None of them captured the hearts and mind of the public. That's why they're found in archives and not periodically republished. Perhaps they simply weren't all that evocative.
This isn't about right and wrong, it's about public perception.
I do not think it's equivalent at all. But it was the less than human THEM that put those Jews in the trench. It's a horror, but it's one that redoubles our moral certainty that we must stop THEM at all costs.
It was US that put the look of abject terror on the little girl's face and the burns on her back. It makes us wonder if what we're doing is wrong.
Going beyond that, do you really think the people back home seeing those pictures were weighing them on an objective scale of horror to decide which one should most inflame their emotions? Perhaps they used charts and arranged some figures on the blackboard to decide how they were going to emotionally react?!?
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
One important difference, this time it was OUR side that was responsible for the horrifying image. Adding to it, the photo perfectly captured the horror on the children's faces in a way the earlier photos did not. You couldn't NOT see it. That couldn't have sat well with people who saw the gruesome images of WWII. The photo you linked was unsettling, but only if you willingly stand in the man's shoes for a moment.
No, I presume he is the dolt responsible for the dolts that hired the dolts that hired the dolt that is sitting at his desk hitting the nix button on the most important photo of the entire Vietnam war.
Of course, some of the blame likely goes to society's latest moral panic and general lack of nuance.
I wouldn't be so sure with Trump. The only reason he isn't flat broke is that he has been propped up by his dad and his dad's friends and he managed to transfer personal debts and liabilities to sacrificial corporate entities (the legality of which is questionable) that then went bankrupt. He was the only person who couldn't turn a profit in Atlantic city during the boom. Then there was the whole junk bond thing.
I'm pretty sure he will be fine, but the rest of us will likely end up holding the bag.
Note, I'm not claiming Hillary will be any better.
You say that as if banks were hiring at the drop of a hat at the time (or even now).
If the professor announced that failing his class would get you expelled from the school and other schools were not accepting new students, and finally, passing his class required you to recruit others not in school to participate at their own cost, I would indeed question his ethics and suggest that his policies were at least in part responsible for the inevitable cheating. The dean would be a questionable place to report the misconduct since he would have to be complicit in order for the professor to make the threat of expulsion.
Note, it may be that the policies came about purely through managerial stupidity and arrogance. Some managers seem to think reality will change to suit them if they threaten their reports strongly enough when they demand the impossible. Note that this goes hand in hand with a culture that believes managers can do no wrong and employees who complain about management's impossible demands are simply lazy. Going over your manager's head in that environment will get you fired. It will not result in a change of management.
All of that is why the company got the fines rather than the employees. The company not taking disciplinary action against the managers shows that it hasn't learned a damned thing.
Had it read along the lines of "Math and big data applied in a racist manner", it would have been much closer to the crux of the article. Many seem to confuse math and the application of math.
I don't think anyone here believes the employees are to be excused here, just that the managers share in the responsibility and shouldn't be excused either.
When asked, most managers all the way up to the CxOs will claim they get the big bucks because they have the big responsibility. Well, here comes the responsibility and there they are ducking it.
That means they also accomplished their goal with very little money. Since we are proportionally better off here, we should be able to do a similar job but to our standard of living.
Not really. The public (in particular, the voters) have a right to know. That is, the disclosure was in the public interest (even if it was ultimately a publicity stunt).
It's hysterical watching people desperately downplaying Costa Rica's accomplishment so their own country doesn't come off looking as much like a dinosaur mired in a tar pit.
They put the wire in the ground (or more likely on the poles) based on a granted monopoly so they could be assured of a return on their investment. That grant has/had a considerable value that has more than paid for the cabling by now. They rely on a public easement to allow their cables to exist at all. No easement and they're forced to negotiate with each and every property owner individually.
The cost of that public grant of passage through the easment is that the public has a right to regulate what they do with the cables.
If they would care to (and manage to do it), they may try negotiating with each and every property owner with nothing to help them assure ROI and then they can do whatever they want with those cables. But they better be careful not to piss off any of those land owners or their considerable investment might become worthless over night.
When something is to be ingested or inhaled, that is the jurisdiction of the FDA. The FTC would get involved if your laptop exploded unless you inhale your laptop for some unknown reason.
I assure you, the battery is neither ingested nor inhaled.
What about any other chemical present in the liquid like ethylene glycol which is toxic? Does your product tell you anything about what is in it?
Yes, as a matter of fact. That does not include ethylene glycol.
So what you're saying is that going forward the FDA crafted rules so the NEW things will have to follow rules and some things are grandfathered. Yet you still had outrage about their "overreach". I see.
Only if by NEW you mean first sold after 2012.
Nicotine. The key term here is nicotine.
Yes, and the juices I was referring to contain none.
I will make a small correction, there was ONE case of sexually transmitted Zika. I suppose if the couple had been sprayed with insecticide before they had sex, it might have spoiled the mood...
Exactly this. The relevant facts are: A man crashed a car into a tree and died. Since he was already dead and no other human life was at risk, firefighters took no unnecessary risks as they managed the fire. The rest was just a bunch of blather to try to turn an all too common everyday event into a story.
The WHO does know. I am relying on their information. You have simply reinforced that you have some odd psychological need for me to be wrong no matter what I might say (even when I agree with you). How sad.
I cannot imagine anything less productive than changing or broadening the subject in your oen mind without giving any indication. Otherwise, presume everything I said is in reference to the common cold and see how stupid your comments would look in that light. Why do you think the common cold threatens IQ huh? Ar you crazy?
See? Doesn't really work
As for eradicating A. Aegypti, considering I advocated for doing just that, I'd have to say your motive in this conversation is driven by a need on your part for me to be "wrong" even if I agree with you. I see no need to continue given that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It was our side. That's what I said.
None of them captured the hearts and mind of the public. That's why they're found in archives and not periodically republished. Perhaps they simply weren't all that evocative.
This isn't about right and wrong, it's about public perception.
I do not think it's equivalent at all. But it was the less than human THEM that put those Jews in the trench. It's a horror, but it's one that redoubles our moral certainty that we must stop THEM at all costs.
It was US that put the look of abject terror on the little girl's face and the burns on her back. It makes us wonder if what we're doing is wrong.
Going beyond that, do you really think the people back home seeing those pictures were weighing them on an objective scale of horror to decide which one should most inflame their emotions? Perhaps they used charts and arranged some figures on the blackboard to decide how they were going to emotionally react?!?
As for people who were on the fence, those tended to be looking at the rather complex Vietnam war situation from a point of view of both local and global events, and were already well aware that people suffer horrible injuries during war. Keep in mind that our (WWII and baby boomer) generation grew up on a steady stream WWII carnage and Nazi death camp pictures.
One important difference, this time it was OUR side that was responsible for the horrifying image. Adding to it, the photo perfectly captured the horror on the children's faces in a way the earlier photos did not. You couldn't NOT see it. That couldn't have sat well with people who saw the gruesome images of WWII. The photo you linked was unsettling, but only if you willingly stand in the man's shoes for a moment.
No, I presume he is the dolt responsible for the dolts that hired the dolts that hired the dolt that is sitting at his desk hitting the nix button on the most important photo of the entire Vietnam war.
Of course, some of the blame likely goes to society's latest moral panic and general lack of nuance.
I wouldn't be so sure with Trump. The only reason he isn't flat broke is that he has been propped up by his dad and his dad's friends and he managed to transfer personal debts and liabilities to sacrificial corporate entities (the legality of which is questionable) that then went bankrupt. He was the only person who couldn't turn a profit in Atlantic city during the boom. Then there was the whole junk bond thing.
I'm pretty sure he will be fine, but the rest of us will likely end up holding the bag.
Note, I'm not claiming Hillary will be any better.
You say that as if banks were hiring at the drop of a hat at the time (or even now).
If the professor announced that failing his class would get you expelled from the school and other schools were not accepting new students, and finally, passing his class required you to recruit others not in school to participate at their own cost, I would indeed question his ethics and suggest that his policies were at least in part responsible for the inevitable cheating. The dean would be a questionable place to report the misconduct since he would have to be complicit in order for the professor to make the threat of expulsion.
Note, it may be that the policies came about purely through managerial stupidity and arrogance. Some managers seem to think reality will change to suit them if they threaten their reports strongly enough when they demand the impossible. Note that this goes hand in hand with a culture that believes managers can do no wrong and employees who complain about management's impossible demands are simply lazy. Going over your manager's head in that environment will get you fired. It will not result in a change of management.
All of that is why the company got the fines rather than the employees. The company not taking disciplinary action against the managers shows that it hasn't learned a damned thing.
Had it read along the lines of "Math and big data applied in a racist manner", it would have been much closer to the crux of the article. Many seem to confuse math and the application of math.
You should actually read that link rather than just it's (not entirely accurate) title.
I don't think anyone here believes the employees are to be excused here, just that the managers share in the responsibility and shouldn't be excused either.
When asked, most managers all the way up to the CxOs will claim they get the big bucks because they have the big responsibility. Well, here comes the responsibility and there they are ducking it.
That means they also accomplished their goal with very little money. Since we are proportionally better off here, we should be able to do a similar job but to our standard of living.
That was no asteroid. It was probably a shoe.
Except when it means that he actually did contact the owners of the website about the problem.
He probably did earn a few days jail for grandstanding, but probably not the probation.
Not really. The public (in particular, the voters) have a right to know. That is, the disclosure was in the public interest (even if it was ultimately a publicity stunt).
Since the site is part of the county government, the public is the owner.
It's hysterical watching people desperately downplaying Costa Rica's accomplishment so their own country doesn't come off looking as much like a dinosaur mired in a tar pit.
They put the wire in the ground (or more likely on the poles) based on a granted monopoly so they could be assured of a return on their investment. That grant has/had a considerable value that has more than paid for the cabling by now. They rely on a public easement to allow their cables to exist at all. No easement and they're forced to negotiate with each and every property owner individually.
The cost of that public grant of passage through the easment is that the public has a right to regulate what they do with the cables.
If they would care to (and manage to do it), they may try negotiating with each and every property owner with nothing to help them assure ROI and then they can do whatever they want with those cables. But they better be careful not to piss off any of those land owners or their considerable investment might become worthless over night.
According to the corporate world, you're not paying enough if you still have money and/or all of your internal organs.
When something is to be ingested or inhaled, that is the jurisdiction of the FDA. The FTC would get involved if your laptop exploded unless you inhale your laptop for some unknown reason.
I assure you, the battery is neither ingested nor inhaled.
What about any other chemical present in the liquid like ethylene glycol which is toxic? Does your product tell you anything about what is in it?
Yes, as a matter of fact. That does not include ethylene glycol.
So what you're saying is that going forward the FDA crafted rules so the NEW things will have to follow rules and some things are grandfathered. Yet you still had outrage about their "overreach". I see.
Only if by NEW you mean first sold after 2012.
Nicotine. The key term here is nicotine.
Yes, and the juices I was referring to contain none.
G*O*O*G*L*E. There are far too many very well documented studies to list here. You might as well demand a reference for rain comes from clouds.
Here.
I will make a small correction, there was ONE case of sexually transmitted Zika. I suppose if the couple had been sprayed with insecticide before they had sex, it might have spoiled the mood...
That was just an acorn. The sky is doing fine.
Exactly this. The relevant facts are: A man crashed a car into a tree and died. Since he was already dead and no other human life was at risk, firefighters took no unnecessary risks as they managed the fire. The rest was just a bunch of blather to try to turn an all too common everyday event into a story.
The WHO does know. I am relying on their information. You have simply reinforced that you have some odd psychological need for me to be wrong no matter what I might say (even when I agree with you). How sad.
I cannot imagine anything less productive than changing or broadening the subject in your oen mind without giving any indication. Otherwise, presume everything I said is in reference to the common cold and see how stupid your comments would look in that light. Why do you think the common cold threatens IQ huh? Ar you crazy?
See? Doesn't really work
As for eradicating A. Aegypti, considering I advocated for doing just that, I'd have to say your motive in this conversation is driven by a need on your part for me to be "wrong" even if I agree with you. I see no need to continue given that.