Furthermore, I have no sympathy for Reuters' guys because Reuters has a history of being embarrassed in that region by having its "correspondents" not only embed themselves with guerrilla forces, but often hires people who are working both sides (ex: the egg on Reuters' face when it came out that its subcontractors in Lebanon were actually members of Hezbollah).
Well, how else are we to get both sides of the story? If journalists are only embedded on one side, then we're only getting half of the story, no? Journalism should be neutral, unless you're implying that we shouldn't hear their side unless it came directly from us. At that point, it is no longer journalism. Instead, it is full blown-out propaganda.
EXACTLY! I have a "work phone", which my work pays for and I only make work related calls with it. I have a personal phone, which I pay for, and I use to make personal calls with.
From the article:
"The transcripts showed that Quon had been exchanging sexually explicit messages with his wife, his girlfriend and another SWAT team member."
That is true that for the same price, you get 16 GB of storage with the iPhone and only 8 GB with the Evo, but the Evo is expandable up to 32 GB. With the iPhone, you're stuck at 16 GB permanently. And with the ability to take high resolution pictures and HD video, suddenly that expandable memory becomes very important if you want to also store music, photos, and applications.
And they don't care for Jews all that much either.
Who does?
I do care for them - they're good people. And as someone with a Persian background, I would love to see people from all cultures live peacefully with one another. I don't want to see Israel get nuked or taken over by anyone, and I don't want to see any other country in the Middle East get nuked or taken over by Israel. The people of Israel, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and so on can all coexist peacefully if their leaders would let them get to know one another better. For as long as each country feels like they are "at war" with one another, the propaganda will continue to flow and the people will be brainwashed by it.
Even as an Atheist, reading some of these anti-religious comments above is really depressing for me. I'm not a religious person, but I certainly don't wish death to anyone who practices a certain religion or are of a certain race.
If the majority of a country want Sharia law, then who are we to deny them that? Why should we support a military coup to stifle what the majority want? History is, in this case, simply repeating itself. We support a secular minority who stifles a religious majority until it breaks out into full violence, and then we're left wondering why "they hate us for our freedoms" -- they don't. They hate us because we keep meddling in their sovereign affairs.
After all that has happened in the last fifty years, I cannot honestly believe that we're even having this conversation. You can't support democracy while it suits your fancy, and then suddenly backpedal and say "well, that's not democracy even though the majority wanted it..." when you stop agreeing with it.
If you simply hate Islam, which is what I gather from your post, then that's fine, don't practice it. But we're hardly in any position to dictate to a foreign country what they should be practicing just because we hate it.
You've obviously never lived in a war zone. Where do you go? How do you support your family? You don't just "get the hell out." You don't just pack up and move that easily. This isn't just a one or two week conflict where you can temporarily move to another town or city until things blow over. This war has been going on for nearly eight years!!
The better question is, why doesn't the US get the hell out? They have no business being there. There are no WMDS there. Wasn't that the whole justification the government gave in attacking Iraq?
Israel doesn't care and the US routinely vetoes any and every UN resolution against Israel.
The Palestinians live essentially in a modern-day ghetto. Palestinian airspace is controlled by Israel, and they routinely fly drones and fighter jets over homes, causing people to panic. Israel also blocks the three-mile shore using their navy. There are only 80-some humanitarian items that are allowed in, and food / medical supplies typically expire by the time they make it into the region. Building supplies are always discarded by Israel, since all humanitarian aid goes through Israel first. Without building supplies, Palestinians cannot rebuild their homes that were destroyed by Israeli bombs or bulldozers, and can only use existing rubble from other destroyed buildings. Try living like that for the rest of your life.
Economic embargoes causes despair, and despair causes people to commit desperate acts. Israelis know this very well. If you recall, the state of Israel was founded through terrorism, with the Stern Gang leading the way with hotel bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations until the British gave them land. Back then, Israel did not have the modern, sophisticated military that they do today, and having suffered through the holocaust, they saw no other way.
While I personally feel that the people of Palestine can do much, much better than Hamas, they're only going to cling to whoever is going to offer them support and protection. Even so, the actions of Israel are disgusting, and to think that the very same people who had to endure living in ghettos in Western Europe are now essentially doing the same thing to other people is mind-blowing. Israel hopes that by employing collective punishment against the people of Palestine, they can force them to overthrow Hamas. This hasn't worked, and it's caused even the moderate factions in Palestine to get angry at Israel.
I hope for a peaceful resolution to all of this so that both sides, Israel and Palestine, can live as neighbors.
And people studying either in North Africa, the Middle East, Iraq or even muslim schools and mosques in America [cnn.com] get taught that if you kill "enough" Americans you get to fuck 72 virgins for etnernity. (I asked an 8-year-old "student" what exactly constituted "enough" dead Americans, but he didn't knew. He was going to ask though. He did seem to take it very seriously, as anyone would at that age).
Since we all know what's being done about this (ie. nothing), why aren't you guys tolerant to Texans ? Are you racists ? Isn't the whole point of not being racist that everyone gets to do the same ?
Oh good, the old "other people are doing bad things, so should we" logic. Works like a charm every time. Also, your link had nothing to do with killing enough Americans and getting 72 virgins. You took the time to post a link, but didn't bother to check it for relevant facts?
So why should we care about what people in North Africa or the Middle East are studying? Why should America do something about what people are studying in foreign countries? In fact, if you had actually read the link you posted, you would have seen this quote:
"Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena," Mohammed said in an interview to air on tonight's "AC 360."
If you keep poking the beehive, you'll get stung eventually. A lot of these people are pissed off at American foreign policy because it affects them directly, and you're suggesting that we should do something about foreign curriculum? What do you suggest that we do? Occupy every one of these countries and change their education? Threaten to blacklist them unless they change what they teach in their own schools? Carpet bomb them? So how's that forced democracy working out for you in Iraq?
Since we all know what's being done about this (ie. nothing), why aren't you guys tolerant to Texans ? Are you racists ? Isn't the whole point of not being racist that everyone gets to do the same ?
Brilliant, the race card. No, it's not racist. The whole point of not being racist is to not discriminate against a certain race. Nobody is discriminating against Texans, and "Texan" is not a race. If I said "only black people can get a public education but not white people" than you can accuse me of racism. But we're talking about textbook curriculum that impacts everyone, regardless of race.
Otherwise you're just a bunch of whiny crybabies. Either react against everyone, or shut up.
No, we don't have to react against everyone. I don't care about what some student in some remote village in China or the Philippines is studying. I don't live in those countries and I don't have the desire to influence them. Would I like for them to learn about good, peaceful things? Sure! Do I have any right to force them to learn anything different than what they're learning right now? I do not. But I sure can voice my opposition to what my own countrymen are learning with my tax dollars, especially when OTHER states start buying these same textbooks.
Why would you need to do that, since you and your friend could play online together...online. One of the plusses of online play is NOT having to take the time to go over to a friends house.
I agree that this is a plus for some people. But other people like social gatherings and want to play multiplayer in the same room as their friends, so it also has its disadvantages. One game that comes to mind is Little Big Planet -- you can have several people in the same room play a multiplayer game together with others online.
Re:It should read 'stoopid people hath spoken'
on
Terry Childs Found Guilty
·
· Score: 1, Informative
According to everything I have read he refused to hand over the password under any circumstance when his supervisors asked for them. There was no "only give to the mayor" rule. He was a regular employee working a regular job where he has the obligation to hand over information requested by his supervisor
I'll post this again, and bold the important part.
"Password Policy" As such, all County employees (including contractors, vendors, and temporary staff with access to County systems) are responsible for taking the appropriate steps, as outlined below, to select and secure their passwords. All system-level passwords (e.g., root, enable, NT admin, application administration accounts, etc.) must be changed on at least a monthly basis" "Do not share County passwords with anyone, including administrative assistants or secretaries.
All passwords are to be treated as sensitive, confidential County information.
Here is a list of things to avoid -Telling your boss your password. -Talking about a password in front of others. -Telling your co-workers your password while on vacation."
The city password policy was to NOT give it to your boss. He followed the city policy, which his boss did not abide by, as he first tried to get the passwords, and also, attempted to get the password in front of others. But that's a moot point. He had been fired before his former boss asked him for the password. City protocol was to request a password in writing, again, which his former boss had not done. So your entire argument crumbles.
Here's an earlier comment that discusses the city policy.
And here's a quote from the password policy of the city, which is in that link:
"Password Policy" As such, all County employees (including contractors, vendors, and temporary staff with access to County systems) are responsible for taking the appropriate steps, as outlined below, to select and secure their passwords. All system-level passwords (e.g., root, enable, NT admin, application administration accounts, etc.) must be changed on at least a monthly basis" "Do not share County passwords with anyone, including administrative assistants or secretaries.
All passwords are to be treated as sensitive, confidential County information.
Here is a list of things to avoid -Telling your boss your password. -Talking about a password in front of others. -Telling your co-workers your password while on vacation."
As we can see from the city policy, telling your boss is already out, and talking about your password in front of others (the individuals on the other end of the phone line) is also a no-no. Terry Childs did the right thing by not giving out the passwords to anyone but the Mayor. Did Childs' boss ever get in trouble for breaching city policy? Probably not.
These same uncaring scumbags, unfortunately, do not want to see their access to cheap goods disappear. So if American companies were forced to use the same workplace standards in foreign nations, costs of goods will most likely go up slightly (until market correction occurs...) This is what makes me sick to my stomach the most. American companies would be forced to allow for safer environments here in the US. To avoid that, they ship such operations to other nations on the cheap. It boosts their bottom line, and they only have to pay a tiny fraction of what they would pay an American employee.
At the same time, I would rather see people in other nations employed. I would rather see them with the opportunity to have work. I understand that all emerging economies have their rough points. But reading about showers being nothing more than a bucket and sponge, and no bathroom breaks during 17 hour shifts makes me wonder how these same uncaring scumbags would feel if they had to work in the same conditions day in and day out. During short stints, sure, we all go through rough patches where work has to be done yesterday. But if this was your day-to-day outlook for the rest of your lifespan?
Yes, we had to in the past. If it was so great, we would still be doing it. We're not any longer for a reason. And the comments here? It really comes across as "Keep working in those poor conditions so we can get our cheap goods, you fools!" It bothers me that we take advantage of the situations there. We've already been down this path.
Well, having followed this story since it first broke out, I do believe that Terry Childs correctly followed the written policy of the city, which was that he should not give his password to anyone, including his supervisors, and that the only person that he was allowed to divulge them to was the Mayor, which is exactly what he did while he was in jail.
If you take your job seriously, then it means going against your superiors when they try to break written policy. You're not always going to be shielded by the "but I was following orders" defense. Your supervisor is also supposed to follow written policy. So if your supervisor breaks that policy and asks you to do the same, then you are just as liable.
Here are a couple of comments that describe the city of San Francisco's password policy and how in this interpretation, he did his job and is being unfairly punished.
The people who demanded the passwords were Terry Child's supervisors.
This point is moot, since the people who demanded the passwords were no longer Terry Child's supervisors. They had already fired him before they asked for the passwords. And any password request has to be in writing, which they did not do either. They asked him over a conference call, with unidentified people in the room.
Okay. Fair 'nough. I won't mod you down because I disagree. I'll mod you down because you're Yet Another Fucking Ignoramus when it comes to drugs. Oh, yeah, if we just let people get their dope legally, then everything will just be fine and fuckin' dandy.
No, you modded him down because you disagreed with them. Then you posted anonymously to rub it in as a fucking coward so you could get the best of both worlds. There was nothing "flame-worthy" or "trollish" about their argument. They stated what is generally known and accepted by the majority of educated individuals -- if you legalize and regulate something, you get rid of the black market. Tell me, how is the black market on alcohol and cigarettes these days? Oh, right, there isn't one. And we have just as many alcoholics today as we had during the Prohibition of the 1920s.
There is no such thing as "safe, recreational" use of shit like crack and heroin. That shit gets you addicted, turns you into a zombie, and fucks up anyone that's in any way related to you, no matter how cheap you can get it -- as if that's some solution.
You assume that the second drugs are legalized, that everyone is going to rush in and try it. There isn't some hidden mass population of people who absolutely want to try drugs but are holding off until it's legalized.
Legalizing drugs is surrender. Whatever the cartels are doing, it's 100x better than what a country would look like if people could use whatever mindfuck drugs they could be tricked into trying once.
What a disgusting comment. So these drug cartels kidnapping, beheading, and doing random drive-by shootings and terrorizing neighborhoods are 100x better? You sound like one of those people who claims that sex ed and free distribution of condoms means more sex. Your argument is absolutely disgusting. But hey, don't tell me this, go tell these people.
There is no such thing as "safe, recreational" use of shit like crack and heroin. That shit gets you addicted, turns you into a zombie, and fucks up anyone that's in any way related to you, no matter how cheap you can get it -- as if that's some solution.
Did you copy and paste your this from a 1920's Prohibition poster or something? This was the same argument used against alcohol in the 1920s. This very same argument is made about abortion here in the US. When there is a demand for something, it'll get met one way or another. Even if it means ripping the fetus out with a rusty coat hanger in some back alley.
I've never touched drugs in my life. I hate the stuff. Much like yourself, I feel that people will end up ruining their lives and those around them. But I'm also smart enough to know that banning substances just creates an artificial black market for gangs, and the destruction they cause is far worse than just legalizing the damned thing. I live in a pretty well-to-do neighborhood in a rich part of Northern Virginia. Now we're seeing a bigger number of the MS-13 gang in our area. They've hit Cancun. They're hitting all of the major cities and tourist spots.
I saw three guys with AK47s in that video at time frame 3:40-3:48 with the helicopters cross hairs on them.
And? Iraqis are allowed to have AK47s in Iraq. The US military is not allowed to engage unless they are fired upon and can identify their targets. Seeing a bunch of random guys with AKs doesn't mean that they were the ones doing the shooting.
Too bad the guys in the van brought kids in, that was just wrong...they outta have gotten shot for bringing their kids into a obviously dangerous situation.
It was a civilian van that stopped to help the wounded. Are you saying that if you drove by a scene with dead bodies and wounded people trying to crawl away to safety, that you would just drive away? The guys in the Apache were too trigger happy. Read the transcript - they sounded worse than a bunch of kids playing Halo on a mountain dew high.
This comment from another poster who served in Iraq pretty much sums it up.
Huge mistakes like this should be used to make sure that they don't happen again. Top brass lying and changing the story around just makes the US look dishonest and 'evil'
Things like this are routine. What's extraordinary is having proof because the cover up is also routine.
I don't even understand why there needs to be a cover-up. The military could have said "this is under investigation" and apologized for the deaths. Here's another example of why any attempt at a cover up makes you look really bad.
Afghan investigators claim U.S. special operations forces dug bullets out of their victims' bodies in the bloody aftermath of a botched February raid, The Times of London reports.
The Times says the soldiers washed the wounds with alcohol before lying to their superiors about what happened.
The claims were made as NATO admitted responsibility for all the deaths. NATO initially had claimed the women had been dead for several hours when the assault force discovered the bodies.
Two pregnant women, a teenage girl, a police officer and his brother were shot Feb. 12 when U.S. and Afghan special operations forces stormed their home outside Gardez in eastern Afghanistan. The breakdown of the force hasn't been made public.
The New York Times reports that a NATO official said Sunday that an Afghan-led team of investigators had found signs of evidence tampering at the scene, including the removal of bullets from walls near where the women were killed. On Monday, the Times says a senior NATO official denied that any tampering had occurred.
The actual tampering claims in this story are alleged so I can't really comment on that much, but had the NATO outright said "we don't know what happened, we are still investigating" rather than trying to claim that the women were already dead makes me question why they ever think it's a good idea.
So journalists are only supposed to interview "the good guys" and never, ever, ever talk to the other side so that we get a clear understanding of both sides of the war?
Embedded journalism IS PROPAGANDA. When you're filtered to only hearing one side of the story, IT IS PROPAGANDA.
By the way, please watch the video again. If you can't tell the difference between Cameras / Tripods and RPGs / AK 47's, then you need to turn in your geek card.
Notice how the constitution goes out of its way to use the word "people" in some places, and "citizen" in others?
Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
The fact that they keep switching between the words citizen and person is not an accident. While the State cannot make or enforce laws that abridge privileges or immunities of citizens, the State cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Notice that they did not use the word citizen there. Based on that interpretation, yes, the Constitution gives basic protections to everyone -- citizen or not.
We're overwhelmed by bad news every day of the calendar year, so it's nice to have ONE DAY where you can just sit back and be entertained. You guys and gals can all go back to whining about Apple's newest review (slashvertisement), MS FUD articles, or correlationisnotcausation articles tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, I have no sympathy for Reuters' guys because Reuters has a history of being embarrassed in that region by having its "correspondents" not only embed themselves with guerrilla forces, but often hires people who are working both sides (ex: the egg on Reuters' face when it came out that its subcontractors in Lebanon were actually members of Hezbollah).
Well, how else are we to get both sides of the story? If journalists are only embedded on one side, then we're only getting half of the story, no? Journalism should be neutral, unless you're implying that we shouldn't hear their side unless it came directly from us. At that point, it is no longer journalism. Instead, it is full blown-out propaganda.
EXACTLY! I have a "work phone", which my work pays for and I only make work related calls with it. I have a personal phone, which I pay for, and I use to make personal calls with.
From the article:
"The transcripts showed that Quon had been exchanging sexually explicit messages with his wife, his girlfriend and another SWAT team member."
OUCH.
That is true that for the same price, you get 16 GB of storage with the iPhone and only 8 GB with the Evo, but the Evo is expandable up to 32 GB. With the iPhone, you're stuck at 16 GB permanently. And with the ability to take high resolution pictures and HD video, suddenly that expandable memory becomes very important if you want to also store music, photos, and applications.
And they don't care for Jews all that much either.
Who does?
I do care for them - they're good people. And as someone with a Persian background, I would love to see people from all cultures live peacefully with one another. I don't want to see Israel get nuked or taken over by anyone, and I don't want to see any other country in the Middle East get nuked or taken over by Israel. The people of Israel, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, and so on can all coexist peacefully if their leaders would let them get to know one another better. For as long as each country feels like they are "at war" with one another, the propaganda will continue to flow and the people will be brainwashed by it.
Even as an Atheist, reading some of these anti-religious comments above is really depressing for me. I'm not a religious person, but I certainly don't wish death to anyone who practices a certain religion or are of a certain race.
If the majority of a country want Sharia law, then who are we to deny them that? Why should we support a military coup to stifle what the majority want? History is, in this case, simply repeating itself. We support a secular minority who stifles a religious majority until it breaks out into full violence, and then we're left wondering why "they hate us for our freedoms" -- they don't. They hate us because we keep meddling in their sovereign affairs.
After all that has happened in the last fifty years, I cannot honestly believe that we're even having this conversation. You can't support democracy while it suits your fancy, and then suddenly backpedal and say "well, that's not democracy even though the majority wanted it..." when you stop agreeing with it.
If you simply hate Islam, which is what I gather from your post, then that's fine, don't practice it. But we're hardly in any position to dictate to a foreign country what they should be practicing just because we hate it.
You've obviously never lived in a war zone. Where do you go? How do you support your family? You don't just "get the hell out." You don't just pack up and move that easily. This isn't just a one or two week conflict where you can temporarily move to another town or city until things blow over. This war has been going on for nearly eight years!!
The better question is, why doesn't the US get the hell out? They have no business being there. There are no WMDS there. Wasn't that the whole justification the government gave in attacking Iraq?
Egypt has opened their borders up, but only temporarily:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-opens-gaza-border-following-idf-raid-on-aid-flotilla-1.293560
And there are plenty of countries, and even the UN, who have called the embargo on Gaza to be illegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932010_blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip#United_Nations
Israel doesn't care and the US routinely vetoes any and every UN resolution against Israel.
The Palestinians live essentially in a modern-day ghetto. Palestinian airspace is controlled by Israel, and they routinely fly drones and fighter jets over homes, causing people to panic. Israel also blocks the three-mile shore using their navy. There are only 80-some humanitarian items that are allowed in, and food / medical supplies typically expire by the time they make it into the region. Building supplies are always discarded by Israel, since all humanitarian aid goes through Israel first. Without building supplies, Palestinians cannot rebuild their homes that were destroyed by Israeli bombs or bulldozers, and can only use existing rubble from other destroyed buildings. Try living like that for the rest of your life.
Economic embargoes causes despair, and despair causes people to commit desperate acts. Israelis know this very well. If you recall, the state of Israel was founded through terrorism, with the Stern Gang leading the way with hotel bombings, kidnappings, and assassinations until the British gave them land. Back then, Israel did not have the modern, sophisticated military that they do today, and having suffered through the holocaust, they saw no other way.
Hamas may be crazy, but the only people Israel can blame for Hamas' existence are themselves. Israel supported Hamas during its infancy to undermine the secular Fatah movement of Yasser Arafat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hamas#Before_1987_.E2.80.94_Palestinian_Islamic_activities_prior_to_the_creation_of_Hamas
While I personally feel that the people of Palestine can do much, much better than Hamas, they're only going to cling to whoever is going to offer them support and protection. Even so, the actions of Israel are disgusting, and to think that the very same people who had to endure living in ghettos in Western Europe are now essentially doing the same thing to other people is mind-blowing. Israel hopes that by employing collective punishment against the people of Palestine, they can force them to overthrow Hamas. This hasn't worked, and it's caused even the moderate factions in Palestine to get angry at Israel.
I hope for a peaceful resolution to all of this so that both sides, Israel and Palestine, can live as neighbors.
And people studying either in North Africa, the Middle East, Iraq or even muslim schools and mosques in America [cnn.com] get taught that if you kill "enough" Americans you get to fuck 72 virgins for etnernity. (I asked an 8-year-old "student" what exactly constituted "enough" dead Americans, but he didn't knew. He was going to ask though. He did seem to take it very seriously, as anyone would at that age).
Since we all know what's being done about this (ie. nothing), why aren't you guys tolerant to Texans ? Are you racists ? Isn't the whole point of not being racist that everyone gets to do the same ?
Oh good, the old "other people are doing bad things, so should we" logic. Works like a charm every time. Also, your link had nothing to do with killing enough Americans and getting 72 virgins. You took the time to post a link, but didn't bother to check it for relevant facts?
So why should we care about what people in North Africa or the Middle East are studying? Why should America do something about what people are studying in foreign countries? In fact, if you had actually read the link you posted, you would have seen this quote:
"Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena," Mohammed said in an interview to air on tonight's "AC 360."
If you keep poking the beehive, you'll get stung eventually. A lot of these people are pissed off at American foreign policy because it affects them directly, and you're suggesting that we should do something about foreign curriculum? What do you suggest that we do? Occupy every one of these countries and change their education? Threaten to blacklist them unless they change what they teach in their own schools? Carpet bomb them? So how's that forced democracy working out for you in Iraq?
Since we all know what's being done about this (ie. nothing), why aren't you guys tolerant to Texans ? Are you racists ? Isn't the whole point of not being racist that everyone gets to do the same ?
Brilliant, the race card. No, it's not racist. The whole point of not being racist is to not discriminate against a certain race. Nobody is discriminating against Texans, and "Texan" is not a race. If I said "only black people can get a public education but not white people" than you can accuse me of racism. But we're talking about textbook curriculum that impacts everyone, regardless of race.
Otherwise you're just a bunch of whiny crybabies. Either react against everyone, or shut up.
No, we don't have to react against everyone. I don't care about what some student in some remote village in China or the Philippines is studying. I don't live in those countries and I don't have the desire to influence them. Would I like for them to learn about good, peaceful things? Sure! Do I have any right to force them to learn anything different than what they're learning right now? I do not. But I sure can voice my opposition to what my own countrymen are learning with my tax dollars, especially when OTHER states start buying these same textbooks.
Looks like Mohammad threw his back out trying to throw the bomb. :-)
Why would you need to do that, since you and your friend could play online together...online. One of the plusses of online play is NOT having to take the time to go over to a friends house.
I agree that this is a plus for some people. But other people like social gatherings and want to play multiplayer in the same room as their friends, so it also has its disadvantages. One game that comes to mind is Little Big Planet -- you can have several people in the same room play a multiplayer game together with others online.
That was very cleaver!!
Or movie lines.
According to everything I have read he refused to hand over the password under any circumstance when his supervisors asked for them. There was no "only give to the mayor" rule. He was a regular employee working a regular job where he has the obligation to hand over information requested by his supervisor
I'll post this again, and bold the important part.
"Password Policy"
As such, all County employees (including contractors, vendors, and temporary staff with access to County systems) are responsible for taking the appropriate steps, as outlined below, to select and secure their passwords.
All system-level passwords (e.g., root, enable, NT admin, application administration accounts, etc.) must be changed on at least a monthly basis"
"Do not share County passwords with anyone, including administrative assistants or secretaries.
All passwords are to be treated as sensitive, confidential County information.
Here is a list of things to avoid
-Telling your boss your password.
-Talking about a password in front of others.
-Telling your co-workers your password while on vacation."
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dtis/coit/Policies_Forms/CCISDA_security.pdf
The city password policy was to NOT give it to your boss. He followed the city policy, which his boss did not abide by, as he first tried to get the passwords, and also, attempted to get the password in front of others. But that's a moot point. He had been fired before his former boss asked him for the password. City protocol was to request a password in writing, again, which his former boss had not done. So your entire argument crumbles.
Here's an earlier comment that discusses the city policy.
And here's a quote from the password policy of the city, which is in that link:
"Password Policy"
As such, all County employees (including contractors, vendors, and temporary staff with access to County systems) are responsible for taking the appropriate steps, as outlined below, to select and secure their passwords.
All system-level passwords (e.g., root, enable, NT admin, application administration accounts, etc.) must be changed on at least a monthly basis"
"Do not share County passwords with anyone, including administrative assistants or secretaries.
All passwords are to be treated as sensitive, confidential County information.
Here is a list of things to avoid
-Telling your boss your password.
-Talking about a password in front of others.
-Telling your co-workers your password while on vacation."
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dtis/coit/Policies_Forms/CCISDA_security.pdf
As we can see from the city policy, telling your boss is already out, and talking about your password in front of others (the individuals on the other end of the phone line) is also a no-no. Terry Childs did the right thing by not giving out the passwords to anyone but the Mayor. Did Childs' boss ever get in trouble for breaching city policy? Probably not.
I thought such non-compete clauses were void in the state of California? I don't see how they could get sued.
These same uncaring scumbags, unfortunately, do not want to see their access to cheap goods disappear. So if American companies were forced to use the same workplace standards in foreign nations, costs of goods will most likely go up slightly (until market correction occurs...) This is what makes me sick to my stomach the most. American companies would be forced to allow for safer environments here in the US. To avoid that, they ship such operations to other nations on the cheap. It boosts their bottom line, and they only have to pay a tiny fraction of what they would pay an American employee.
At the same time, I would rather see people in other nations employed. I would rather see them with the opportunity to have work. I understand that all emerging economies have their rough points. But reading about showers being nothing more than a bucket and sponge, and no bathroom breaks during 17 hour shifts makes me wonder how these same uncaring scumbags would feel if they had to work in the same conditions day in and day out. During short stints, sure, we all go through rough patches where work has to be done yesterday. But if this was your day-to-day outlook for the rest of your lifespan?
Yes, we had to in the past. If it was so great, we would still be doing it. We're not any longer for a reason. And the comments here? It really comes across as "Keep working in those poor conditions so we can get our cheap goods, you fools!" It bothers me that we take advantage of the situations there. We've already been down this path.
Well, having followed this story since it first broke out, I do believe that Terry Childs correctly followed the written policy of the city, which was that he should not give his password to anyone, including his supervisors, and that the only person that he was allowed to divulge them to was the Mayor, which is exactly what he did while he was in jail.
If you take your job seriously, then it means going against your superiors when they try to break written policy. You're not always going to be shielded by the "but I was following orders" defense. Your supervisor is also supposed to follow written policy. So if your supervisor breaks that policy and asks you to do the same, then you are just as liable.
Here are a couple of comments that describe the city of San Francisco's password policy and how in this interpretation, he did his job and is being unfairly punished.
The people who demanded the passwords were Terry Child's supervisors.
This point is moot, since the people who demanded the passwords were no longer Terry Child's supervisors. They had already fired him before they asked for the passwords. And any password request has to be in writing, which they did not do either. They asked him over a conference call, with unidentified people in the room.
When viewed from an angle, your first post has a fatal flaw.
Okay. Fair 'nough. I won't mod you down because I disagree. I'll mod you down because you're Yet Another Fucking Ignoramus when it comes to drugs. Oh, yeah, if we just let people get their dope legally, then everything will just be fine and fuckin' dandy.
No, you modded him down because you disagreed with them. Then you posted anonymously to rub it in as a fucking coward so you could get the best of both worlds. There was nothing "flame-worthy" or "trollish" about their argument. They stated what is generally known and accepted by the majority of educated individuals -- if you legalize and regulate something, you get rid of the black market. Tell me, how is the black market on alcohol and cigarettes these days? Oh, right, there isn't one. And we have just as many alcoholics today as we had during the Prohibition of the 1920s.
There is no such thing as "safe, recreational" use of shit like crack and heroin. That shit gets you addicted, turns you into a zombie, and fucks up anyone that's in any way related to you, no matter how cheap you can get it -- as if that's some solution.
You assume that the second drugs are legalized, that everyone is going to rush in and try it. There isn't some hidden mass population of people who absolutely want to try drugs but are holding off until it's legalized.
Legalizing drugs is surrender. Whatever the cartels are doing, it's 100x better than what a country would look like if people could use whatever mindfuck drugs they could be tricked into trying once.
What a disgusting comment. So these drug cartels kidnapping, beheading, and doing random drive-by shootings and terrorizing neighborhoods are 100x better? You sound like one of those people who claims that sex ed and free distribution of condoms means more sex. Your argument is absolutely disgusting. But hey, don't tell me this, go tell these people.
There is no such thing as "safe, recreational" use of shit like crack and heroin. That shit gets you addicted, turns you into a zombie, and fucks up anyone that's in any way related to you, no matter how cheap you can get it -- as if that's some solution.
Did you copy and paste your this from a 1920's Prohibition poster or something? This was the same argument used against alcohol in the 1920s. This very same argument is made about abortion here in the US. When there is a demand for something, it'll get met one way or another. Even if it means ripping the fetus out with a rusty coat hanger in some back alley.
I've never touched drugs in my life. I hate the stuff. Much like yourself, I feel that people will end up ruining their lives and those around them. But I'm also smart enough to know that banning substances just creates an artificial black market for gangs, and the destruction they cause is far worse than just legalizing the damned thing. I live in a pretty well-to-do neighborhood in a rich part of Northern Virginia. Now we're seeing a bigger number of the MS-13 gang in our area. They've hit Cancun. They're hitting all of the major cities and tourist spots.
Yet, Sony was able to save millions of Euros in import taxes by declaring the PS3 a computer and NOT a game console, thanks to the OtherOS option.
They can't have it both ways.
I saw three guys with AK47s in that video at time frame 3:40-3:48 with the helicopters cross hairs on them.
And? Iraqis are allowed to have AK47s in Iraq. The US military is not allowed to engage unless they are fired upon and can identify their targets. Seeing a bunch of random guys with AKs doesn't mean that they were the ones doing the shooting.
Too bad the guys in the van brought kids in, that was just wrong...they outta have gotten shot for bringing their kids into a obviously dangerous situation.
It was a civilian van that stopped to help the wounded. Are you saying that if you drove by a scene with dead bodies and wounded people trying to crawl away to safety, that you would just drive away? The guys in the Apache were too trigger happy. Read the transcript - they sounded worse than a bunch of kids playing Halo on a mountain dew high.
This comment from another poster who served in Iraq pretty much sums it up.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1607760&cid=31739310
Huge mistakes like this should be used to make sure that they don't happen again. Top brass lying and changing the story around just makes the US look dishonest and 'evil'
Things like this are routine. What's extraordinary is having proof because the cover up is also routine.
I don't even understand why there needs to be a cover-up. The military could have said "this is under investigation" and apologized for the deaths. Here's another example of why any attempt at a cover up makes you look really bad.
The actual tampering claims in this story are alleged so I can't really comment on that much, but had the NATO outright said "we don't know what happened, we are still investigating" rather than trying to claim that the women were already dead makes me question why they ever think it's a good idea.
So journalists are only supposed to interview "the good guys" and never, ever, ever talk to the other side so that we get a clear understanding of both sides of the war?
Embedded journalism IS PROPAGANDA. When you're filtered to only hearing one side of the story, IT IS PROPAGANDA.
By the way, please watch the video again. If you can't tell the difference between Cameras / Tripods and RPGs / AK 47's, then you need to turn in your geek card.
Notice how the constitution goes out of its way to use the word "people" in some places, and "citizen" in others?
Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
The fact that they keep switching between the words citizen and person is not an accident. While the State cannot make or enforce laws that abridge privileges or immunities of citizens, the State cannot deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Notice that they did not use the word citizen there. Based on that interpretation, yes, the Constitution gives basic protections to everyone -- citizen or not.
THANK YOU.
We're overwhelmed by bad news every day of the calendar year, so it's nice to have ONE DAY where you can just sit back and be entertained. You guys and gals can all go back to whining about Apple's newest review (slashvertisement), MS FUD articles, or correlationisnotcausation articles tomorrow.