than their initiative to ensure that every single website shows UK-viewers some variant of a 'this website uses cookies - please click this button to continue being tracked or click this button to have your experience horribly broken' banner.
People can only be treated as helpless subjects of the powers that be for so long before they internalize the attitude
Maybe for you; I reject the idea.
When installing software and are 'forced' to 'agree' to many paragraphs of legalese before the OK button will become clickable, do you tick "I agree" and think "I agree" or do you tick it whilst thinking "I'm only clicking 'I agree' because I've discovered that that's what's necessary to proceed to the next installation-step?"
That's the thing (well, firstly it was a threat to involve the police but, assuming it was 'security' that were to be called...) why is it that 'security' in this context is almost always used ironically?
In almost every case, no security is being provided - merely threat of violence, removal of personal freedom, demonstration of poor reasoning, interpersonal skills...
Why have a large proportion of people in the customer-role been conditioned to use this word?
If the customer had been violent and a threat to others, perhaps 'security' had the opportunity to provider security to other passengers - in this case, I think not.
Let's call them what they are; poorly-paid thugs, present to enforce the will of their employer. Or would that be unkind?
Nevertheless, she was using powers granted by the company to enforce her will; from the customer's perspective, SWA was acting to prevent his family-subset from flying.
If she's had said... "unless you delete that tweet, I will not speak to you during the flight" that would have carried less weight and might have been interpreted as personal.
Have the police now become nothing more than an enforcement organization? Will they attend and enforce the will of whoever calls them first? Does it need to be a business? Is there a membership fee?
Isn't there any remnant of the idea that they are there to enforce....*the law* ? If so, what was the crime which required a their presence?
Slashdot Mirror
Module 1) Welcome to Cybersecurity
Module 2) Catching Julian Assange
Module 3) Not going after easyTree ...
If others like you hadn't tried to opt out of providing you with a moral education, you wouldn't be asking this question.
Where is the precedent for corporations caring about users/customers?
I thought so... I guess you'll be stopping moaning about beta soon then...?
In light of this understanding, it does make me wonder why your country doesn't have a National Health Service favoured by many civilized countries.
Contrast this with:
* http://www.hhs.gov/
where there's a series of questions to help you determine if you qualify for healthcare :S
How so ? He was a regular customer that had given an unfavorable review on Twitter.
Welcome to JohnnyCabs.
Click tiny X in top right after five seconds to avoid annoying ad.
In the US, each pedestrian is equipped with full-body external 'airbags' to cushion the blow :P
GP's post implies robot toadalords.
than their initiative to ensure that every single website shows UK-viewers some variant of a 'this website uses cookies - please click this button to continue being tracked or click this button to have your experience horribly broken' banner.
Going over budget?
Much more lucrative than the less organized organized-crime.
Ho-hum; it's apples and oranges though; when you control the game, you're quids-in.
The 400 million is the funding they'll need to accurately calculate the overrun.
All the hot air would destroy the near-vacuum in space?
Why? Newborns have brand-awareness. What a waste of cash.
Yep; I just mean that the journey to hell concluded in the distant past.
What gives you the impression he was yelling?
Breaking with tradition, I've read TFA...
Maybe for you; I reject the idea.
When installing software and are 'forced' to 'agree' to many paragraphs of legalese before the OK button will become clickable, do you tick "I agree" and think "I agree" or do you tick it whilst thinking "I'm only clicking 'I agree' because I've discovered that that's what's necessary to proceed to the next installation-step?"
I'm pretty sure there are conventions about politeness to strangers. So fuck YOU for being impolite :P
Ahh, so that's how they do it at SWA; last one on board flies the plane!
That explains the rush to get on...
^_^ :D
That's the thing (well, firstly it was a threat to involve the police but, assuming it was 'security' that were to be called...) why is it that 'security' in this context is almost always used ironically?
In almost every case, no security is being provided - merely threat of violence, removal of personal freedom, demonstration of poor reasoning, interpersonal skills...
Why have a large proportion of people in the customer-role been conditioned to use this word?
If the customer had been violent and a threat to others, perhaps 'security' had the opportunity to provider security to other passengers - in this case, I think not.
Let's call them what they are; poorly-paid thugs, present to enforce the will of their employer. Or would that be unkind?
Nevertheless, she was using powers granted by the company to enforce her will; from the customer's perspective, SWA was acting to prevent his family-subset from flying.
If she's had said... "unless you delete that tweet, I will not speak to you during the flight" that would have carried less weight and might have been interpreted as personal.
Have the police now become nothing more than an enforcement organization? Will they attend and enforce the will of whoever calls them first? Does it need to be a business? Is there a membership fee?
Isn't there any remnant of the idea that they are there to enforce....*the law* ? If so, what was the crime which required a their presence?
Nice of you to copy/paste from the archives.
Any way you want it to; you're soooo awesome.