Because saying that makes it easier to rationalize your lack of intelligible counter arguments?
Please, educate me. If I am truly that simple, and your position is so deeply full of truth that anyone with intelligence would understand, then you should be able to explain. If you think I am incorrect then please explain to me why that is; I am normally very interested to discuss opposing viewpoints and perceptions. I am normally not so receptive to elitist dickheads that blindly assume dissenting opinions are stupid.
Yeah but the inefficiencies that stem from terrified workers are offset by the massive amounts of resources the DPRK is dumping into these programs. The RoK has been worried about silly things like feeding their population, and pursuing ridiculous "non-military technologies".
The economy is still in the toilet, and my healthcare is going to be more expensive while I wait longer for my more overburdened doctor to make time to see me. I'm the middle class, what this prick has been doing has been railing me right in the ass for the benefit of welfare recipients.
In the meantime Obama has found time to have a handful of celebrity basketball matches, and share a beer on the lawn with a cop and a black guy that claimed the cop was a racist. Apparently that was the best use of his time.
I am not going to defend the Bush administration. But it is worth noting that Obama has been President for 1 1/2 years already and he's done pretty much nothing to roll that back. Bush hating made sense back in 2007 while we was still enacting crap like this, but its only fair to also be critical of the guy who came into office promising "change" and has instead protected the status quo (in terms of fascist analogies towards government).
If you think of cost in terms of both $$$ and time, then I think probably Windows is the least cost solution. I think the majority if home computer owners get turned off by the higher price tag of OSX machines, and are pushed toward the Windows and Linux price points. Then they consider that they don't know anything about Linux works, but do know that since most of their past computing experiences have been on previous versions of Windows they can probably figure out the new version pretty quickly.
I think the average Joe american that walks into Best Buy for a new home computer looks to Windows for a cheaper product that "just works".
But you can't just think of the paycheck, you also have to consider the total compensation package. In the case of the President, his salary and responsibilities come with things like free housing, personal aircraft, and having the worlds most powerful military calling him Sir.
Actually, yes. I apologize up front, I can't provide any citations for anything. I don't remember the publications exactly and I am kind of too lazy to take the time to google it all, but I do remember a good deal of it (I work in a related industry).
Anxiety and stress are fairly universal, they exhibit themselves in very consistent ways (though there are some cultural variations). From what I remember, the biggest differences between otherwise nervous people and the terrorists had to do with being observed. People nervous about flying will behave in a normal nervous way in the open and in private. Many of the terrorists were seen to show drastically different reactions when in the presence of uniformed security staff. IMO this is how the SPOT program was intended to work, by putting plainclothes and uniformed observers around airports, and watching for individuals that behave nervously in an unusual way.
For example, I recall that one of the 9/11 hijackers kept getting in and out of line. He would wait for 10-15 minutes, then become distressed and would run to the restroom or get a drink, only to return to the same line. Security staff were criticized at the time for not catching such obviously unusual behavior.
You should probably have paid more attention in your civics classes there paleface (meaning that figuratively). Europeans dragged their culture across the pond long before any of us were born.
I notice that you are writing your post in English, a decidedly old world language. I wonder, how do you feel about Jewish wedding ceremonies, and Presidential oaths being sworn on bibles? (Here's a though, Christianity didn't start here either).
One of the great aspects of this nations history is that anyone who comes here to live and work can call themselves an American. My grandfather emigrated from Germany as a teenager, then joined the Marines to fight the Japanese. He went on to marry a more recent German immigrant and opened a German butcher shop. That guy was German through and through, I've still got the family Stein he commissioned displayed in my dining room. As German as he was, he was still every bit an American. America combines the cultures and customs of the people that live here. It is the reason why this country kicks ass. Backwater racist intolerance isn't a strength; in fact, we fight wars against people like that.
Clothing is usually functional, wherever it is worn, whoever is wearing it.
I guess you don't own any neckties, sports team apparel, or any t-shirt with logos printed on them (even if you don't, recognize that many other people do). The presence of clothing commonly serves a functional purpose yes, but the clothing itself is entirely cultural. Westerners wear suits to interviewers, we wear black to funerals, we wear colorful swim shorts at the beach. Clothing norms are absolutely cultural.
Call me a bigot...I don't respect the tradition, I don't respect those who insist on observing it, and I don't respect your argument.
I'm not going to call you a bigot, but you've pretty much provided a definition for the term.
majority rules
Then I assume if your mother traveled to someplace Taliban occupied then you would be ok with her being forced to cover her face under threat of stoning? Ironically, I think you would fit in really well over there.
"The impact on human physiology of planning a suicide" ?
These people have not a single spot of doubt in their mind that they're boarding a direct flight to paradise, virgins included. They're not afraid, they're probably even happy. At best, they'll be a bit nervous, but that probably won't show any more than on someone who never flew before.
There is a huge body of research that claims otherwise. Analysis of the behaviors of known hijackers (taken from things like security cameras and eyewitness accounts) indicates that those people exhibited textbook indicators of extreme anxiety and distress. The reasons for this exhibited distress is still debated, but it was pretty evident. That was a big part of the justification for the SPOT program in the first place.
We are the only species that acts violently for no reason.
Except that we don't. All instances of human violence can be attributed to defense, survival, territoriality, need to reproduce, etc. Just like other animals. Even our expressions of organized group violence (i.e. riots, wars, etc) are not unlike the activities of social groups in other species. Social groups of chimps and other apes will "attack" other social groups in order to obtain or defend resources. The only differences are that the resources we pursue are oil and precious metals, not bananas.
There is no categorical difference between us and many animals, the only difference is one of scope. We are highly intelligent and highly social animals, this allows us to do some unique things that other animals are incapable of. We are capable of abstract mental representations, which allows us language (note: this is different than simple communication), and we are capable of disguising our affect, which allow us to lie and disguise our feelings. But we are not prone to violence for no reason. There is always a reason. Our intelligence and sociability allows us to disagree with other individuals reasoning, and can prevent us from even fully understanding the reasoning, but it is always present (even in cases of disease or defect).
I find your point about choice to be very interesting. I don't meant to get into a deterministic debate, but what exactly do you think it is that gives humans the ability to make decisions that other animals do not have? If a starving dog is taunted and teased with a plate of food it attacks (naturally). A human would do the same. How can you say the human made a choice, but the dog only acted on instinct?
Professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, singers, dancers, MMA fighters, boxers, etc all live in their own homes. They can have families if they like and they usually do.
Some do for sure, some definitely do not. The local Junior Hockey team in the city I used to live in most definitely did not. The team lived in 3-4 apartments, practiced every day together, and spent their down time being shuttled around to store openings and the like for some PR time. During the off-season they were allowed some time to visit family or party, but as soon as pre-season started they closed themselves right in.
They shouldn't be doing this for more than 10 hours a day 6 days a week.
I don't mean to be hostile, but I am curious how you decided on a 60 hour workweek. Many/most civilized nations fall more on the order of 40ish hours (disclosure: I am an American so that is how I arrived at my example).
See, that strikes me as a professional opinion based on the speakers knowledge and real-world field experience. Seems to me that is different from the statement made by the woman in the article. They were advocating a change in the law and practices to add a capability rather than simply joking that they were addicted to illegal drugs.
I want to say the two are completely different, but I understand your point that the difference is open to interpretation.
I'm curious- are there any limits on what an employer can require in a contract?
particularly when the employer is the government.
Not a lawyer, but as far as I know they can put anything they want into the contract, if you sign it you agree to it. Of course the contract may be unenforceable, they will have no legal way to prevent you from campaigning for Democrats or forcing their way into your home; but at the very least failure to comply with those terms might be grounds to dissolve the employment contract.
can they have you sign away your right to talk publicly about things they don't approve of?
I think to some extent yes, this one is actually correct. AFAIK active military are not allowed to publicly express disspproval of their superiors, which includes the CIC. This is admittedly a limited example, but considering this issue is regarding an employee of the police department (also a component of the Executive branch of our Government) I think it applies.
I wish I hadn't already posted so I could mod you up. Though I have to bite my tongue to not get into a political debate, you are absolutely 100% spot on with your point on people working in public safety. That is the issue here, the PD can no longer trust that this person's performance is hindered by drug or alcohol use.
That all depends on your employment contract. If you agreed to a standard of behavior when you accepted your job, then yes you need to be careful what you say. You have a constitutional right to have your speech be protected from the government, not from the decisions made by persons or private entities. You wouldn't claim privacy violations if a person decided not to be your friend based on the things that you say.
If she agreed to that code on those terms when she signed her employment contract, then no. I've had to do that for previous jobs. No surprise to me that a PD might require that.
Keeping work and social spheres as separate as possible is great advice. But...
...from the article, this person was a 21 year employee of this Department. Working in one place for 21 years, you've got to expect that some of those people will become personal friends as well as work friends. This person probably could have done a better job of keeping her networks separate, but after that much time there is no way to keep the two completely segregated.
Just playing Devils Advocate here (I personally agree with you 100%).
Having a public service dispatcher with such a cavalier attitude toward drug use might injure the professional image of the department. Especially if she had her current employer listed on her FB page; at a previous job, I had to sign a statement basically saying that I would maintain a professional attitude whenever I was representing the company, not just when I was "on the job".
Some people would argue that we should hold public servants to a higher standard than we hold average citizens. We should expect Police officers not to engage in illegal or destructive activities even when not in uniform, and EMTs to offer emergency medical aid even when off duty. In short, we should expect that emergency services employees maintain lawful and safe behaviors at all times.
Ending Devils Advocacy now: If she did in fact sign some sort of morality or conduct agreement and violated that then she was foolish to violate that, and the Department might have been right to fire her. If no such agreement existed, then the Department overstepped. This being a Police Department, it would seem reasonable that they might have exactly this kind of conduct clause in their employment contracts.
Re:Was Not Impressed at All
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 4, Funny
One of the biggest mysteries last night was where did they suddenly find a roll of duct tape to fix the plane?
And surely this will create some problems for him in the distant future, when his adversaries on the Riverworld have the benefit of such complete knowledge of his beliefs.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because I disagree with you?
Because saying that makes it easier to rationalize your lack of intelligible counter arguments?
Please, educate me. If I am truly that simple, and your position is so deeply full of truth that anyone with intelligence would understand, then you should be able to explain. If you think I am incorrect then please explain to me why that is; I am normally very interested to discuss opposing viewpoints and perceptions. I am normally not so receptive to elitist dickheads that blindly assume dissenting opinions are stupid.
Yeah but the inefficiencies that stem from terrified workers are offset by the massive amounts of resources the DPRK is dumping into these programs. The RoK has been worried about silly things like feeding their population, and pursuing ridiculous "non-military technologies".
The economy is still in the toilet, and my healthcare is going to be more expensive while I wait longer for my more overburdened doctor to make time to see me. I'm the middle class, what this prick has been doing has been railing me right in the ass for the benefit of welfare recipients.
In the meantime Obama has found time to have a handful of celebrity basketball matches, and share a beer on the lawn with a cop and a black guy that claimed the cop was a racist. Apparently that was the best use of his time.
I am not going to defend the Bush administration. But it is worth noting that Obama has been President for 1 1/2 years already and he's done pretty much nothing to roll that back. Bush hating made sense back in 2007 while we was still enacting crap like this, but its only fair to also be critical of the guy who came into office promising "change" and has instead protected the status quo (in terms of fascist analogies towards government).
If you think of cost in terms of both $$$ and time, then I think probably Windows is the least cost solution. I think the majority if home computer owners get turned off by the higher price tag of OSX machines, and are pushed toward the Windows and Linux price points. Then they consider that they don't know anything about Linux works, but do know that since most of their past computing experiences have been on previous versions of Windows they can probably figure out the new version pretty quickly.
I think the average Joe american that walks into Best Buy for a new home computer looks to Windows for a cheaper product that "just works".
But you can't just think of the paycheck, you also have to consider the total compensation package. In the case of the President, his salary and responsibilities come with things like free housing, personal aircraft, and having the worlds most powerful military calling him Sir.
Actually, yes. I apologize up front, I can't provide any citations for anything. I don't remember the publications exactly and I am kind of too lazy to take the time to google it all, but I do remember a good deal of it (I work in a related industry).
Anxiety and stress are fairly universal, they exhibit themselves in very consistent ways (though there are some cultural variations). From what I remember, the biggest differences between otherwise nervous people and the terrorists had to do with being observed. People nervous about flying will behave in a normal nervous way in the open and in private. Many of the terrorists were seen to show drastically different reactions when in the presence of uniformed security staff. IMO this is how the SPOT program was intended to work, by putting plainclothes and uniformed observers around airports, and watching for individuals that behave nervously in an unusual way.
For example, I recall that one of the 9/11 hijackers kept getting in and out of line. He would wait for 10-15 minutes, then become distressed and would run to the restroom or get a drink, only to return to the same line. Security staff were criticized at the time for not catching such obviously unusual behavior.
You should probably have paid more attention in your civics classes there paleface (meaning that figuratively). Europeans dragged their culture across the pond long before any of us were born.
I notice that you are writing your post in English, a decidedly old world language. I wonder, how do you feel about Jewish wedding ceremonies, and Presidential oaths being sworn on bibles? (Here's a though, Christianity didn't start here either).
One of the great aspects of this nations history is that anyone who comes here to live and work can call themselves an American. My grandfather emigrated from Germany as a teenager, then joined the Marines to fight the Japanese. He went on to marry a more recent German immigrant and opened a German butcher shop. That guy was German through and through, I've still got the family Stein he commissioned displayed in my dining room. As German as he was, he was still every bit an American. America combines the cultures and customs of the people that live here. It is the reason why this country kicks ass. Backwater racist intolerance isn't a strength; in fact, we fight wars against people like that.
Clothing is usually functional, wherever it is worn, whoever is wearing it.
I guess you don't own any neckties, sports team apparel, or any t-shirt with logos printed on them (even if you don't, recognize that many other people do). The presence of clothing commonly serves a functional purpose yes, but the clothing itself is entirely cultural. Westerners wear suits to interviewers, we wear black to funerals, we wear colorful swim shorts at the beach. Clothing norms are absolutely cultural.
Call me a bigot...I don't respect the tradition, I don't respect those who insist on observing it, and I don't respect your argument.
I'm not going to call you a bigot, but you've pretty much provided a definition for the term.
majority rules
Then I assume if your mother traveled to someplace Taliban occupied then you would be ok with her being forced to cover her face under threat of stoning? Ironically, I think you would fit in really well over there.
"The impact on human physiology of planning a suicide" ? These people have not a single spot of doubt in their mind that they're boarding a direct flight to paradise, virgins included. They're not afraid, they're probably even happy. At best, they'll be a bit nervous, but that probably won't show any more than on someone who never flew before.
There is a huge body of research that claims otherwise. Analysis of the behaviors of known hijackers (taken from things like security cameras and eyewitness accounts) indicates that those people exhibited textbook indicators of extreme anxiety and distress. The reasons for this exhibited distress is still debated, but it was pretty evident. That was a big part of the justification for the SPOT program in the first place.
We are the only species that acts violently for no reason.
Except that we don't. All instances of human violence can be attributed to defense, survival, territoriality, need to reproduce, etc. Just like other animals. Even our expressions of organized group violence (i.e. riots, wars, etc) are not unlike the activities of social groups in other species. Social groups of chimps and other apes will "attack" other social groups in order to obtain or defend resources. The only differences are that the resources we pursue are oil and precious metals, not bananas.
There is no categorical difference between us and many animals, the only difference is one of scope. We are highly intelligent and highly social animals, this allows us to do some unique things that other animals are incapable of. We are capable of abstract mental representations, which allows us language (note: this is different than simple communication), and we are capable of disguising our affect, which allow us to lie and disguise our feelings. But we are not prone to violence for no reason. There is always a reason. Our intelligence and sociability allows us to disagree with other individuals reasoning, and can prevent us from even fully understanding the reasoning, but it is always present (even in cases of disease or defect).
I find your point about choice to be very interesting. I don't meant to get into a deterministic debate, but what exactly do you think it is that gives humans the ability to make decisions that other animals do not have? If a starving dog is taunted and teased with a plate of food it attacks (naturally). A human would do the same. How can you say the human made a choice, but the dog only acted on instinct?
Thank you. Thank you so much.
Likewise I think, the global decline in Piracy the last few centuries has been directly correlated with Bee death (among other environmental issues).
That is why the non-EM exposed group had "dummy models installed" in their hives.
Professional football, baseball, basketball, hockey, singers, dancers, MMA fighters, boxers, etc all live in their own homes. They can have families if they like and they usually do.
Some do for sure, some definitely do not. The local Junior Hockey team in the city I used to live in most definitely did not. The team lived in 3-4 apartments, practiced every day together, and spent their down time being shuttled around to store openings and the like for some PR time. During the off-season they were allowed some time to visit family or party, but as soon as pre-season started they closed themselves right in.
They shouldn't be doing this for more than 10 hours a day 6 days a week.
I don't mean to be hostile, but I am curious how you decided on a 60 hour workweek. Many/most civilized nations fall more on the order of 40ish hours (disclosure: I am an American so that is how I arrived at my example).
See, that strikes me as a professional opinion based on the speakers knowledge and real-world field experience. Seems to me that is different from the statement made by the woman in the article. They were advocating a change in the law and practices to add a capability rather than simply joking that they were addicted to illegal drugs.
I want to say the two are completely different, but I understand your point that the difference is open to interpretation.
I'm curious- are there any limits on what an employer can require in a contract? particularly when the employer is the government.
Not a lawyer, but as far as I know they can put anything they want into the contract, if you sign it you agree to it. Of course the contract may be unenforceable, they will have no legal way to prevent you from campaigning for Democrats or forcing their way into your home; but at the very least failure to comply with those terms might be grounds to dissolve the employment contract.
can they have you sign away your right to talk publicly about things they don't approve of?
I think to some extent yes, this one is actually correct. AFAIK active military are not allowed to publicly express disspproval of their superiors, which includes the CIC. This is admittedly a limited example, but considering this issue is regarding an employee of the police department (also a component of the Executive branch of our Government) I think it applies.
I wish I hadn't already posted so I could mod you up. Though I have to bite my tongue to not get into a political debate, you are absolutely 100% spot on with your point on people working in public safety. That is the issue here, the PD can no longer trust that this person's performance is hindered by drug or alcohol use.
That all depends on your employment contract. If you agreed to a standard of behavior when you accepted your job, then yes you need to be careful what you say. You have a constitutional right to have your speech be protected from the government, not from the decisions made by persons or private entities. You wouldn't claim privacy violations if a person decided not to be your friend based on the things that you say.
If she agreed to that code on those terms when she signed her employment contract, then no. I've had to do that for previous jobs. No surprise to me that a PD might require that.
Keeping work and social spheres as separate as possible is great advice. But...
...from the article, this person was a 21 year employee of this Department. Working in one place for 21 years, you've got to expect that some of those people will become personal friends as well as work friends. This person probably could have done a better job of keeping her networks separate, but after that much time there is no way to keep the two completely segregated.
Just playing Devils Advocate here (I personally agree with you 100%).
Having a public service dispatcher with such a cavalier attitude toward drug use might injure the professional image of the department. Especially if she had her current employer listed on her FB page; at a previous job, I had to sign a statement basically saying that I would maintain a professional attitude whenever I was representing the company, not just when I was "on the job".
Some people would argue that we should hold public servants to a higher standard than we hold average citizens. We should expect Police officers not to engage in illegal or destructive activities even when not in uniform, and EMTs to offer emergency medical aid even when off duty. In short, we should expect that emergency services employees maintain lawful and safe behaviors at all times.
Ending Devils Advocacy now: If she did in fact sign some sort of morality or conduct agreement and violated that then she was foolish to violate that, and the Department might have been right to fire her. If no such agreement existed, then the Department overstepped. This being a Police Department, it would seem reasonable that they might have exactly this kind of conduct clause in their employment contracts.
One of the biggest mysteries last night was where did they suddenly find a roll of duct tape to fix the plane?
Ductus ex Machina?
And surely this will create some problems for him in the distant future, when his adversaries on the Riverworld have the benefit of such complete knowledge of his beliefs.
I usually keep my work computer muted unless I need audio. I picked up that habit after being rickrolled about a billion times.