms and companies who want someone with my skillset because I'm an expert in my field. Education is anything but a waste. You've just gotta be smart about it.

that's the dream, but i'm not in a position right now where that's the easiest thing in the world to just do

This won't happen on its own though. You've gotta take steps to get there and put in the effort to achieve something like this down the line. I'm surprised to see you haven't done any of that yet tbh.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a23927018/president-trump-praise-greg-gianforte-assault-reporter-montana/

Every time you think this man can't stoop any lower, he somehow does. And all while he's refusing to take action against a man living in America being killed for reporting on Saudi human rights abuses and corruption. Pathetic.

We've been heading towards this moment for a long time. Donald Trump, American president, has for years endorsed violence from the rally podium, encouraging his supporters to punch protesters in the face and offering to pay their legal bills. Trump has long demonized the free press as The Enemy of the People, and described journalists in dehumanizing terms like "scum." He has blithely suggested he "hates these people"—reporters—but "would never kill them," a disgusting way to put the idea on the table.

So it was inevitable that we would arrive here. This week, his White House was reportedly working with the government of Saudi Arabia to absolve Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of involvement in the disappearance and reported murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who is a U.S. resident. On Thursday night, Trump took the stage for a rally in Montana and put a bloody icing on the cake.

The President of the United States just praised his political ally for assaulting a member of the press, the same week that president's possible role in covering up the murder of a green-card-holding journalist comes under serious examination. (It was not enough that Trump may be covering for the Saudis because of his business interests, a conflict that would put him in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.) Trump is referencing the incident where Congressman Greg Gianforte of Montana body-slammed a Guardian reporter, Ben Jacobs, the night before he won a special election to his seat last year. Gianforte was charged with assault and pled guilty to a misdemeanor.

Kind of. Case law (or jurisprudence) doesn't so much standardize law as it interprets it. You obviously can't (and shouldn't) make legislation so specific that it covers every imaginable scenario. You'd need hundreds of thousands of pages of law, it would be completely unworkable in practice and would get you horrible results. Instead, legislators draft laws in such a way that they contain general and specific rules that can be applied to a variety of different situations. It's why a lot of legislation uses concepts like "fair, adequate, appropriate, balanced" without them being strictly defined for every possible scenario. That's the point where the judges step in to find the most fair solution, just punishment or right balance between interests. They have the discretion to look at mitigating / aggravating circumstances, consider people's background/situation/future, look at the larger picture and so on. So they don't really standardize the law but they interpret it and apply it in practice where they base themselves on policy guidelines, scholarly literature and other legal precedents by higher courts (which of course does settle and result in common norms or standards).

When people talk about standardizing (or harmonizing) law they refer to the actual law itself being consistent across jurisdictions or within countries. It's got an entire field of legal study (comparative law) dedicated to it and it's pretty legit stuff. I took several classes on it back in law school and you very often see that many parts of the law are very similar and share a lot of common attributes even going beyond borders. It's why I think that this Ulex project underestimates what we already have and how this has been achieved up to this point. In addition to countries just copying what works for others and reading legal texts from elsewhere, the best way to achieve harmonization is through international treaties and agreements. The EU is probably the most successful attempt at this with its Directives (laws that set a minimum standard and leave each country a lot of freedom to determine how to reach that standard) and Regulations (directly binding laws that are adopted 1:1 by European countries) but it happens all over the world. A good example of this is the Cybercrime Convention. It's a treaty drafted by the Council of Europe that has been signed by several dozen countries all over the world, including the US. Its main goal is to harmonize how we deal with cybercrime by making sure that certain actions (such as hacking and computer fraud) are illegal everywhere and are all understood to be the same thing.

For example, article 7 of the Convention says the following on computer-related forgery:

"Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, the input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of computer data, resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible. A Party may require an intent to defraud, or similar dishonest intent, before criminal liability attaches."

What this means is that every country part of the treaty will (and at this point long has because this is from 2001) alter its own national law to include digital forgery (as defined above) in its criminal law and make it illegal by wording and legislation it decides on its own. As a result, cybercriminals can't just operate from country X where there particular scam / hack isn't illegal. This is how a good portion of legal standardization is achieved in reality.

And yeah man, you guys should take note of the law. Do they teach you guys classes on that? Stuff like privacy by design, problems with discrimination in software, security standards, access controls and whatnot is pretty important. We really need more programmers who are aware of the ethical and legal implications of their work.

I really want to agree with you but there comes a point at which you simply can no longer pretend that a person is a moderate when his or her actions completely contradict that.

Trump believes actual conspiracy theories, perpetuates them on social media and gives credence to others who do. That's not moderate.
Trump has dragged down political discourse to mockery, personal attacks, trash campaigns on social media and harassment. That's not moderate.
Trump has threatened, promised and pledged to jail political opponents after his campaign. That's not moderate.
Trump supports and pushes isolationist policies that no economist worth a damn thinks are in anyone's best interest. That's not moderate.
Trump has repeatedly shown he doesn't care for or understand basic scientific principles and consensus. That's not moderate.
Trump has waged a war on press and media, puts down the free press, calls for jail time for people who defile the flag, and has done his best to discredit reliable news outlets. That's not moderate.
Trump has repeatedly ignored his own intelligence agencies and undermined their value and credibility while accepting conspiracy theories and empty words from questionable leaders. That's not moderate.
Trump has pardoned violence among his supporters and has refused to seriously disavow himself from extremist groups supporting him. That's not moderate.
Trump has praised and supported violent dictators and opressors of human rights while attacking America's longest allies. That's not moderate.
Trump has pledged to wall off entire countries, called parts of the world "shitholes", trashed minorities and wants to massively increase the already enormous military spending. That's not moderate.
Trump has been on a crusade to remove environmental protections and go against climate change plans. That's not moderate.
Trump has literally pushed "alternative facts" since the start, had the white house publish blatant and demonstrable falsehoods, has denied easily verifiable truths and supported fake news everywhere. That's not moderate.
Trump has gotten caught up in a net of opacity, conflicts of interest, corruption, fraud, collusion and mismanagement of campaign funds, and has taken every possible step to undermine investigations and keep his doings secret. That's not moderate.
Trump has publicly changed his opinion on important issues within a matter of hours with no justification or reason to. That's not moderate.
Trump has said he doesn't just oppose abortion but wants women who have one do to actively be punished, that he wants to change defamation law so that he can sue his detractors, and that elections are rigged to the point that he wouldn't have accepted defeat had he lost to Clinton. That's not moderate.

I could keep this list going for ages, but you get the point. All of these are about as far from moderate as you can get. If you're an actual political moderate, you've got certain dealbreakers when it comes to who you support. When you care about things like facts, civil discourse and politics based on reason and mutual respect or basic human decency, there simply are people or policies you don't support. Period. There might be a thing or two on the list that you could give someone a pass on. But this is a lot. And it's not isolated events or random scandals that were fixed and apologized for. This is basically every single day of the man's campaign and presidency. And what that means is that there comes a point at which a person who looks at this laundry list of far-out and terrible policies and still says "yeah, rather this than a mild Democrat" is in no way an actual "moderate" who just so happened to vote Republican this time around. There simply is a treshold at which you can no longer support certain behaviors, policies and beliefs, and still claim in good faith that you're just a political moderate or neutral swing voter. So as much as I want to believe that Trump just managed to get the support of the "moderates" that could just as well be swayed the other way, I find it increasingly difficult to do so.

Just stock up on VNs you fucking weeb.

I had to look up what that means and feel sick now.

Quote

"I was stupid enough to sell them rights to the whole bunch," Sapkowski said. "They offered me a percentage of their profits. I said, 'No, there will be no profit at all—give me all my money right now! The whole amount.' It was stupid. I was stupid enough to leave everything in their hands because I didn't believe in their success. But who could foresee their success? I couldn't."

The real question, then, is if this is a legitimate claim under Article 44 of Poland's CRR act. If only @Flee were here.

I know nothing about Polish law. But if he did actually manage to file civil suit, there probably is some legal basis for his claim.

Ireland should just invade the rest of the island.

Three of the businesses I work closely with are moving their HQ to Ireland to avoid Brexit. My faculty recently opened up an application for a 10 year position as a professor of intellectual property law with generous funding for research. Half of the applications have been British professors (some of which from really good colleges) that are looking for a lifeline to continue their research as Brexit is likely to gut a good amount of the UK's funding for that. It's insane to see.