"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange that for me Mr. Zuckerberg?"
Actually, it probably decreases it. This is why those who outsource usually take shorter versions of the SAQ, namely version A (for outsourced shopping carts, usually) or C-VT (for those who use a virtual terminal instead of an in-house POS).
Per the PCI DSS, you are not responsible for the PCI Compliance status of any service provider you may use; you are only responsible for knowing their PCI Compliance status, at which point you have to make a business decision. This is because the PCI DSS is about risk reduction, not lessening liability. Even if you're completely compliant, you are still 100% liable if sensitive information is determined to have been compromised while it was on "your turf."
Most service providers have terms that clearly state who has responsibility for sensitive information. If you outsource, that information is no longer your responsibility.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Now re-read the bits about the UN wanting the internet with that last sentence in mind.
Citation? Let's try "delusional," "willfully ignorant," and "gullible."
Yes, get past someone's beliefs. That means that you seem to be unable to consider people as individuals. You prefer to judge them as a part of a group. You call people who disagree with you names, tell them that passing on their beliefs to the next generation is "abuse," and make no effort to see someone past their beliefs. Ridicule and call out beliefs all you want, but give individuals some credit. They believe (or don't) because they choose to.
That "evidence" you cite? It's not. I requested evidence that suggested that the people's beliefs who perpetrated those atrocities were responsible, yet you merely employ circular logic and assume your conclusions.
At this point, we're clearly done. For all that you speak of using logic and "thinking correctly," you've failed to demonstrate much capability at doing so.
Please refrain from name-calling. I have afforded you that courtesy. Also, could you please format your posts in a better way? I've found that double-spacing after paragraphs helps. Also, I'm more than capable of reading your posts. There's no need for capitalized letters on points you want to emphasize.
"Anyone that posits imaginary friends, like you do, contributes to the degradation of society/mankind," you say.
That's quite a statement. People believe all sorts of things. I don't particularly care about what they believe so much as what they do. If two men are Christians and one is an upstanding member of the community while the other is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, the onus of responsibility is on the individual, not their religion, all other things being equal. The inability to get past someone's beliefs as opposed to their actions is a form of prejudice. I can point to the differences between individual actions as direct evidence of my point. Do you have any evidence that faith is directly harmful to humanity, as opposed to the actions of individuals?
Reality doesn't care about what I believe so long as I don't try to impose my belief on it. I can believe all day long that gravity doesn't exist and reality won't care until I try to jump off of a building. So it is with my faith. If I choose to believe something such that my existence makes sense to me, what business is it of yours, or anyone else's, so long as I don't force it on others?
If you never said it, fair enough. I was just saying that was certainly one way to read your post because you expressed your opinion in such an absolute way.
Religion, like any belief system, does not force anyone to do anything. Choices are made by individuals. Just because a religion may say "thou shalt not kill" or "smite the unbelievers" or "Cthulhu ftagn!" does not mean that each follower of that religion will never kill, shoot some infidels, or await the return of the Great Old Ones. Religion influences, I'll grant you...but to assign to it the kind of control you seem to be doing ignores the capability of an individual to choose, and thus reality.
You say that lying to people about reality is never a good thing. In general, that's true. To speak it in absolute terms, though, is a step I hesitate to take. Further, your equating "lying to people about reality" and religion is fallacious. I'm a Christian, but I believe that evolution happened. To me, and many other religious people, faith isn't about telling people how the world got here but about answering questions of "why?" I'll tell someone why I believe what I do, but refrain from saying "this is the way it is, deal with it;" thus I avoid being deceitful. It is these kinds of believers that you denigrate when you speak of religion the way you do.
You say that it is not religion that has contributed to art. I agree. My post said that religion has done wonderful things for its believers. The contributions to our body of knowledge I mentioned came not from religion, but by people who believe in it. That's why the musical piece is called *Handel's* Messiah. I am glad that we agree here and that you can give credit where it's due for the good works. Why can you not do the same for the bad?
I believe in things that are real to me. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me that I'm lying to myself? If I try to convert you, you're within your rights to ask for evidence. Otherwise, live and let live, right?
I don't have kids, but if I did one day, I would raise them to reflect my beliefs as I'm sure you would yours. Fundamental to mine is the ability of right of all men to choose. I was raised in a very, very conservative fundamentalist sect, yet here I am talking to you instead of screaming at you about Hellfire. I was raised one way and eventually chose another. Give credit where credit is due.
I have never flown a plane into a building. Most religious people haven't.
It's not okay to tell anyone to believe in anything without questioning. Religion isn't the only thing that engenders blind faith.
Do away with religion, and you'll remove a critical piece of the human experience. You say the world will be a better place for it (between removing religion and education), but the truth of the matter is you don't know that. No one does. You *believe* that, for sure. There's a difference, however, between knowledge and belief.
Non-religious men have done terrible thing in the past, too. To say that religion is the sole force that turns good men bad ignores history. I'm not sure if that's your intended implication, but your post can certainly be read that way.
You also completely ignore the good things that religion has done for it believers as well as the good things that its believers have done for the world. Contributions by religious men and women to the fields of science, art, music, medicine, philosophy are incalculable. the religious do not have a corner on the market of good deeds, for true, but pretending they're not even there is dishonest.
This is not to exalt the religious and tarnish unbelievers: rather, it's meant to help one understand that there are good and bad on both sides of that divide. The implication there is that good and bad is a function of men, not necessarily of their beliefs.
You know, I could put in some other belief systems in place of Christianity in your first paragraph and it still hold true. Lots of belief systems...or just greed.
I'm inclined to believe that it's people that cause the evil that you're talking about, and that belief systems such as Christianity are merely tools in the hands of men who would do those things.
Please, please tell me you're being sarcastic, ironic, or employing a similar literary device with which we've all been heretofore unfamiliar.
You don't think "genocide" is something that has ever happened in the real world? Really? What the hell do you actually know about World War II, the Armenian Genocide, Darfur, Bosnia, or any kind of history at all?
No, it wouldn't make for a better world; it would make for an ignorant world.
2 million deaths during a time of war when you're expecting people to die versus a still as-yet uncounted number of people who die of starvation because of the government's standard operating procedure?
And the export controls? We've given them food in exchange for promises to not build nukes. When you give someone something, you have every right to put strings and conditions on it. If they renege on their end of the deal (which they demonstrably have), you can't blame the people who were trying to help the situation.
If you'd rather live in North Korea than Iraq, that's all you. Don't pretend that it's because the U.S. is some horrid monster of a superpower keeping others down, though.
Re: Home-schooled kids and social awkwardness, I have never seen anything to support this. I know many home-schooled kids (a lot of them went to my alma mater), and I've never known any who were any more socially awkward than anyone else.
I see what you did there.
Your logic break down at a couple of points, though. First, you assume an equivalence between nations and an individual citizen where none exists. Individual citizens have rights. Governments do not.
Second, when those individual citizens consent to form a government and police force, that force is not beholden to any one private citizen. There are citizens who are not cops. When nations agree to international law, they are expected to uphold it themselves; they're supposed to be their own cops, in other words. There are no nations designated as "cops."
And what force does international law have behind it? The idea that it exists by itself, independently of the power granted it by the consent of its signatories, is beyond laughable. No country is going to submit to international law if it perceives that submission as contrary to its interests.
And why is it cheaper to outsource manufacturing? Labor cost, which unions drive up, is a huge part of that.
With nuclear energy you're a little more on, I think, but environmentalists and their legislation have increased the cost of doing business in the oil and nuclear industries both. Because we've been scared shitless to build new reactors in forever and a day, the advances in construction and maintenance techniques have (surprise!) not materialized out of thin air.
Can you think of a more effective way to avoid inter-state wars than to encourage dialogue? Because our leaders who lived thorugh and fought ww2 could not. Given that we haven't had a major war since then, they continue to have more experience than us in these matters.
Is the United Nations the actual reason why we haven't had a "major war" since WW2, or would that be US power looming over the international system, keeping trade routes open and actually doing the work of facilitating economic productivity?
You may disagree with my leading questions, but I disagree with your absolutist declaration. Both of us have evidence, which means that for the time being, all of our evidence is non-conclusive.
Finally.
I'm only saddened that it took criminal charges to get rid of that porker. I wonder how Sarah Palin is going to govern her state without all that federal money coming in?
The victory at Yorktown and the subsequent English abandonment of the conflict did far more to legitimize the new nation than did the Declaration. As high-minded and beautifully worded as the document is (and I do appreciate it), to hold it up to even the standard you described is simply an error.
That is, unless you believe that our nation is in fact founded upon the notion that our rights stem from our created nature, and hence, a creator. I'm sure there are a few here who would argue that point more fiercely than any other you would care to present.
Slashdot Mirror
Noriega has company now. This wouldn't be the first time the US has used rock music against its enemies.
None of the above. They're just Dune fanatics.
As long, of course, as one doesn't use those rights contrary to the purposes of the UN.
"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next 10 generations that some favors come with too high a price. I want to look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange that for me Mr. Zuckerberg?"
Actually, it probably decreases it. This is why those who outsource usually take shorter versions of the SAQ, namely version A (for outsourced shopping carts, usually) or C-VT (for those who use a virtual terminal instead of an in-house POS).
Per the PCI DSS, you are not responsible for the PCI Compliance status of any service provider you may use; you are only responsible for knowing their PCI Compliance status, at which point you have to make a business decision. This is because the PCI DSS is about risk reduction, not lessening liability. Even if you're completely compliant, you are still 100% liable if sensitive information is determined to have been compromised while it was on "your turf."
Most service providers have terms that clearly state who has responsibility for sensitive information. If you outsource, that information is no longer your responsibility.
Outsourcing these kinds of things may also reduce your PCI Compliance profile, which would cut down on both your breach risk and compliance costs.
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29
"Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations."
Now re-read the bits about the UN wanting the internet with that last sentence in mind.
Yes, we're still evolving. The things being selected for may change, but we are evolving.
Citation? Let's try "delusional," "willfully ignorant," and "gullible."
Yes, get past someone's beliefs. That means that you seem to be unable to consider people as individuals. You prefer to judge them as a part of a group. You call people who disagree with you names, tell them that passing on their beliefs to the next generation is "abuse," and make no effort to see someone past their beliefs. Ridicule and call out beliefs all you want, but give individuals some credit. They believe (or don't) because they choose to.
That "evidence" you cite? It's not. I requested evidence that suggested that the people's beliefs who perpetrated those atrocities were responsible, yet you merely employ circular logic and assume your conclusions.
At this point, we're clearly done. For all that you speak of using logic and "thinking correctly," you've failed to demonstrate much capability at doing so.
Please refrain from name-calling. I have afforded you that courtesy. Also, could you please format your posts in a better way? I've found that double-spacing after paragraphs helps. Also, I'm more than capable of reading your posts. There's no need for capitalized letters on points you want to emphasize.
"Anyone that posits imaginary friends, like you do, contributes to the degradation of society/mankind," you say.
That's quite a statement. People believe all sorts of things. I don't particularly care about what they believe so much as what they do. If two men are Christians and one is an upstanding member of the community while the other is a member of Westboro Baptist Church, the onus of responsibility is on the individual, not their religion, all other things being equal. The inability to get past someone's beliefs as opposed to their actions is a form of prejudice. I can point to the differences between individual actions as direct evidence of my point. Do you have any evidence that faith is directly harmful to humanity, as opposed to the actions of individuals?
Reality doesn't care about what I believe so long as I don't try to impose my belief on it. I can believe all day long that gravity doesn't exist and reality won't care until I try to jump off of a building. So it is with my faith. If I choose to believe something such that my existence makes sense to me, what business is it of yours, or anyone else's, so long as I don't force it on others?
The post I was replying to could be read that way. I did qualify my statement. :-)
If you never said it, fair enough. I was just saying that was certainly one way to read your post because you expressed your opinion in such an absolute way.
Religion, like any belief system, does not force anyone to do anything. Choices are made by individuals. Just because a religion may say "thou shalt not kill" or "smite the unbelievers" or "Cthulhu ftagn!" does not mean that each follower of that religion will never kill, shoot some infidels, or await the return of the Great Old Ones. Religion influences, I'll grant you...but to assign to it the kind of control you seem to be doing ignores the capability of an individual to choose, and thus reality.
You say that lying to people about reality is never a good thing. In general, that's true. To speak it in absolute terms, though, is a step I hesitate to take. Further, your equating "lying to people about reality" and religion is fallacious. I'm a Christian, but I believe that evolution happened. To me, and many other religious people, faith isn't about telling people how the world got here but about answering questions of "why?" I'll tell someone why I believe what I do, but refrain from saying "this is the way it is, deal with it;" thus I avoid being deceitful. It is these kinds of believers that you denigrate when you speak of religion the way you do.
You say that it is not religion that has contributed to art. I agree. My post said that religion has done wonderful things for its believers. The contributions to our body of knowledge I mentioned came not from religion, but by people who believe in it. That's why the musical piece is called *Handel's* Messiah. I am glad that we agree here and that you can give credit where it's due for the good works. Why can you not do the same for the bad?
I believe in things that are real to me. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me that I'm lying to myself? If I try to convert you, you're within your rights to ask for evidence. Otherwise, live and let live, right?
I don't have kids, but if I did one day, I would raise them to reflect my beliefs as I'm sure you would yours. Fundamental to mine is the ability of right of all men to choose. I was raised in a very, very conservative fundamentalist sect, yet here I am talking to you instead of screaming at you about Hellfire. I was raised one way and eventually chose another. Give credit where credit is due.
I have never flown a plane into a building. Most religious people haven't.
It's not okay to tell anyone to believe in anything without questioning. Religion isn't the only thing that engenders blind faith.
Do away with religion, and you'll remove a critical piece of the human experience. You say the world will be a better place for it (between removing religion and education), but the truth of the matter is you don't know that. No one does. You *believe* that, for sure. There's a difference, however, between knowledge and belief.
Non-religious men have done terrible thing in the past, too. To say that religion is the sole force that turns good men bad ignores history. I'm not sure if that's your intended implication, but your post can certainly be read that way. You also completely ignore the good things that religion has done for it believers as well as the good things that its believers have done for the world. Contributions by religious men and women to the fields of science, art, music, medicine, philosophy are incalculable. the religious do not have a corner on the market of good deeds, for true, but pretending they're not even there is dishonest. This is not to exalt the religious and tarnish unbelievers: rather, it's meant to help one understand that there are good and bad on both sides of that divide. The implication there is that good and bad is a function of men, not necessarily of their beliefs.
You know, I could put in some other belief systems in place of Christianity in your first paragraph and it still hold true. Lots of belief systems...or just greed. I'm inclined to believe that it's people that cause the evil that you're talking about, and that belief systems such as Christianity are merely tools in the hands of men who would do those things.
"Gentlemen, we cannot allow an I Ching gap!" -Gen. Buck Turgidson
Please, please tell me you're being sarcastic, ironic, or employing a similar literary device with which we've all been heretofore unfamiliar. You don't think "genocide" is something that has ever happened in the real world? Really? What the hell do you actually know about World War II, the Armenian Genocide, Darfur, Bosnia, or any kind of history at all? No, it wouldn't make for a better world; it would make for an ignorant world.
2 million deaths during a time of war when you're expecting people to die versus a still as-yet uncounted number of people who die of starvation because of the government's standard operating procedure? And the export controls? We've given them food in exchange for promises to not build nukes. When you give someone something, you have every right to put strings and conditions on it. If they renege on their end of the deal (which they demonstrably have), you can't blame the people who were trying to help the situation. If you'd rather live in North Korea than Iraq, that's all you. Don't pretend that it's because the U.S. is some horrid monster of a superpower keeping others down, though.
Re: Home-schooled kids and social awkwardness, I have never seen anything to support this. I know many home-schooled kids (a lot of them went to my alma mater), and I've never known any who were any more socially awkward than anyone else.
I see what you did there. Your logic break down at a couple of points, though. First, you assume an equivalence between nations and an individual citizen where none exists. Individual citizens have rights. Governments do not. Second, when those individual citizens consent to form a government and police force, that force is not beholden to any one private citizen. There are citizens who are not cops. When nations agree to international law, they are expected to uphold it themselves; they're supposed to be their own cops, in other words. There are no nations designated as "cops."
And what force does international law have behind it? The idea that it exists by itself, independently of the power granted it by the consent of its signatories, is beyond laughable. No country is going to submit to international law if it perceives that submission as contrary to its interests.
And why is it cheaper to outsource manufacturing? Labor cost, which unions drive up, is a huge part of that. With nuclear energy you're a little more on, I think, but environmentalists and their legislation have increased the cost of doing business in the oil and nuclear industries both. Because we've been scared shitless to build new reactors in forever and a day, the advances in construction and maintenance techniques have (surprise!) not materialized out of thin air.
Can you think of a more effective way to avoid inter-state wars than to encourage dialogue? Because our leaders who lived thorugh and fought ww2 could not. Given that we haven't had a major war since then, they continue to have more experience than us in these matters.
Is the United Nations the actual reason why we haven't had a "major war" since WW2, or would that be US power looming over the international system, keeping trade routes open and actually doing the work of facilitating economic productivity? You may disagree with my leading questions, but I disagree with your absolutist declaration. Both of us have evidence, which means that for the time being, all of our evidence is non-conclusive.
Finally. I'm only saddened that it took criminal charges to get rid of that porker. I wonder how Sarah Palin is going to govern her state without all that federal money coming in?
The victory at Yorktown and the subsequent English abandonment of the conflict did far more to legitimize the new nation than did the Declaration. As high-minded and beautifully worded as the document is (and I do appreciate it), to hold it up to even the standard you described is simply an error. That is, unless you believe that our nation is in fact founded upon the notion that our rights stem from our created nature, and hence, a creator. I'm sure there are a few here who would argue that point more fiercely than any other you would care to present.