I don't understand the fascination that tech news sites have with pictures of upcoming smartphones. Pretty much every standard smartphone looks exactly like every other damn smartphone on the planet -- a touchscreen with a bezel around it. The "interesting" part of this announcements is the color of the back of the phone -- which is the part that you're never looking at anyway.
Nope, I'm still not buying it. You haven't presented any compelling reason why those in authority should lose their human rights. If you want to introduce ways to make it easier to obtain that proof, I'm all for it, but those in authority should have all the rights that anyone else has. Dehumanizing a group of people is not the answer.
Who watches the watchmen? It has to be us. That means that making sure that the guilt of those who abuse their power -- as well as the innocence of those who don't -- is partly our responsibility.
Cops and politicians no. We have to hold them to a much higher standard if we are going to authorize the power we give them. The Sword of Damocles must hang over all their heads. We don't put a high enough price on power.
I vehemently disagree. Human rights, including the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, should not be waived because of someone's occupation.
The problem of guilt being difficult to prove is one that extends far beyond just police or politicians; it applies to anyone accused of committing a crime, and it means that we know that we allow some of those guilty of crimes, even heinous ones, to walk free. We have made a lot of progress in that area, and will continue to do so. It is appropriate to introduce new technology, procedures, or policies that can help make it more difficult for people to hide their guilt, but at the end of the day, a policeman is a man and deserves the same protections that you or I do.
Yes, and the rate at which other things occur, like cops being good, or flowers sprouting roadside is irrelevant. All that is relevant is how often cops go bad. Not how often cops do good things or eat donuts or change underwear.
Assuming a finite number of cop-citizen interactions, the ratio of good-to-bad interactions is relevant to the rate at which bad interactions happen.
No, it isn't relevant. That's like countering a claim that poison ivy is systemic and widespread with "But look at all the pretty flowers! There must be hundreds of pretty flowers for each poison ivy plant!"
No, it's nothing like that. In a discussion of whether something is "systemic and widespread," the rate at which it occurs is relevant.
You said:
No matter what good things cops do, it can never justify police brutality and murder - at any ratio.
While true, that says absolutely nothing about whether or not something is "systemic and widespread." That is the definition of "irrelevant."
As usual, corporations are people right up until it's inconvenient, then they're an organization and can't be treated the same way as people are.
This has nothing to do with corporations. if you, as a private citizen, hire somebody to do a job, and they then commit a crime using your property, you will not be held responsible for that crime unless it turns out that you were complicit or negligent. AT&T should be held to exactly the same standard.
By hiring this outsourcer and giving them access my account, AT&T is giving their stamp of approval for this company to act on their behalf and be, for all intents and purposes, AT&T as far as the end customer is concerned. They are backing up the reputation of this company and quality of their work with their own brand identity.
It is a terrible idea to make an employer responsible for everything an employee does. It is the responsibility of the employer to have a level of diligence to protect their customers, through policies and actions, but that doesn't mean that they can predict and control everything that a human being will do.
The fact that a $25 million fine was imposed says that the government believed that the appropriate level of diligence was not taken, but I see nothing to suggest that the negligence was great enough to justify destroying the company like some people apparently want.
It's like if a buy a car and the automaker has issues from a part failing. It's ultimately the maker's (GM's) fault. Not the producer (some company in China) of the individual component.
Car analogies suck, but if the producer of said component got those components into the car by deceiving the automaker, then you bet it's that producer's fault, not GM's.
GM might be responsible for restitution (fixing the problem parts -- which they'd ultimately get the money for through legal action against the supplier), but it would be utterly inappropriate to levy huge punitive fines against them just because their supplier provided faulty parts.
AT&T didn't sell the info (the title of the article is false.) It was some people that were employed by their call centers that were engaged in the crime. You don't punish a company for hiring somebody who turns out to be a criminal. All they can be punished for is if the policies that allowed their employees to get that information were negligent.
Unfortunately, my experience is that every single person who uses tabs does it wrong. If you're working on a project where half a dozen people are all using tabs, you're going to end up with six different types of broken formatting.
Tourists who joined a vehicle caravan out to the site at a school in Tularosa were greeted by demonstrators from the Tularosa Basin Downwinders who came to protest the 70th anniversary tour. The Downwinders is a grass-roots group that has set out to bring public awareness about the negative impacts of the detonation of the bomb.
So what do these demonstraters hope to accomplish? Are they going to protest hard enough to prevent the test from happening in 1945?
The story isn't that somebody made an NES emulator. Those have been around forever, and this is going to be uninteresting if all you want to do is play Mario. The story is that somebody wrote an article about it for anyone who is curious about some of the details.
The article does focus mostly on the NES hardware, though, and I was expecting some insight on interesting or difficult points of writing the emulator itself.
"No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy." -- true that it's hard to categorize everything as "good" or "bad", but that doesn't mean that it's hard to categorize some foods as bad. To use the OP's example, Froot Loops have zero value in a healthy diet.
"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity." -- this one is a strawman; I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that being on food stamps causes obesity. This is missing the point.
"Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants" -- another strawman; this one argues that food stamp rules should not change because people can spend their non-food-stamp money on something else. Who cares? I don't mind them spending their own money on whatever they want; it's just when they're taking money from my pocket that I should get some input.
Of course the USDA doesn't want any restrictions on food stamp benefits. Like every government organization, they have to justify their existence, and the more money that you can pump into their budget, the better.
Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.
Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.
While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.
You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.
When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.
You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.
Not everyone. Just the ones who lost their job.
And their morale doesn't matter a whole lot to the company, anyway, since they're no longer employed there.
If you can think of a better program with which to spend three hours digging then I'd like to hear it.
I'm going with Nethack. Although Dig Dug would be an obvious choice too.
I don't understand the fascination that tech news sites have with pictures of upcoming smartphones. Pretty much every standard smartphone looks exactly like every other damn smartphone on the planet -- a touchscreen with a bezel around it. The "interesting" part of this announcements is the color of the back of the phone -- which is the part that you're never looking at anyway.
Nope, I'm still not buying it. You haven't presented any compelling reason why those in authority should lose their human rights. If you want to introduce ways to make it easier to obtain that proof, I'm all for it, but those in authority should have all the rights that anyone else has. Dehumanizing a group of people is not the answer.
Who watches the watchmen? It has to be us. That means that making sure that the guilt of those who abuse their power -- as well as the innocence of those who don't -- is partly our responsibility.
Sorry, if he wants the power, we have to keep them honest, and let them know that we are watching.
That's fine with me. Watch them. If you're watching them, then you can prove it when they abuse their power.
Cops and politicians no. We have to hold them to a much higher standard if we are going to authorize the power we give them. The Sword of Damocles must hang over all their heads. We don't put a high enough price on power.
I vehemently disagree. Human rights, including the right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, should not be waived because of someone's occupation.
The problem of guilt being difficult to prove is one that extends far beyond just police or politicians; it applies to anyone accused of committing a crime, and it means that we know that we allow some of those guilty of crimes, even heinous ones, to walk free. We have made a lot of progress in that area, and will continue to do so. It is appropriate to introduce new technology, procedures, or policies that can help make it more difficult for people to hide their guilt, but at the end of the day, a policeman is a man and deserves the same protections that you or I do.
Yes, and the rate at which other things occur, like cops being good, or flowers sprouting roadside is irrelevant.
All that is relevant is how often cops go bad. Not how often cops do good things or eat donuts or change underwear.
Assuming a finite number of cop-citizen interactions, the ratio of good-to-bad interactions is relevant to the rate at which bad interactions happen.
No, it isn't relevant. That's like countering a claim that poison ivy is systemic and widespread with "But look at all the pretty flowers! There must be hundreds of pretty flowers for each poison ivy plant!"
No, it's nothing like that. In a discussion of whether something is "systemic and widespread," the rate at which it occurs is relevant.
You said:
No matter what good things cops do, it can never justify police brutality and murder - at any ratio.
While true, that says absolutely nothing about whether or not something is "systemic and widespread." That is the definition of "irrelevant."
500:1? If it were 5000:1 or even 50000:1 ratio of showing cops doing good deeds vs police butchers, it would still be irrelevant.
It is completely relevant to the question of whether it is "systemic and widespread," which was the thread of conversation that you're replying to.
Nobody has said that cops are justified in brutality and murder. They are, however, entitled to be innocent until proven guilty.
As usual, corporations are people right up until it's inconvenient, then they're an organization and can't be treated the same way as people are.
This has nothing to do with corporations. if you, as a private citizen, hire somebody to do a job, and they then commit a crime using your property, you will not be held responsible for that crime unless it turns out that you were complicit or negligent. AT&T should be held to exactly the same standard.
By hiring this outsourcer and giving them access my account, AT&T is giving their stamp of approval for this company to act on their behalf and be, for all intents and purposes, AT&T as far as the end customer is concerned. They are backing up the reputation of this company and quality of their work with their own brand identity.
It is a terrible idea to make an employer responsible for everything an employee does. It is the responsibility of the employer to have a level of diligence to protect their customers, through policies and actions, but that doesn't mean that they can predict and control everything that a human being will do.
The fact that a $25 million fine was imposed says that the government believed that the appropriate level of diligence was not taken, but I see nothing to suggest that the negligence was great enough to justify destroying the company like some people apparently want.
It's like if a buy a car and the automaker has issues from a part failing. It's ultimately the maker's (GM's) fault. Not the producer (some company in China) of the individual component.
Car analogies suck, but if the producer of said component got those components into the car by deceiving the automaker, then you bet it's that producer's fault, not GM's.
GM might be responsible for restitution (fixing the problem parts -- which they'd ultimately get the money for through legal action against the supplier), but it would be utterly inappropriate to levy huge punitive fines against them just because their supplier provided faulty parts.
1. Only $25M for that egregious violation??
AT&T didn't sell the info (the title of the article is false.) It was some people that were employed by their call centers that were engaged in the crime. You don't punish a company for hiring somebody who turns out to be a criminal. All they can be punished for is if the policies that allowed their employees to get that information were negligent.
Unfortunately, my experience is that every single person who uses tabs does it wrong. If you're working on a project where half a dozen people are all using tabs, you're going to end up with six different types of broken formatting.
Tourists who joined a vehicle caravan out to the site at a school in Tularosa were greeted by demonstrators from the Tularosa Basin Downwinders who came to protest the 70th anniversary tour. The Downwinders is a grass-roots group that has set out to bring public awareness about the negative impacts of the detonation of the bomb.
So what do these demonstraters hope to accomplish? Are they going to protest hard enough to prevent the test from happening in 1945?
Have fun living in the past.
I really hope that the future contains more than the dubious benefits of owning a smartphone.
The short summary of your post is "Republicans must be racists, because I don't understand them."
And apparently Democrats can dislike Obama all they want, and that doesn't make them racists. Great double standard there.
The story isn't that somebody made an NES emulator. Those have been around forever, and this is going to be uninteresting if all you want to do is play Mario. The story is that somebody wrote an article about it for anyone who is curious about some of the details.
The article does focus mostly on the NES hardware, though, and I was expecting some insight on interesting or difficult points of writing the emulator itself.
Frankly, their rationale sucks.
In particular, their points:
"No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy." -- true that it's hard to categorize everything as "good" or "bad", but that doesn't mean that it's hard to categorize some foods as bad. To use the OP's example, Froot Loops have zero value in a healthy diet.
"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity." -- this one is a strawman; I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that being on food stamps causes obesity. This is missing the point.
"Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants" -- another strawman; this one argues that food stamp rules should not change because people can spend their non-food-stamp money on something else. Who cares? I don't mind them spending their own money on whatever they want; it's just when they're taking money from my pocket that I should get some input.
Of course the USDA doesn't want any restrictions on food stamp benefits. Like every government organization, they have to justify their existence, and the more money that you can pump into their budget, the better.
Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.
Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.
While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.
The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested.
This isn't Hollywood. That's a course of action that has pretty good odds of resulting in the people attempting to do the arrest injured or killed.
You'll rue to day in America when you allow any idiot with a badge shoot anyone for any reason
This isn't "any reason." This is attempting to ram the gate at a secure checkpoint, where the use of deadly force is expected.
I'm not willing to risk the lives of law enforcement or soldiers in order to try to spare people who are apparently too stupid to live.
Or the government could order the pilots back to work and start fining them for all their assets if they didn't.
I thought we got rid of slavery a century or two ago.
By summer, they may have been able to finish assembling half a dozen of those 10,000 shelters.
Because smart people don't seem to want the job.
Cue the whiners, indeed.
Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.
You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.
When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.
You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.