Wrong. A policy infraction can result in disciplinary action (termination, leave without pay, etc.). A law can result in legal action (fines, jail, etc.). A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.
There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.
Why do you say we are creatures in transition? Because we wage war more efficiently? More dispassionately? How can you believe we are evolving to something less horrible than we've been in the past? Look around the world in which you live.
Our own nation condones the act of killing unborn children to avoid the inconvenience of them. Crimes against children in the US are at all time highs, to the point that the Director of the FBI callis it a "growth industry". Our scholars and politicians entertain the value in allowing the elderly and sick to die so that the young and healthy are not burdened by them. We stick our loved ones in retirement homes and forget to visit for years at a time until they die alone, and our guilt isnt even deep enough to lose sleep over. People are murdered not because someone needs their shoes, but because the murderer likes the shoes. Billions of dollars are generated ligitmately every year through television programming based entirely on the display of real footage of human agony, and untold more in the grey and black markets of violent footage. And thats just the non-fiction programming. We as a culture are entertained by the horrific, with an undending stream of drama, game shows, and documentaries depicting the most dispicable of crimes. Even our news media sensationalizes pain and anguish in order to draw more viewers so that they may make more money, those we rely on to give us valuable information preying on our morbid curiosity.
There are dozens of people exploding themselves weekly in order to kill non-combatants, complete strangers. There's a renewed global black market slave trade trafficing in women and children. More slavery is ongoing and growing within African nations and elsewhere, thinly veiled as poorly treated "workers". There are nations that protect the right to kill women who have been tainted by rape, violated a second time by the state simply because they were violated first by a man. There are international criminal enterprises whose purpose is to poison millions with drugs, beheading those who stand in their way by the dozens at a time, even at America's border. There are nations throughout the world actively developing and producing chemical and biologic weapons capable of atrocities to millions at that we've not imagined in our worst nightmares. In most of the powerhouse nations of the world more is spent yearly on finding new ways to kill than on feeding the hungry. There are millions of people starving and abused globally, many directly caused by the neglect and oppression of their own governments, governments which we actively support through trade and treaty. The only places in the world that are currently enjoying a level of peace and stability have endured a massive war with casualities in the millions within the last century, and a century is a spec of evolutionary time.
You are a perfect example of this very subject. You are a case study for the denial of the reality you face each and every day. You have been convinced by a minority of people who wish for the world to be a loving and caring place that we're actually moving in a positive direction. You are blind to the sharp corners. You refuse to acknowledge not only the dangers pressing on you right now, but also the dangers lurking around the world. You are completely incapable of facing the truth, and would be completely unprepaired to deal with it if forced to.
And you claim we are in transition? You may be right, but it sure as hell isnt a transition into something less violent.
But today, we've mastered those dangers of our environment. Lions and bulls just aren't very scarey any more. Actually, they're kinda cute and now we're struggling to help THEM to survive.
So today we can ask that bear to pretty please not eat our kid while on a hike?
We can ask that river to pretty please not sweep us away and drown us?
We can ask that tornado to not demolish our home, or our entire town?
As much as the feel-good people want to insist that if we behave with perfect absence of violence we shall never be met with it, they are wrong. The world is violent and will continue to be until we're wiped from it. If you're so naive to believe that the world is not a danger to you then you are simply complacent within the bubble that's been constructed around you by well-meaning matrons in denial. The fact that every sharp corner around you has been concealed from under padding does not remove that sharp corner from the world, it simply makes you ill-equipped to deal with the fact that the world is filled with sharp corners. When you are eventually confronted with that reality you will blame anyone that exposed you to the corners and wholly fail to blame those that failed to equip you for the eventuality.
There are bad people who will do harm to anyone unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Even people who have been raised in beautiful serenity sometimes grow to be dangers. The human race has those among it predisposed to be predatory, and wishing that to be untrue makes it no less so. Yes, a nurturing environment reduces that likelyhood, but the possibility is forever there. Disarming society by tool and spirit prevents nothing except the ability for society to defend itself when faced with the inevitable.
You've misunderstood his point. He's saying there isnt a power specific to protection that is apart from violence. The ability to protect is reliant on the power of destruction or voilence, or at the least the threat of it. It's a rather poignant philosophy, actually.
The graphs [jaredbernsteinblog.com] tell the tale, when the stimulus kicked in jobs recovered, when it began to phase out, job growth stalled -- all the while Obama has proposed additional stimulus and gotten thwacked in the knockers for it every time.
Snippet from the article:
Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.
There are fewer workers in the nation today than there were at Obama's inauguration. By the most generous of perspectives Obama's stimulus and policies have stopped additional increases in the jobless, but there has never been a recovery in jobless numbers. What's reported to you as unemployment is only those recieving unemployment benefits, which end after 99 weeks, roughly when the graphs you cite as evidence of the successs of the Stimulus kick in.
It may be that the country doesn't want health care reform,...
False.
I've never heard anyone say that healthcare reform isn't desired, or needed. The majority of citizens just didn't want the healtcare reform as proposed by this administration, nor agree with the method in which it was passed.
Perhaps he didn't expect the second two years of his presidency to be so hard?
There were many reputable economists stating plainly that things were going to get worse if we continued on the same course, specifically if we spent enormous amounts of money we had to borrow. There were pundants discussing the hazards at length. If you recall these people were condemned as alarmists, naysayers, and racists...
I might want that, because the government guy at the very least doesn't have a short-term financial incentive to skimp on doing a decent job of it.
Short-term? No. Long-term? Absolutely. You start pointing out that your supervisors, coworkers and senior IT architects are idiots and your career path starts looking like a dead-end dirt road.
When the pricetag is a surrender of rights the people should always be in opposition. Even if they think they are getting a great deal they arent, and they are choosing a loss of freedom not just for themselves but for all later generations.
The people oppose single payer because they understand that it is giving up choice. While a single payer system may give choice to some it inherently takes choice from others. When you govern by taking freedom from one to give to another you have deviated from the purpose of the Constitution. The irony is that you have tried to address inequality by dictating exactly that, and it frightens me that so many people seem completely ignorant to the fact.
And yet the polls of Americans asking specificly about personal mandate provision are overwhelmingly in opposition. The capstone that holds the whole thing up relies on something that the people (not just Repulicans) oppose.
Why is it that people like you are perfectly happy to stomach a power grab contrary to the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, and excuse a circumvention of proper representation through Congress, by insisting that THIS President wont abuse it? Is it ignorance or denial that keeps you from reconciling that every future President and administration now has the same powers?
I don't particularly care if the guy in the oval office today is the most benevolant, magnanimous and righteous person to have ever graced this Earth (and I dont believe that for a second). Its his duty to understand that the office may not always be occupied by such an angelic human being, and granting that future President the ability to have dominion over the populace is grossly irresponsible at best, and in conflict with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
If your goal is to exfiltrate data you dont want to crash the system. You want as little evidence of your presence as possible. You'd probably want to propogate your code to that network wherever possible as well. You would have to execute in order to accomplish that.
By your rationale it is understandable for every innocent person accused of any crime to refuse being taken into custody and tried because they might be falsely found guilty. And of course, only the innocent people would make this refusal...
So you require that the company commit to you and invest in you for the long term while making it patently obvious that you have no intention of the same. And the company is the greedy self-indulged party in the transaction....
When there is no shortage of a thing, the value of that thing declines. That's basic economics and it doesnt even have anything to do with capitalism. The same is just as true in any economic system. My recurring trade with you of a pig for a basket of fruit might have to be renogotiated in times of scarcity of fruit.
There are only two corrections to this simple truth; decrease those looking for work, or increase those offering work. Since the former would be nonsense, get pissed at those making the latter less and less likely.
If you scroll back and reread the thread, I began participating because Kenja said science doesnt change. It does, by its nature, demonstrated by the example of states of matter. If science never changed its position then the inference would be that we knew everything or were too arrogant to accept our mistakes.
We believe to be true that which our current science supports. We accept that science might force us to re-evaluate our position as it changes.
Religion and belief rooted in faith are another matter entirely.
As one who went back to school several years ago after being out for 2 decades I can say with confidence that today's universities deliver a fraction of the value they once did. I dont which is more sad; that I was paying $3000 per class for knowledge I was forced to demonstrate understanding of in high school, or that I was writing tutorials for classmates that were falling behind.
You stated that more than two thousand years ago, people knew the 'truth' about the paths of planetary objects in our solar system. I just pointed out that in the general timeframe people 'knew' something we think of as fantasy. Others in the same time frame 'knew' that both the moon and Sun orbited the Earth. The point is that at the time what people 'knew' to be true was as close to our definition of Science as possible, especially in the latter case where it was based on observed information instead of tradition and culture. The point is that Kenja must concede that 'Science' does in fact change as our understanding of our surroundings changes.
Before 1879 science had determined that there were exactly three states of matter; Liquid, Solid, and Gas. But in 1879 Sir WIlliam Crookes identified a new state which later became excepted by science; Plasma. Science changed. The fact that previous understanding was proved incorrect doesnt change its classification as science. In a fundimental way science is the process of discovery, therefore by it's nature it must change to fulfill its purpose.
How so? More than two thousand years ago observers had seen eclipses, and realized what they mean.
Different cultures came to different conclusions. Not much more than two thousand years ago many believed the Sun was the the god Helios driving his flaming
chariot across the sky every day.
I'm in full support. Stop teaching religion, atheism, anti-capitalism, pro-socialism, right-wing conspiracy theories, zealotous environmentalism (not to be confused with valid conservationism), and overt sexuality.
It's not a teacher's job to tell my kid what to think. It's their job to teach them how to think for themselves.
Oh, you mean like how obsverable data demonstrated how the Sun revolves around the earth?
Whether you realize it or not, you are defining only the most recent iteration of understanding as Science, and all else as belief. But logically you are also stating that every belief has once been Science. And also logically, Science has changed.
Perhaps schools should stick to teaching these things we'd like our students to excel in, and stop spending the valuable time (and money) in classrooms telling kids what they should believe on social issues...
I'd like to have a camera installed in all rooms of your house. It's just a nudge to discourage you from making irresponsible decisions like child or spousal abuse. After all, what's the harm? It's for your own good.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. A policy infraction can result in disciplinary action (termination, leave without pay, etc.). A law can result in legal action (fines, jail, etc.). A policy cannot itself result in legal action, unless the policy reinforces existing law.
There's a policy at my job (in government) that disallows wearing shorts or sandals in the office. I cant be fined or arrested if I fail to comply.
Why do you say we are creatures in transition? Because we wage war more efficiently? More dispassionately? How can you believe we are evolving to something less horrible than we've been in the past? Look around the world in which you live.
Our own nation condones the act of killing unborn children to avoid the inconvenience of them. Crimes against children in the US are at all time highs, to the point that the Director of the FBI callis it a "growth industry". Our scholars and politicians entertain the value in allowing the elderly and sick to die so that the young and healthy are not burdened by them. We stick our loved ones in retirement homes and forget to visit for years at a time until they die alone, and our guilt isnt even deep enough to lose sleep over. People are murdered not because someone needs their shoes, but because the murderer likes the shoes. Billions of dollars are generated ligitmately every year through television programming based entirely on the display of real footage of human agony, and untold more in the grey and black markets of violent footage. And thats just the non-fiction programming. We as a culture are entertained by the horrific, with an undending stream of drama, game shows, and documentaries depicting the most dispicable of crimes. Even our news media sensationalizes pain and anguish in order to draw more viewers so that they may make more money, those we rely on to give us valuable information preying on our morbid curiosity.
There are dozens of people exploding themselves weekly in order to kill non-combatants, complete strangers. There's a renewed global black market slave trade trafficing in women and children. More slavery is ongoing and growing within African nations and elsewhere, thinly veiled as poorly treated "workers". There are nations that protect the right to kill women who have been tainted by rape, violated a second time by the state simply because they were violated first by a man. There are international criminal enterprises whose purpose is to poison millions with drugs, beheading those who stand in their way by the dozens at a time, even at America's border. There are nations throughout the world actively developing and producing chemical and biologic weapons capable of atrocities to millions at that we've not imagined in our worst nightmares. In most of the powerhouse nations of the world more is spent yearly on finding new ways to kill than on feeding the hungry. There are millions of people starving and abused globally, many directly caused by the neglect and oppression of their own governments, governments which we actively support through trade and treaty. The only places in the world that are currently enjoying a level of peace and stability have endured a massive war with casualities in the millions within the last century, and a century is a spec of evolutionary time.
You are a perfect example of this very subject. You are a case study for the denial of the reality you face each and every day. You have been convinced by a minority of people who wish for the world to be a loving and caring place that we're actually moving in a positive direction. You are blind to the sharp corners. You refuse to acknowledge not only the dangers pressing on you right now, but also the dangers lurking around the world. You are completely incapable of facing the truth, and would be completely unprepaired to deal with it if forced to.
And you claim we are in transition? You may be right, but it sure as hell isnt a transition into something less violent.
But today, we've mastered those dangers of our environment. Lions and bulls just aren't very scarey any more. Actually, they're kinda cute and now we're struggling to help THEM to survive.
So today we can ask that bear to pretty please not eat our kid while on a hike? We can ask that river to pretty please not sweep us away and drown us? We can ask that tornado to not demolish our home, or our entire town?
As much as the feel-good people want to insist that if we behave with perfect absence of violence we shall never be met with it, they are wrong. The world is violent and will continue to be until we're wiped from it. If you're so naive to believe that the world is not a danger to you then you are simply complacent within the bubble that's been constructed around you by well-meaning matrons in denial. The fact that every sharp corner around you has been concealed from under padding does not remove that sharp corner from the world, it simply makes you ill-equipped to deal with the fact that the world is filled with sharp corners. When you are eventually confronted with that reality you will blame anyone that exposed you to the corners and wholly fail to blame those that failed to equip you for the eventuality. There are bad people who will do harm to anyone unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Even people who have been raised in beautiful serenity sometimes grow to be dangers. The human race has those among it predisposed to be predatory, and wishing that to be untrue makes it no less so. Yes, a nurturing environment reduces that likelyhood, but the possibility is forever there. Disarming society by tool and spirit prevents nothing except the ability for society to defend itself when faced with the inevitable.
If Christians believed that all violence was bad they would be forced to condemn the actions of the Arch Angels.
You've misunderstood his point. He's saying there isnt a power specific to protection that is apart from violence. The ability to protect is reliant on the power of destruction or voilence, or at the least the threat of it. It's a rather poignant philosophy, actually.
The graphs [jaredbernsteinblog.com] tell the tale, when the stimulus kicked in jobs recovered, when it began to phase out, job growth stalled -- all the while Obama has proposed additional stimulus and gotten thwacked in the knockers for it every time.
Snippet from the article:
Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 percent in 2010 to 8.9 percent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.
There are fewer workers in the nation today than there were at Obama's inauguration. By the most generous of perspectives Obama's stimulus and policies have stopped additional increases in the jobless, but there has never been a recovery in jobless numbers. What's reported to you as unemployment is only those recieving unemployment benefits, which end after 99 weeks, roughly when the graphs you cite as evidence of the successs of the Stimulus kick in.
It may be that the country doesn't want health care reform,...
False.
I've never heard anyone say that healthcare reform isn't desired, or needed. The majority of citizens just didn't want the healtcare reform as proposed by this administration, nor agree with the method in which it was passed.
Perhaps he didn't expect the second two years of his presidency to be so hard?
There were many reputable economists stating plainly that things were going to get worse if we continued on the same course, specifically if we spent enormous amounts of money we had to borrow. There were pundants discussing the hazards at length. If you recall these people were condemned as alarmists, naysayers, and racists...
Has /. actually stooped so low has to post hacker how-to's? Really? When will it open the game cheats section, and the "used software" trade service...
I might want that, because the government guy at the very least doesn't have a short-term financial incentive to skimp on doing a decent job of it.
Short-term? No. Long-term? Absolutely. You start pointing out that your supervisors, coworkers and senior IT architects are idiots and your career path starts looking like a dead-end dirt road.
When the pricetag is a surrender of rights the people should always be in opposition. Even if they think they are getting a great deal they arent, and they are choosing a loss of freedom not just for themselves but for all later generations.
The people oppose single payer because they understand that it is giving up choice. While a single payer system may give choice to some it inherently takes choice from others. When you govern by taking freedom from one to give to another you have deviated from the purpose of the Constitution. The irony is that you have tried to address inequality by dictating exactly that, and it frightens me that so many people seem completely ignorant to the fact.
And yet the polls of Americans asking specificly about personal mandate provision are overwhelmingly in opposition. The capstone that holds the whole thing up relies on something that the people (not just Repulicans) oppose.
Why is it that people like you are perfectly happy to stomach a power grab contrary to the freedoms ensured by the Constitution, and excuse a circumvention of proper representation through Congress, by insisting that THIS President wont abuse it? Is it ignorance or denial that keeps you from reconciling that every future President and administration now has the same powers?
I don't particularly care if the guy in the oval office today is the most benevolant, magnanimous and righteous person to have ever graced this Earth (and I dont believe that for a second). Its his duty to understand that the office may not always be occupied by such an angelic human being, and granting that future President the ability to have dominion over the populace is grossly irresponsible at best, and in conflict with the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
If your goal is to steal the company's trade secrets this is a microscopic investment for a potential cash windfall.
If your goal is to exfiltrate data you dont want to crash the system. You want as little evidence of your presence as possible. You'd probably want to propogate your code to that network wherever possible as well. You would have to execute in order to accomplish that.
By your rationale it is understandable for every innocent person accused of any crime to refuse being taken into custody and tried because they might be falsely found guilty. And of course, only the innocent people would make this refusal...
So you require that the company commit to you and invest in you for the long term while making it patently obvious that you have no intention of the same. And the company is the greedy self-indulged party in the transaction....
When there is no shortage of a thing, the value of that thing declines. That's basic economics and it doesnt even have anything to do with capitalism. The same is just as true in any economic system. My recurring trade with you of a pig for a basket of fruit might have to be renogotiated in times of scarcity of fruit.
There are only two corrections to this simple truth; decrease those looking for work, or increase those offering work. Since the former would be nonsense, get pissed at those making the latter less and less likely.
If you scroll back and reread the thread, I began participating because Kenja said science doesnt change. It does, by its nature, demonstrated by the example of states of matter. If science never changed its position then the inference would be that we knew everything or were too arrogant to accept our mistakes.
We believe to be true that which our current science supports. We accept that science might force us to re-evaluate our position as it changes.
Religion and belief rooted in faith are another matter entirely.
As one who went back to school several years ago after being out for 2 decades I can say with confidence that today's universities deliver a fraction of the value they once did. I dont which is more sad; that I was paying $3000 per class for knowledge I was forced to demonstrate understanding of in high school, or that I was writing tutorials for classmates that were falling behind.
You stated that more than two thousand years ago, people knew the 'truth' about the paths of planetary objects in our solar system. I just pointed out that in the general timeframe people 'knew' something we think of as fantasy. Others in the same time frame 'knew' that both the moon and Sun orbited the Earth. The point is that at the time what people 'knew' to be true was as close to our definition of Science as possible, especially in the latter case where it was based on observed information instead of tradition and culture. The point is that Kenja must concede that 'Science' does in fact change as our understanding of our surroundings changes.
Before 1879 science had determined that there were exactly three states of matter; Liquid, Solid, and Gas. But in 1879 Sir WIlliam Crookes identified a new state which later became excepted by science; Plasma. Science changed. The fact that previous understanding was proved incorrect doesnt change its classification as science. In a fundimental way science is the process of discovery, therefore by it's nature it must change to fulfill its purpose.
How so? More than two thousand years ago observers had seen eclipses, and realized what they mean.
Different cultures came to different conclusions. Not much more than two thousand years ago many believed the Sun was the the god Helios driving his flaming chariot across the sky every day.
I'm in full support. Stop teaching religion, atheism, anti-capitalism, pro-socialism, right-wing conspiracy theories, zealotous environmentalism (not to be confused with valid conservationism), and overt sexuality.
It's not a teacher's job to tell my kid what to think. It's their job to teach them how to think for themselves.
Oh, you mean like how obsverable data demonstrated how the Sun revolves around the earth?
Whether you realize it or not, you are defining only the most recent iteration of understanding as Science, and all else as belief. But logically you are also stating that every belief has once been Science. And also logically, Science has changed.
Perhaps schools should stick to teaching these things we'd like our students to excel in, and stop spending the valuable time (and money) in classrooms telling kids what they should believe on social issues...
I'd like to have a camera installed in all rooms of your house. It's just a nudge to discourage you from making irresponsible decisions like child or spousal abuse. After all, what's the harm? It's for your own good.