If your intentions are to avoid the police and unnecessary search/detainment you'd do well to learn how social interactions work. Dealing with the police is not a math or computer science problem whereby ignoring a friendly remark by them and whipping your car around you've somehow chosen a different logic circuit which makes it impossible for them to detain or grow more suspicious of you. Yes, everything you say can be used in court, so don't say anything they can use. A simple "Sorry officer, I can't help you" in response to asking about men with ski masks is going to garner a lot less suspicion and not going to be usable than simply ignoring them and trying to walk away. Which sounds worse on a police report?
When asked about the masked gunman suspect became nervous, ignored questions from the officer and attempted to quickly leave the scene.
When asked about the masked gunman suspect apologized for not being able to help the officer with his question.
Same with whipping your car around when you see police at what you don't know is either a checkpoint or a simple detour. Guess what they do when you whip your car around at a DUI checkpoint. Your efforts at avoiding any unnecessary contact with police are going to backfire.
No. A whistle-blower generally has a specific problem they are trying to resolve and that could not be resolved when they tried taking it up their normal chain of command. If the PFC had just leaked the helicopter gunship video in order to try to get that taken care of it could potentially be considered whistle-blowing (though still highly illegal the cause could be a bit more understood). Leaking 70,000 documents (most of which you can guarantee he didn't read) cannot be seen as whistle-blowing under any stretch of the imagination.
Whistle blowing would have been contacting the media, saying there's a problem without needlessly revealing classified documents. Asking to speak to congressional oversight committees. There's more than a few senators/congressmen that would love to earn their stripes taking on abuse/scandal in the war an embarrass one administration or the other if it exists. Whistle-blowing does not entail breaking both the law and your oath and putting soldiers and Afghani Civilians who have cooperated against the Taliban in harms way.
Lastly it's called whistle-blowing for a reason. Your making noise and taking a stand. did this guy tell his superiors he thought something was wrong? did he lodge complaints and pass them up his CoC? did he contact JAG? Congress? did he do anything to try to identify whatever "situation" he was blowing a whistle on before releasing thousands of classified documents? This guy is an insult to actual whistle blowers who stand up over issues they believe need to be resolved. He's not taking a stand, he's just leaking classified documents while trying to hide and the volume and nature of the content (nothing we didn't really already know other than specific names of people in theater) makes it clear he has just a general beef and not any specific situation he's concerned with.
Ask a random sampling of people in prison for killing other people if they consider themselves murderers. I suspect a majority do not consider what they did 'murder' either.
Teachers in public education are not on a completely open market, they are paid by the State and Local Government which is paid by tax payers which hold the government accountable by voting and since pretty much every tax payer has already been through education they generally love to talk about how teachers should be paid more but put it to a vote and you'll see they're a little less altruistic about ensuring the future generation is way smarter and can take their jobs sooner;)
The risk is long term and hard to identify. If John Doe can't add and causes an error that causes 200 people to die it's pretty hard to trace the blame back to little Johny's third grade teacher instead of just blaming John himself. Inversely, when a CEO of a company fucks up and 400,000 people lose their jobs/pensions it's pretty darn easy to blame the CEO. That's why you're angry with CEO's right this second and not their parent's or teachers for not instilling better ability/morals in them so it should be an easy point to grasp.
Distribution of responsibility/False comparison. You're comparing the responsibility of the entire United States Education System (each child will have dozens of teachers and hundreds of people supporting them) and then comparing the sum responsibility for "entire generations" of students to a single teacher's salary against a CEO's salary who is singularly responsible for the entire show on his end.
If you're literally sitting there paying them to teach you something they damn well better know something you don't, otherwise your wasting your money. Also, you've got a bit of a paradox here unless you want someone in the situation to bow down and act like they don't have anymore knowledge than the other party. Someone has to have more knowledge than the other and one would certainly hope it's the person standing at the front of the class being paid to give it out.
I'm confused, college seemed to be a lot more accepting of free spirited or go against the flow type individualism than society in general. How exactly would you structure an institution whose purpose is to teach people and give certifications that are meant to approximate basic understanding of a field in order to avoid your currently general and unsupported claim to "collectivist indoctrination"?
As long as it wasn't the Navy's, Air Force's, Army's, Marine's, Local Police Department's or Boy Scout's website they stole I think the Coast Guard has a fair chance of fighting off any reprisal attack.
How do you figure sportsfan? The investor has the most power to decide how their money is managed, that's why they're called the investor. If you invested with a company that told you they're going to take your money and invest it according to their own plan that's your fault for investing in that company instead of choosing a firm that allows you to pick and choose your investments directly in the market.
Saying the investor has the least ability to manage how their money is invested because of the existence of we'll-handle-it-for-you investment firms is like saying you went to a Nissan dealership and are mad you didn't get any choices to buy a brand new Ford.
I'm confused, are we talking personal risks? Are you seriously looking for personal risks to justify CEO salary? Because that's not how salaries work, otherwise policeman, firefighters, fisherman and lumberjacks would be the hands down highest paid jobs in the world.
The risk is to the company, it's employees and it's shareholders. The company pays a large salary because they want to attract the best because the position they are filling puts all those people at extreme risk if mismanaged. Usually they already have someone in mind and are trying to convince that person to take the job.
I can feel your next question coming and I'm guessing it's: "That's the problem, if they don't have any personal risk then what motivation do they have to do their jobs well?!"
Well, for starters, the same could be said for just about anyone from the top down. no one has their testicles hooked up to a transformer box and the power's gonna be switched on if we don't do our jobs correctly so something in the human condition must motivate people to do good work besides the stick in the form of personal legal/financial liability.
Maybe it's just plain drive to do a good job. Maybe it's drive to succeed so you can get a better job. Maybe it's vanity in that you want the admiration of peers and to be thought of as a great worker or leader or maybe it's the extremely unlikely case that that person has been gaming the system working as hard as possible their entire life making millions already and now that their going to get one last job making millions their gonna say F it and do a lousy job. But that happens with people in middle management and even construction all the time too and it's the board's and company's responsibility to watch out for that an replace them if it's the case. Whatever it is, smart companies usually aim to hire CEO's that have been successful at running divisions/companies in the past and since these people have demonstrated the capability to succeed they are a hot commodity and therefore able to negotiate for far higher compensation.
Have you noticed most people aren't exactly poor BEFORE they get offered the CEO position of a fortune 500 company? It's a high paying job because of the risk to the company not the risk to the CEO as a person. Because the CEO can F up the company it's worth it to the company to try to get the best person they can in there, hence the extremely alluring salary used to recruit people who are already well-off leaders of business that they trust.
Think about how you hire security. The risk to the security officer varies a little bit between a mall rent-a-cop and celebrity body guard but you pay the celebrity body guard much more money because it's worth it to you to have the best, not because the bodyguard is in sooooo much more danger that no one would take the job at a lower price.
There are no risks in running a successful financial firm in the same way there are no risks in buying a winning lottery ticket. But if a firm was guaranteed to be successful no matter who was running it either everyone would be running their own or whoever hired that boss wouldn't bother paying them anything.
It's even better than that. The image is owned by the boingboing blog author so he'd have to convince the author sue himself for violating his own CC license.
Haha, that's even better! I didn't pick that up, just saw the user name as jtrant or whatever for the photostream. So this pissant is whining about someone using THEIR OWN picture and licensing it under CC.
NOTHING at all in common...except for the GP's ONLY point which was that they are in general only enforced by the owning party so if you don't defend them there's little reason to have them (unless you want to keep other people from taking/defending them). They are also both intellectual property and there is a host of other similarities but let's not let the broad picture truth distract us from bashing someone for some legal differences that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
The difference is guilty people respond with fear and shame whereas innocent people are more likely to respond with fear and outrage and then go call their Facility Security Officer or local FBI branch about the attempted slander/blackmail.
Unsubstantiated porn allegations carry a fear of a stigma, but blackmailing someone for state secrets while working for a foreign government carry a fear of a wall and a firing squad or a dark room and a bucket of water so when the risks of an asset turning on you goes up appreciably it tends not to be worth it.
If by "background research" you mean finding one off video clips that can out of context contradict and be hilarious then yes. If you mean background research like find the heart of a complicated issue cutting through the tag lines of both sides to see the actual pros and cons of both approaches rather then whatever extremes will make people laugh, then no.
Good catch. I don't see flashing lights but him looking behind him like that makes me think the car probably did the quick 1 off siren to pull him over. Well this alleviates the likelihood the off duty cop could have been confused for a mugger it doesn't quite excuse the failure of protocol of always badge and identification first. But clearly the failure to do so wasn't as dire as I originally believed.
I'm sure all of the family and friends of the 19 men killed and 84 wounded in Mogadishu appreciate you telling them that now we don't even consider them our countrymen in addition to withdrawing and sweeping them under the rug after their mission failed.
Not every war is for resources. China won the bid for copper over US and Canadian companies in 2007 and they are likely the ones to benefit most from the lithium deposits.
If your looking for a reason for the Afghan war you needn't look further than the thousands of graves we dug due to terrorist attacks on our soil perpetrated by an organization based in their country, and protected by their government. No nation with such overwhelming capability to respond would ever choose not to when faced with such an attack and I don't remember many American citizens feeling differently at the time. No one was going to accept some simple air strikes of the Clinton-Iraq style, people wanted troops on the ground, and everyone responsible dead or in prison. To claim it's all about the minerals would mean the 9/11 attacks were allowed or perpetrated just so we had an excuse to go get some minerals.
The reports show that the smaller incidents were just as insidious and alienating, turning Afghans who had once welcomed Americans as liberators against the war.
Afghan police officers shot a local driver who tried to speed through their checkpoint on a country road in Ghazni Province south of Kabul. The police had set up a temporary checkpoint on the highway just outside the main town in the district of Ab Band.
“A car approached the check point at a high rate of speed,” the report said. All the police officers fled the checkpoint except one. As the car passed the checkpoint it knocked down the lone policeman. He fired at the vehicle, apparently thinking that it was a suicide car bomber.
“The driver of the vehicle was killed,” the report said. “No IED [improvised explosive device] was found and vehicle was destroyed.”
The police officer was detained in the provincial capital, Ghazni, and questioned. He was then released. The American mentoring the police concluded in his assessment that the policeman’s use of force was appropriate. Rather than acknowledging the public hostility such episodes often engender, the report found a benefit: it suggested that the shooting would make Afghans take greater care at checkpoints in the future.
“Effects on the populace clearly identify the importance of stopping at checkpoints,” the report concluded
.
Insidious? Let me get this straight. The dude sped his car so fast at a police check point that all but one of the officers fled in fear of their lives, that officer got KNOCKED OVER by the speeding car, and then he shot the driver. And we're supposed to feel like this is unnecessary use of violence that turns the population against us? Really? Of all the things that are happening over there we're going to complain that civilians can't safely run over policemen with their cars?
I don't know about the rest of the world but I don't think there's a state in the US where I would expect to run a DUI checkpoint and knock a cop over with my car without getting shot dead and I think that's perfectly fair. If your driving a 2 ton chunk of metal right at me you can bet your ass I wouldn't think twice about firing a couple 7g chunks of metal at you
Soldiers: There were guys with AK-47's and RPG's and the tripods the journalists had looked like more RPG's
Wiki leaks: There's no way you should have misidentified those tripod's as RPG's and the RPG's those insurgents were carrying looked exactly like camera tripods to us anyways
In regards to point 1 I think it is highly disingenuous to say that because they released a 40 minute unedited video that relieves them of any responsibility or leaning in the shorter edited version that clearly the majority of the people are going to watch.
RPG, which was that in their opinion, the supposed RPG may have been a camera tripod
This makes me question whether you, or wikileaks themselves have even bothered watching all of the unedited version. When the first ground forces arrive to secure the scene one of them radios that there is in fact an un-fired RPG by one of the bodies that needs to be taken care of.
The only possible ways to explain this away is to assume a soldier on the ground misidentified an RPG that he was close enough to touch (insanely unlikely) or it requires the first guys there on the ground to be already in on a cover-up for something they just arrived to, didn't take part in causing, and didn't have any reason yet to believe that a cover-up needed up happen.
Slashdot Mirror
If your intentions are to avoid the police and unnecessary search/detainment you'd do well to learn how social interactions work. Dealing with the police is not a math or computer science problem whereby ignoring a friendly remark by them and whipping your car around you've somehow chosen a different logic circuit which makes it impossible for them to detain or grow more suspicious of you. Yes, everything you say can be used in court, so don't say anything they can use. A simple "Sorry officer, I can't help you" in response to asking about men with ski masks is going to garner a lot less suspicion and not going to be usable than simply ignoring them and trying to walk away. Which sounds worse on a police report?
Same with whipping your car around when you see police at what you don't know is either a checkpoint or a simple detour. Guess what they do when you whip your car around at a DUI checkpoint. Your efforts at avoiding any unnecessary contact with police are going to backfire.
No. A whistle-blower generally has a specific problem they are trying to resolve and that could not be resolved when they tried taking it up their normal chain of command. If the PFC had just leaked the helicopter gunship video in order to try to get that taken care of it could potentially be considered whistle-blowing (though still highly illegal the cause could be a bit more understood). Leaking 70,000 documents (most of which you can guarantee he didn't read) cannot be seen as whistle-blowing under any stretch of the imagination.
Whistle blowing would have been contacting the media, saying there's a problem without needlessly revealing classified documents. Asking to speak to congressional oversight committees. There's more than a few senators/congressmen that would love to earn their stripes taking on abuse/scandal in the war an embarrass one administration or the other if it exists. Whistle-blowing does not entail breaking both the law and your oath and putting soldiers and Afghani Civilians who have cooperated against the Taliban in harms way.
Lastly it's called whistle-blowing for a reason. Your making noise and taking a stand. did this guy tell his superiors he thought something was wrong? did he lodge complaints and pass them up his CoC? did he contact JAG? Congress? did he do anything to try to identify whatever "situation" he was blowing a whistle on before releasing thousands of classified documents? This guy is an insult to actual whistle blowers who stand up over issues they believe need to be resolved. He's not taking a stand, he's just leaking classified documents while trying to hide and the volume and nature of the content (nothing we didn't really already know other than specific names of people in theater) makes it clear he has just a general beef and not any specific situation he's concerned with.
Ask a random sampling of people in prison for killing other people if they consider themselves murderers. I suspect a majority do not consider what they did 'murder' either.
they all acted like they know something we don't.
If you're literally sitting there paying them to teach you something they damn well better know something you don't, otherwise your wasting your money. Also, you've got a bit of a paradox here unless you want someone in the situation to bow down and act like they don't have anymore knowledge than the other party. Someone has to have more knowledge than the other and one would certainly hope it's the person standing at the front of the class being paid to give it out.
I'm confused, college seemed to be a lot more accepting of free spirited or go against the flow type individualism than society in general. How exactly would you structure an institution whose purpose is to teach people and give certifications that are meant to approximate basic understanding of a field in order to avoid your currently general and unsupported claim to "collectivist indoctrination"?
As long as it wasn't the Navy's, Air Force's, Army's, Marine's, Local Police Department's or Boy Scout's website they stole I think the Coast Guard has a fair chance of fighting off any reprisal attack.
How do you figure sportsfan? The investor has the most power to decide how their money is managed, that's why they're called the investor. If you invested with a company that told you they're going to take your money and invest it according to their own plan that's your fault for investing in that company instead of choosing a firm that allows you to pick and choose your investments directly in the market.
Saying the investor has the least ability to manage how their money is invested because of the existence of we'll-handle-it-for-you investment firms is like saying you went to a Nissan dealership and are mad you didn't get any choices to buy a brand new Ford.
I'm confused, are we talking personal risks? Are you seriously looking for personal risks to justify CEO salary? Because that's not how salaries work, otherwise policeman, firefighters, fisherman and lumberjacks would be the hands down highest paid jobs in the world.
The risk is to the company, it's employees and it's shareholders. The company pays a large salary because they want to attract the best because the position they are filling puts all those people at extreme risk if mismanaged. Usually they already have someone in mind and are trying to convince that person to take the job.
I can feel your next question coming and I'm guessing it's: "That's the problem, if they don't have any personal risk then what motivation do they have to do their jobs well?!"
Well, for starters, the same could be said for just about anyone from the top down. no one has their testicles hooked up to a transformer box and the power's gonna be switched on if we don't do our jobs correctly so something in the human condition must motivate people to do good work besides the stick in the form of personal legal/financial liability.
Maybe it's just plain drive to do a good job. Maybe it's drive to succeed so you can get a better job. Maybe it's vanity in that you want the admiration of peers and to be thought of as a great worker or leader or maybe it's the extremely unlikely case that that person has been gaming the system working as hard as possible their entire life making millions already and now that their going to get one last job making millions their gonna say F it and do a lousy job. But that happens with people in middle management and even construction all the time too and it's the board's and company's responsibility to watch out for that an replace them if it's the case. Whatever it is, smart companies usually aim to hire CEO's that have been successful at running divisions/companies in the past and since these people have demonstrated the capability to succeed they are a hot commodity and therefore able to negotiate for far higher compensation.
He's clearly not new, he already wants to leave his job for the better paying one ;)
Have you noticed most people aren't exactly poor BEFORE they get offered the CEO position of a fortune 500 company? It's a high paying job because of the risk to the company not the risk to the CEO as a person. Because the CEO can F up the company it's worth it to the company to try to get the best person they can in there, hence the extremely alluring salary used to recruit people who are already well-off leaders of business that they trust.
Think about how you hire security. The risk to the security officer varies a little bit between a mall rent-a-cop and celebrity body guard but you pay the celebrity body guard much more money because it's worth it to you to have the best, not because the bodyguard is in sooooo much more danger that no one would take the job at a lower price.
There are no risks in running a successful financial firm in the same way there are no risks in buying a winning lottery ticket. But if a firm was guaranteed to be successful no matter who was running it either everyone would be running their own or whoever hired that boss wouldn't bother paying them anything.
It's even better than that. The image is owned by the boingboing blog author so he'd have to convince the author sue himself for violating his own CC license.
Haha, that's even better! I didn't pick that up, just saw the user name as jtrant or whatever for the photostream. So this pissant is whining about someone using THEIR OWN picture and licensing it under CC.
NOTHING at all in common...except for the GP's ONLY point which was that they are in general only enforced by the owning party so if you don't defend them there's little reason to have them (unless you want to keep other people from taking/defending them). They are also both intellectual property and there is a host of other similarities but let's not let the broad picture truth distract us from bashing someone for some legal differences that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
The "vendor" (it's a blog) isn't telling people to stay away from it, it's literally linked back to that dude's photostream and describes the license which means the vendor thinks they're following the license and doesn't think their blog is commercial use despite the ads. And he probably hasn't gotten a response back from the guy because he emailed him about a blog post that is titled Gone Fishin because the dude literally fucking left to go camping in the woods and included a photo of a hammock. Give me a break.
The difference is guilty people respond with fear and shame whereas innocent people are more likely to respond with fear and outrage and then go call their Facility Security Officer or local FBI branch about the attempted slander/blackmail.
Unsubstantiated porn allegations carry a fear of a stigma, but blackmailing someone for state secrets while working for a foreign government carry a fear of a wall and a firing squad or a dark room and a bucket of water so when the risks of an asset turning on you goes up appreciably it tends not to be worth it.
If by "background research" you mean finding one off video clips that can out of context contradict and be hilarious then yes. If you mean background research like find the heart of a complicated issue cutting through the tag lines of both sides to see the actual pros and cons of both approaches rather then whatever extremes will make people laugh, then no.
Good catch. I don't see flashing lights but him looking behind him like that makes me think the car probably did the quick 1 off siren to pull him over. Well this alleviates the likelihood the off duty cop could have been confused for a mugger it doesn't quite excuse the failure of protocol of always badge and identification first. But clearly the failure to do so wasn't as dire as I originally believed.
I'm sure all of the family and friends of the 19 men killed and 84 wounded in Mogadishu appreciate you telling them that now we don't even consider them our countrymen in addition to withdrawing and sweeping them under the rug after their mission failed.
Is this shown in the video or what's the source? That'd shed a lot of light on the situation if true.
Not every war is for resources. China won the bid for copper over US and Canadian companies in 2007 and they are likely the ones to benefit most from the lithium deposits.
If your looking for a reason for the Afghan war you needn't look further than the thousands of graves we dug due to terrorist attacks on our soil perpetrated by an organization based in their country, and protected by their government. No nation with such overwhelming capability to respond would ever choose not to when faced with such an attack and I don't remember many American citizens feeling differently at the time. No one was going to accept some simple air strikes of the Clinton-Iraq style, people wanted troops on the ground, and everyone responsible dead or in prison. To claim it's all about the minerals would mean the 9/11 attacks were allowed or perpetrated just so we had an excuse to go get some minerals.
The reports show that the smaller incidents were just as insidious and alienating, turning Afghans who had once welcomed Americans as liberators against the war.
Afghan police officers shot a local driver who tried to speed through their checkpoint on a country road in Ghazni Province south of Kabul. The police had set up a temporary checkpoint on the highway just outside the main town in the district of Ab Band.
“A car approached the check point at a high rate of speed,” the report said. All the police officers fled the checkpoint except one. As the car passed the checkpoint it knocked down the lone policeman. He fired at the vehicle, apparently thinking that it was a suicide car bomber.
“The driver of the vehicle was killed,” the report said. “No IED [improvised explosive device] was found and vehicle was destroyed.”
The police officer was detained in the provincial capital, Ghazni, and questioned. He was then released. The American mentoring the police concluded in his assessment that the policeman’s use of force was appropriate. Rather than acknowledging the public hostility such episodes often engender, the report found a benefit: it suggested that the shooting would make Afghans take greater care at checkpoints in the future.
“Effects on the populace clearly identify the importance of stopping at checkpoints,” the report concluded
.
Insidious? Let me get this straight. The dude sped his car so fast at a police check point that all but one of the officers fled in fear of their lives, that officer got KNOCKED OVER by the speeding car, and then he shot the driver. And we're supposed to feel like this is unnecessary use of violence that turns the population against us? Really? Of all the things that are happening over there we're going to complain that civilians can't safely run over policemen with their cars?
I don't know about the rest of the world but I don't think there's a state in the US where I would expect to run a DUI checkpoint and knock a cop over with my car without getting shot dead and I think that's perfectly fair. If your driving a 2 ton chunk of metal right at me you can bet your ass I wouldn't think twice about firing a couple 7g chunks of metal at you
also after re-reading the quote:
Soldiers: There were guys with AK-47's and RPG's and the tripods the journalists had looked like more RPG's
Wiki leaks: There's no way you should have misidentified those tripod's as RPG's and the RPG's those insurgents were carrying looked exactly like camera tripods to us anyways
hypocrisy much?
In regards to point 1 I think it is highly disingenuous to say that because they released a 40 minute unedited video that relieves them of any responsibility or leaning in the shorter edited version that clearly the majority of the people are going to watch.
RPG, which was that in their opinion, the supposed RPG may have been a camera tripod
This makes me question whether you, or wikileaks themselves have even bothered watching all of the unedited version. When the first ground forces arrive to secure the scene one of them radios that there is in fact an un-fired RPG by one of the bodies that needs to be taken care of.
The only possible ways to explain this away is to assume a soldier on the ground misidentified an RPG that he was close enough to touch (insanely unlikely) or it requires the first guys there on the ground to be already in on a cover-up for something they just arrived to, didn't take part in causing, and didn't have any reason yet to believe that a cover-up needed up happen.