C'mon. That exact paragraph could be written by the vast majority of employees everywhere. People always think the ones above them are overpaid and underworked, and they always try to sweeten this stance by pretending to cry on the customer's behalf. The lie is evident in the presentation, though; the customer doesn't care how much people are paid in absolute terms; only results matter to them. So all the comments about the organization being "top heavy" and the saintliness about people "in the field" reveal the entire rant as entirely self-serving. You should not listen to this with any seriousness.
I will admit that I've only worked for a dozen or so organizations in my whole life, so maybe my experience is unusual, but I've never had a contract that stated any reason had to be given in the first place, extremely good or otherwise. I was once "downsized" from a company in the midst of all-time high profits: the very soul of being fired for no reason at all. Even if I could prove that the employer had made a disparaging remark about perfectly legal behavior in the past, there should be no way to prove a connection between that statement and the termination unless the employer is a complete moron.
Science and religion cannot co-exist because they are both searches for truth, but have different notions of the nature of truth. Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge. Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us. For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.
I wonder whether that's a logical argument. If the claim really is basic logic that's widely known, then why would it be used as a selling point at all? No bottled water company uses "it's wet!" as a selling point, and if they did it wouldn't sway consumers because it doesn't differentiate the product. Therefore, doesn't it follow that they must be trying to do something that's not quite so obvious?
I would take the money, and I am not embarrassed. A lot could happen in 200 years. Maybe we get out of here. Maybe an asteroid hits the Earth and it is essentially blown up anyway. Maybe aliens come and convert us all to a tasty paste. Maybe the Tenth Crusade happens and we blow ourselves up. You are right that it is difficult to argue sacrifice now for such a far-flung future, but I'm not sure that's unreasonable. Make your scenario 20 years and perhaps things change.
The problem with that position is that you are always the smart one to you, but to everyone else you're one of the idiots. Since it all balances out, we pretty much have your system in place already.
Google has a separate search page for images; why not a separate one for social sites? I do agree that I might want Facebook comments in my search, but most of the time I certainly do not.
That would be an excellent point if you hadn't completely made it up.
He never went to court in Sweden, so they gave him no such instruction. He went in for questioning, but the day after that the rape charge was dropped, so certainly he wasn't issued any such instruction by the police, either. A prosecutor re-opened the rape case, but by the time Swedish authorities wanted him for questioning (six weeks later, ) he'd already left the country. Sweden had, in the meantime, denied his application for residency there, so his leaving the country isn't particularly suspicious.
He has fought the extradition with unusual zeal, but I don't see how that's not his right. He has fully cooperated with London police.
You lost all respect for someone you've never met, based on what you imagine his intentions to be, surrounding actions taken during events at which you were not present.
No offense, but I get the impression that your respect isn't really worth a whole lot in the first place, if you treat it so arbitrarily.
The facts are only clear to you because you accept them on faith with no proof presented at all. Traitorsgettrials. We are not at war; George W. Bush called this a war, but declaring war isn't an authority granted to his post. Obama has kept the language but since he's in the same post it's irrelevant. Congress, who retains that authority, has not done so. It's okay to use the word for convenience but from a legal perspective it is wrong.
"We need more people like this guy wiped out, not less." Only the death of your enemies is worth contemplating. You have become them.
If all that happened was conspiring, then there would be no actual bombing, and bombers don't always need conspirators, so yes I do draw a distinction; one is potentially indirectly harmful while the other is a criminal act. Regardless of whether you agree with that, I say the death penalty without trial is an inappropriate punishment for stating your beliefs, no matter how vile they are.
9/11 was merely a group of crimes that needed criminal prosecution. The failure to realize that is why we're in this mess. The terrorists framed it as a pre-emptive attack in a war we weren't even fighting. By allowing them to frame the event, we played into their hands and have legitimized the attack; now, instead of a crime against humanity, it was merely the first shot fired in a religious war.
I think that is a pretty terrible analogy since this guy almost certainly never actually attacked anyone, but let's go with that: at the very least, an investigation into whether this was legal is exactly what people are asking for. We're not getting it. So I take it that you now see the problem.
I think the analogy is better that he was unarmed and standing in the middle of street yelling that someone should kill cops, then the cop shot him dead. Still imperfect but it's closer to what the man was actually accused of doing.
Sweet, he made unending proclamations about his involvement? I might get all my concerns laid to rest. Surely this is all online; can you link me the definitive proof that he was in Al Queda? I will accept a video of him making the assertion himself, or even a statement by a credible news agency that isn't simply quoting the government.
Oh wait. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
What you're asking me to do is take the killer's word for the fact that the victim needed killing. You seriously don't see the conflict there? I also question when exercising free speech (even if criminally excessive) became a crime worthy of the death penalty.
No formal declaration of war: Check. "War" defined as murderous intent against non-soldiers for ideological differences: Check. Rules of law and engagement suspended in service to the "war": Check.
So by your rationale, 9/11 was perfectly okay, then? Al Queda had publicly said they were at war with us, and people inside the Towers had committed hate speech against Al Queda. There were also agents with ties to the US government, their declared enemy, inside the building. Can you explain the difference between this act and 9/11, aside from the fact that the terrorists were more efficient?
The terrorists have won by bringing us to their level. And you are actually willing to defend this behavior. I can only hope you haven't thought this through.
If the government were to expend missiles on a house in Los Angeles, killing everyone inside, then explain that there were drug dealers in there and that this was part of the War on Drugs and therefore trials were a bother and unneeded, would you be okay with that because it was killing combatants in war?
These arguments are nothing more than rationalization of your lack of empathy for people you irrationally fear.
Then the attack on 9/11 was perfectly legitimate. You do realize that's what you're saying? They were at war with us, and everyone killed that day was in on being American, after all.
This involves no war, and he was not a soldier. If you can define a war as "action against any organization ideologically opposed to the administration" and a soldier as "accused member of said organization" then you can kill pretty much anyone you like.
Given that he was never tried, and given that in our system of justice a man is innocent until proven guilty, isn't "knowingly and purposefully target[ing] civilians" exactly what we just did? You have only the murderer's word that the man needed killing; would you accept that in other circumstances?
Isn't "blast the lot of them, no matter where they stand" the exact problem we have with the terrorist agenda?
Some jobs are mostly reactionary and aren't consistent in this regard. I was a database administrator at a major bank for years, and when I telecommuted there were days that I barely did any work at all, and days when the primary benefit from not commuting was that it gave me another two hours of work before the nightly runs began. If you had asked me how many hours a day I worked, I'm not sure how I would have answered, but any answer would have necessarily given an inaccurate impression.
Most days, no I did not have eight solid hours of work to do; the difference there was that in the office, left with little else to do, I often found some busywork and remained minimally productive, while at home I rarely bothered with that. On the other hand, I typically worked faster at home because there were fewer distractions (fewer phone calls, no co-workers hanging out at my desk, no lunch invitations, no conversations in the break room while grabbing a coffee, etc.) So I like to think that, while they lost hours of "work", as far as overall productivity the company broke approximately even.
Taxes are a necessity for a functioning government. You won't find a system that (a) doesn't require them and (b) works for societies with significant populations. The money serves power, but it's too cynical to say that power is the entire purpose. I also think you're being somewhat shortsighted; you still benefit from the presence of an American Embassy, or from treaties negotiated and maintained by the American government, or you benefit indirectly because your company is benefiting in various ways. You will still be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Your money isn't only being used for things that don't and won't affect you.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you do not understand how percentages work.
C'mon. That exact paragraph could be written by the vast majority of employees everywhere. People always think the ones above them are overpaid and underworked, and they always try to sweeten this stance by pretending to cry on the customer's behalf. The lie is evident in the presentation, though; the customer doesn't care how much people are paid in absolute terms; only results matter to them. So all the comments about the organization being "top heavy" and the saintliness about people "in the field" reveal the entire rant as entirely self-serving. You should not listen to this with any seriousness.
I will admit that I've only worked for a dozen or so organizations in my whole life, so maybe my experience is unusual, but I've never had a contract that stated any reason had to be given in the first place, extremely good or otherwise. I was once "downsized" from a company in the midst of all-time high profits: the very soul of being fired for no reason at all. Even if I could prove that the employer had made a disparaging remark about perfectly legal behavior in the past, there should be no way to prove a connection between that statement and the termination unless the employer is a complete moron.
Do most jobs not work this way?
Science and religion cannot co-exist because they are both searches for truth, but have different notions of the nature of truth. Religion treats basic truths as already known (my god exists and is responsible for everything) and then seeks to justify and glorify this base knowledge. Science assumes that truth is unknown and seeks to get closer to this unknown goal, regardless of where the search takes us. For religion to co-exist with science, the first step would have to be for you to admit that you might be worshiping the incorrect god and to be open to switching gods should evidence cast doubt on your current position; since that's incompatible with the very concept of "faith", the two approaches are irreconcilable.
I wonder whether that's a logical argument. If the claim really is basic logic that's widely known, then why would it be used as a selling point at all? No bottled water company uses "it's wet!" as a selling point, and if they did it wouldn't sway consumers because it doesn't differentiate the product. Therefore, doesn't it follow that they must be trying to do something that's not quite so obvious?
I would take the money, and I am not embarrassed. A lot could happen in 200 years. Maybe we get out of here. Maybe an asteroid hits the Earth and it is essentially blown up anyway. Maybe aliens come and convert us all to a tasty paste. Maybe the Tenth Crusade happens and we blow ourselves up. You are right that it is difficult to argue sacrifice now for such a far-flung future, but I'm not sure that's unreasonable. Make your scenario 20 years and perhaps things change.
The problem with that position is that you are always the smart one to you, but to everyone else you're one of the idiots. Since it all balances out, we pretty much have your system in place already.
Google has a separate search page for images; why not a separate one for social sites? I do agree that I might want Facebook comments in my search, but most of the time I certainly do not.
That would be an excellent point if you hadn't completely made it up.
He never went to court in Sweden, so they gave him no such instruction. He went in for questioning, but the day after that the rape charge was dropped, so certainly he wasn't issued any such instruction by the police, either. A prosecutor re-opened the rape case, but by the time Swedish authorities wanted him for questioning (six weeks later, ) he'd already left the country. Sweden had, in the meantime, denied his application for residency there, so his leaving the country isn't particularly suspicious.
He has fought the extradition with unusual zeal, but I don't see how that's not his right. He has fully cooperated with London police.
Steve Wozniak: a man who can afford two phones.
You lost all respect for someone you've never met, based on what you imagine his intentions to be, surrounding actions taken during events at which you were not present.
No offense, but I get the impression that your respect isn't really worth a whole lot in the first place, if you treat it so arbitrarily.
The facts are only clear to you because you accept them on faith with no proof presented at all. Traitors get trials. We are not at war; George W. Bush called this a war, but declaring war isn't an authority granted to his post. Obama has kept the language but since he's in the same post it's irrelevant. Congress, who retains that authority, has not done so. It's okay to use the word for convenience but from a legal perspective it is wrong.
"We need more people like this guy wiped out, not less." Only the death of your enemies is worth contemplating. You have become them.
If all that happened was conspiring, then there would be no actual bombing, and bombers don't always need conspirators, so yes I do draw a distinction; one is potentially indirectly harmful while the other is a criminal act. Regardless of whether you agree with that, I say the death penalty without trial is an inappropriate punishment for stating your beliefs, no matter how vile they are.
9/11 was merely a group of crimes that needed criminal prosecution. The failure to realize that is why we're in this mess. The terrorists framed it as a pre-emptive attack in a war we weren't even fighting. By allowing them to frame the event, we played into their hands and have legitimized the attack; now, instead of a crime against humanity, it was merely the first shot fired in a religious war.
I think that is a pretty terrible analogy since this guy almost certainly never actually attacked anyone, but let's go with that: at the very least, an investigation into whether this was legal is exactly what people are asking for. We're not getting it. So I take it that you now see the problem.
I think the analogy is better that he was unarmed and standing in the middle of street yelling that someone should kill cops, then the cop shot him dead. Still imperfect but it's closer to what the man was actually accused of doing.
Sweet, he made unending proclamations about his involvement? I might get all my concerns laid to rest. Surely this is all online; can you link me the definitive proof that he was in Al Queda? I will accept a video of him making the assertion himself, or even a statement by a credible news agency that isn't simply quoting the government.
Oh wait. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.
What you're asking me to do is take the killer's word for the fact that the victim needed killing. You seriously don't see the conflict there? I also question when exercising free speech (even if criminally excessive) became a crime worthy of the death penalty.
I'm sorry. Demanding that you prove your assertions is not a terrorist or traitorous act. You have no idea what you're talking about.
We have this thing called the Constitution. I'm sure you claim to support it at every opportunity. Now you should read it.
No formal declaration of war: Check.
"War" defined as murderous intent against non-soldiers for ideological differences: Check.
Rules of law and engagement suspended in service to the "war": Check.
So by your rationale, 9/11 was perfectly okay, then? Al Queda had publicly said they were at war with us, and people inside the Towers had committed hate speech against Al Queda. There were also agents with ties to the US government, their declared enemy, inside the building. Can you explain the difference between this act and 9/11, aside from the fact that the terrorists were more efficient?
The terrorists have won by bringing us to their level. And you are actually willing to defend this behavior. I can only hope you haven't thought this through.
For that reason it is not a war.
If the government were to expend missiles on a house in Los Angeles, killing everyone inside, then explain that there were drug dealers in there and that this was part of the War on Drugs and therefore trials were a bother and unneeded, would you be okay with that because it was killing combatants in war?
These arguments are nothing more than rationalization of your lack of empathy for people you irrationally fear.
Then the attack on 9/11 was perfectly legitimate. You do realize that's what you're saying? They were at war with us, and everyone killed that day was in on being American, after all.
This involves no war, and he was not a soldier. If you can define a war as "action against any organization ideologically opposed to the administration" and a soldier as "accused member of said organization" then you can kill pretty much anyone you like.
Given that he was never tried, and given that in our system of justice a man is innocent until proven guilty, isn't "knowingly and purposefully target[ing] civilians" exactly what we just did? You have only the murderer's word that the man needed killing; would you accept that in other circumstances?
Isn't "blast the lot of them, no matter where they stand" the exact problem we have with the terrorist agenda?
Look not into the abyss and all that.
Some jobs are mostly reactionary and aren't consistent in this regard. I was a database administrator at a major bank for years, and when I telecommuted there were days that I barely did any work at all, and days when the primary benefit from not commuting was that it gave me another two hours of work before the nightly runs began. If you had asked me how many hours a day I worked, I'm not sure how I would have answered, but any answer would have necessarily given an inaccurate impression.
Most days, no I did not have eight solid hours of work to do; the difference there was that in the office, left with little else to do, I often found some busywork and remained minimally productive, while at home I rarely bothered with that. On the other hand, I typically worked faster at home because there were fewer distractions (fewer phone calls, no co-workers hanging out at my desk, no lunch invitations, no conversations in the break room while grabbing a coffee, etc.) So I like to think that, while they lost hours of "work", as far as overall productivity the company broke approximately even.
If "most employers" did that, we'd have massive unemploym...
huh.
Taxes are a necessity for a functioning government. You won't find a system that (a) doesn't require them and (b) works for societies with significant populations. The money serves power, but it's too cynical to say that power is the entire purpose. I also think you're being somewhat shortsighted; you still benefit from the presence of an American Embassy, or from treaties negotiated and maintained by the American government, or you benefit indirectly because your company is benefiting in various ways. You will still be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. Your money isn't only being used for things that don't and won't affect you.
Do you also pay income tax to your host country?