opendais

56 ms·

511.
by opendais 12y ago
You are talking about people attempting to break the law... "The first batch, published a week ago, included a conversation between Marek Belka, the chief of Poland's central bank, and Interior Minister Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz, in
512.
by opendais 12y ago
> You are confusing the population of people employed as programmers with the population of people available to be employed as programmers. http://cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CS_Degree.
513.
by opendais 12y ago
> Literally no one was arguing to not hire based on qualification. Why is it that, whenever this comes up, everyone starts babbling incomprehensibly about qualifications as if that’s relevant? Let us say someone does what you and the OP
514.
by opendais 12y ago
> "Only 11% of all engineers in the U.S. are women, according to Department of Labor. The situation is a better among computer programmers, but not much. Women account for only 26% of all American coders." - Wired and > Trac
515.
by opendais 12y ago
So what your saying is you'd be able to destroy all crawlable evidence on the internet and wipe the memories of all your friends and strip out every reference to a "gay bar" or the like from your finances? I think you greatly
516.
by opendais 12y ago
I've seen that argument before but honestly... What would stop them from building it themselves if they were elected? Nothing, really.
517.
by opendais 12y ago
Your trivial counterexample requires blackmail on a large scale. The problem with blackmail is it might work 75% of the time, but the other 25% end up in jail. In the case of a politician, from time to time, one of them would say "fuck
518.
by opendais 12y ago
True. However, I suspect many of these "youths" might be 18-19.
519.
by opendais 12y ago
> I don't see why someone's arrest record should be hidden unless they were exonerated or there were specific circumstances for doing so. The problem you aren't getting is that for the poor and anyone who can't afford
520.
by opendais 12y ago
I was just explaining why I was confused. You are free to do whatever you like :D
521.
by opendais 12y ago
I think they are aware of the issues and just don't care. Like most things, 90% of people aren't going to be obviously impacted. It will only be the people they want to give the shaft too. To make matters worse, the majority of th
522.
by opendais 12y ago
More or less, yes. However, the danger is really only to people outside the safe herd majority who might draw the wrong sort of attention. So I don't see it being a huge danger. However, I don't think it'll ever devolve to th
523.
by opendais 12y ago
For the majority of people? Yes. If you aren't able to get the person in a court of law and win, you shouldn't be able to prejudice their ability to make a living. EU excludes public figures [I'm not sure exactly how its writ
524.
by opendais 12y ago
In the long run, the problem is self correcting. However, if someone finds themselves unable to get a job in their local area [e.g. Small Town USA where you might only have 1 employer of a given type in some cases] and is forced to move t
525.
by opendais 12y ago
I think the problem here is the 1st amendment trumps your right to privacy in the US when it comes to matters of public record. I'm not sure I want that to change because people do have a right to know if a legal issue is in process, t
526.
by opendais 12y ago
I reject your comment on the fact its groundless and in no way related to arrests being published by the media. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. If it isn't directly related to arrests by a single degree, it isn't on to
527.
by opendais 12y ago
Fair enough but if you reply to someone...sometimes people assume you mean them.
528.
by opendais 12y ago
> Ya, stuff like that is why we need a right to be forgotten in the US. People tend to see an arrest and leap to conclusions. I say this as a person who has never been arrested. :/ > Anything that might make someone unemployable
529.
by opendais 12y ago
I know I wouldn't be employable with a googlable arrest record. No thank you.
530.
by opendais 12y ago
If saying people who are acquitted shouldn't have arrest records showing up via Google Search means that? Then yes, I guess I am.
531.
by opendais 12y ago
The topic is arrests. The fact you never shower is not going to get you arrested.
532.
by opendais 12y ago
But it is a publicly known fact they were acquitted. Alot of these kids never have it published that they were acquitted anywhere notable. :/
533.
by opendais 12y ago
So, being acquitted is meaningless to you and should negatively impact future employment. Noted.
534.
by opendais 12y ago
I'll get right on that as soon as I take over the world. You assume I'm happy about the arrest rates, I'm not. However, I don't have any real ability to change them besides not voting for "tough on crime" polit
535.
by opendais 12y ago
Anything that might make someone unemployable that didn't result in a conviction or other defeat in court.
536.
by opendais 12y ago
It is possible to get local papers kicked out of Google search results for things like arrests that did not lead to a conviction [which honestly is a 90% solution]. 90% solutions are good enough.
537.
by opendais 12y ago
Ya, stuff like that is why we need a right to be forgotten in the US. People tend to see an arrest and leap to conclusions. I say this as a person who has never been arrested. :/
538.
by opendais 12y ago
> Not understanding this is why HN and other tech news outlets are in outrage. This is just how peering arrangements work. Unless your traffic is balanced you need to pay the cost of transit, simple as that. ... > Now, the reason Netf
539.
by opendais 12y ago
It is no different than Google in that respect. Tbh, I think Google has more market share for its core products relatively speaking. That is one of the things that makes tech interesting, you can win really, really big in one area then roll
540.
by opendais 12y ago
I think the problem is ignorance and the level of effort required: 1) Technology is "magical" to most people and they don't really understand the dangers. 2) Normal people can't actually vote against this on party lines

More ›