They should anyway IMO; back when I was a kid parents kept a better eye on what their kids were doing, probably at least in part because they (the parents) were held legally culpable for the actions of their minor children.
Maybe we need to get back to that social philosophy.
It's an old saying used to make pretend that bullying isn't a real thing and that the victim has the power to stop things.
Uhm, no. Its a saying thats supposed to get a point across, but apparently you utterly failed to grasp it.
The point is that... THEY ARE JUST WORDS. Any 'pain' you feel is self induced and CAN be turned off with a simple change in thought patterns. That change is what the saying is meant to do.
Kids die from lots of things, but this one killed herself. Her bullies didn't put a gun to her head and pull the trigger. They didn't cut her wrists. As far as anything shows, they were just teenage girls being teenage girls, except in this case, they picked on a girl who had bigger issues and couldn't deal with it.
If it wasn't the bullying at school, it would have been the professor in collage that sent her over the edge, or her first job or something else. If school bullying causes you to commit suicide, you weren't long for this world anyway. She took HER OWN life, you can't blame anyone else for that.
So... if I came into your workplace and convinced all your co-workers that you were a pedophile, it would be your duty to not get upset about it, and to live with everyone you interact with on a daily basis treating you like shit because they believe you to be a filthy child-fucker?
Normally I agree with the whole "you are the gatekeeper of your own emotions" philosophy, but even I recognize that there is a point of delineation between things people say that you can let roll off you and things people say that can completely fuck up your life.
Um, no; it's like yelling fire in a crowded theater - while the yeller, personally, might not have trampled anyone, their action caused the panic that led to people being trampled, and therefore yes, the person who yelled fire is legally culpable for those deaths.
You cannot legally harass, debase, and intimidate a person into killing themselves. This is not some new rule, it's an idea that's been around for quite some time (albeit not equally applied).
So now saying mean things to someone is attempted murder? Nice.
Perhaps and perhaps not - depends on what you refer to by "mean things."
Saying "that's an ugly dress" would not really qualify; however, saying "You should drink bleach and die," as occurred in this circumstance, can be construed as either enticement or incitement, both of which are legally culpable actions.
Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - Person A specifically directed Person B to harm, and thus, Person A is legally culpable.
Just built those damn thorium reactors or solar cells on the moon.... the later would get us to the moon and who knows...
Couple points:
A) it's l-a-t-t-e-r [LAH-ter], not l-a-t-e-r [LAY-ter].
B) the latter would be solar cells on the moon; I assume by "would get us to the moon" you mean as in, "would get us to the moon to install them?" Or did you mean to say the former, thorium reactors, would "get us to the moon?"
Interesting ideas, but your sentence structure and grammatical quirks make it difficult to derive just what exactly you're trying to say here.
Do you live in India or China? If not, you're probably in that top 20%. I see you have a computer or mobile device , so that almost guarantees you're in the richest few hundred million.
I make at least $50K, so I'm in the top 0.5% and I'm on Slashdot.
So basically what you're saying here is that measuring personal wealth as a percentage of global finances is pointlessly asinine.
I recall that industrial operations are responsible for somewhere between 60-80% of global greenhouse gas emissions; let's start there.
They only offer fuel points on a very limited number of products (basically, whatever is on 'special' that week); if I'm not buying anything that gets fuel points, there's no purpose in swiping the card.
As opposed to the typical grocer card, that you have to use on every purchase to avoid rip-off pricing.
Yea, screw them. I was glad when they built a Hy-Vee down the road from my house - no 'grocer card' to speak of, but they have a "fuel saver" program by which you can get X cents/gallon off your next fuel purchase if you buy certain things.
After reading TFA, I can say it's nice to see a national healthcare system that actually takes ADD and ADHD seriously. Here in the USA, it seems (to me) that there's a lot of "misdiagnosis" of the malady, as if American physicians are more concerned about paychecks and drug rep kickbacks than actually treating the illness.
Not sure if it's still as much an issue today as it was 5-10 years ago, but there was a time when US doctors prescribed Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs to any and every half-assed unruly child, rather than doing any medical or science-based testing to determine if they were indeed ADHD sufferers.
After the diagnosis. my psychiatrist prescribed me medication straight away. He didn't even ask me for my opinion. And this is public healthcare we are talking about. They go apeshit if you try to get sleeping pills let alone medicine that are considered drugs like Concerta.
Question about your doctor, or rather, the pens he has in his office: they don't happen to have Janssen Pharmaceuticals logos on them do they?
In my nation, America, it's not uncommon for physicians to happily prescribe whatever the drug rep he's cheating on his wife with tells him to; I wonder if Finland is similar in any way.
My point was that an electromagnetic pulse weapon would not be microscopic in scale, thus negating OP's conjecture. Granted, it probably wouldn't give off nuclear-detonation-levels of EMR, but it sure as hell wouldn't be "microscopic" either.
Not yet, although I do admit I've been considering taking a run at it.
Do you think a general lack of respect for human life is enough to overcome the absence of campaign funding, or do I need to pick some pet issue to go 50-kinds-of-stupid with as well?
Neutralizing all weapons is a worthwhile goal. How are we going to defend ourselves against them now? More nukes? I'm hoping for something a little less harmful...
Engineered plague would be the obvious solution; no need to worry about nukes if there's no one alive to launch them!
OK, so maybe not an ideal solution, but hey - it solves the problem. I call that a win.
90% of the parties I attend have been set up by someone on Facebook. If it wasn't for Facebook, I'd miss nine out of ten parties my friends were throwing. (As opposed to the half I miss now due to conflicting obligations or not feeling like going.)
While the dire warnings in the book have some merit, we should also recognize that there are legitimate tools and uses in our social media and not discount it wholesale. (I always call Facebook the junk food of the Internet. Even junk food can have a few fortified vitamins tossed in there.)
Uh-huh.
You know how we used to organize parties before facebook? We'd turn to our buddies (who were all in the same room together) and say, "Hey, we should get some booze and have a party!" At most, somebody would run down to the nearest Kinko's, print out a handful of flyers, and go canvas the local college campuses. In other words, it was easy to get one going because you were already directly engaged with your peers, not sitting behind a computer screen, alone, waiting for an IM.
The irony of a decidedly anti-social mechanism (facebook) being considered essential to the organization of a social event (party) is not lost on this guy.
I think the idea was to point out that drinking is a direct social engagement, rather than an indirect one like everything you do online; I doubt "teh booze industry" would bother with subliminal ads on a marginal website, when blatant advertising on major media networks is so damn effective.
Now go grab me a sixxer of Silver Bullets so I can have a bunch of models come and hang off my junk like they do in the commercials. That happens, right?
It goes from corporate espionage to some guy stealing credit card numbers as a 'hobby'.
I work at a major corporation that has security cards to get into the building and my computer is password protected with an encrypted hard drive & a physical lock on the computer. Are security guards with guns really necessary?
A security-minded person would say 'yes, because security guards with guns deter threats that locks and passwords do not.' If your valuables are really that valuable, then there is no such thing as too much security.
Of course, the article is mainly focused on start-ups who rarely focus on security, not large corporations who have years experience at deterring the bad guys.
Slashdot Mirror
They should anyway IMO; back when I was a kid parents kept a better eye on what their kids were doing, probably at least in part because they (the parents) were held legally culpable for the actions of their minor children.
Maybe we need to get back to that social philosophy.
It's an old saying used to make pretend that bullying isn't a real thing and that the victim has the power to stop things.
Uhm, no. Its a saying thats supposed to get a point across, but apparently you utterly failed to grasp it.
The point is that ... THEY ARE JUST WORDS. Any 'pain' you feel is self induced and CAN be turned off with a simple change in thought patterns. That change is what the saying is meant to do.
Kids die from lots of things, but this one killed herself. Her bullies didn't put a gun to her head and pull the trigger. They didn't cut her wrists. As far as anything shows, they were just teenage girls being teenage girls, except in this case, they picked on a girl who had bigger issues and couldn't deal with it.
If it wasn't the bullying at school, it would have been the professor in collage that sent her over the edge, or her first job or something else. If school bullying causes you to commit suicide, you weren't long for this world anyway. She took HER OWN life, you can't blame anyone else for that.
So... if I came into your workplace and convinced all your co-workers that you were a pedophile, it would be your duty to not get upset about it, and to live with everyone you interact with on a daily basis treating you like shit because they believe you to be a filthy child-fucker?
Normally I agree with the whole "you are the gatekeeper of your own emotions" philosophy, but even I recognize that there is a point of delineation between things people say that you can let roll off you and things people say that can completely fuck up your life.
Um, no; it's like yelling fire in a crowded theater - while the yeller, personally, might not have trampled anyone, their action caused the panic that led to people being trampled, and therefore yes, the person who yelled fire is legally culpable for those deaths.
You cannot legally harass, debase, and intimidate a person into killing themselves. This is not some new rule, it's an idea that's been around for quite some time (albeit not equally applied).
A company is way more evil. Why are a few teenagers arrested while companies go free?
Because "a few teenagers" lack the resources required to own politicians.
Or maybe it's because if they micromanage their child's life it will cause resentment and their child will never trust them.
Right, as there's no middle ground between absentee and helicopter parenting.
OP is referring to eugenics, not "mass genocide," whatever that's supposed to mean.
So now saying mean things to someone is attempted murder? Nice.
Perhaps and perhaps not - depends on what you refer to by "mean things."
Saying "that's an ugly dress" would not really qualify; however, saying "You should drink bleach and die," as occurred in this circumstance, can be construed as either enticement or incitement, both of which are legally culpable actions.
Kind of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater - Person A specifically directed Person B to harm, and thus, Person A is legally culpable.
Supposedly he buys carbon offsets to bring his footprint down to zero.
Yes, what a great message he could send the less-well-off among us: Don't Pollute... unless you can afford to.
Just built those damn thorium reactors or solar cells on the moon.... the later would get us to the moon and who knows...
Couple points:
A) it's l-a-t-t-e-r [LAH-ter], not l-a-t-e-r [LAY-ter].
B) the latter would be solar cells on the moon; I assume by "would get us to the moon" you mean as in, "would get us to the moon to install them?" Or did you mean to say the former, thorium reactors, would "get us to the moon?"
Interesting ideas, but your sentence structure and grammatical quirks make it difficult to derive just what exactly you're trying to say here.
Do you live in India or China? If not, you're probably in that top 20%. I see you have a computer or mobile device , so that almost guarantees you're in the richest few hundred million.
I make at least $50K, so I'm in the top 0.5% and I'm on Slashdot.
So basically what you're saying here is that measuring personal wealth as a percentage of global finances is pointlessly asinine.
I recall that industrial operations are responsible for somewhere between 60-80% of global greenhouse gas emissions; let's start there.
They only offer fuel points on a very limited number of products (basically, whatever is on 'special' that week); if I'm not buying anything that gets fuel points, there's no purpose in swiping the card.
As opposed to the typical grocer card, that you have to use on every purchase to avoid rip-off pricing.
Obama need not know when I buy a router bit for my portable drill.
Sure he does! After all, buying stuff at hardware stores means you might be a turrorist! ...Especially if you pay cash.
Lemme guess, Pricecutter and/or Dillons/Kroger?
Yea, screw them. I was glad when they built a Hy-Vee down the road from my house - no 'grocer card' to speak of, but they have a "fuel saver" program by which you can get X cents/gallon off your next fuel purchase if you buy certain things.
here come the liberal whiners to support Brazil and oppose the USA's effort to protect its own rational self interests.
here come the conservative whiners to support the USA and oppose Brazil's effort to protect its own rational self interests.
Hey, you know what? Fuck both of you for being part of the problem.
After reading TFA, I can say it's nice to see a national healthcare system that actually takes ADD and ADHD seriously. Here in the USA, it seems (to me) that there's a lot of "misdiagnosis" of the malady, as if American physicians are more concerned about paychecks and drug rep kickbacks than actually treating the illness.
Not sure if it's still as much an issue today as it was 5-10 years ago, but there was a time when US doctors prescribed Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs to any and every half-assed unruly child, rather than doing any medical or science-based testing to determine if they were indeed ADHD sufferers.
After the diagnosis. my psychiatrist prescribed me medication straight away. He didn't even ask me for my opinion. And this is public healthcare we are talking about. They go apeshit if you try to get sleeping pills let alone medicine that are considered drugs like Concerta.
Question about your doctor, or rather, the pens he has in his office: they don't happen to have Janssen Pharmaceuticals logos on them do they?
In my nation, America, it's not uncommon for physicians to happily prescribe whatever the drug rep he's cheating on his wife with tells him to; I wonder if Finland is similar in any way.
Fuck you, fucking retarded faggot cunt. I was just trolling.
Go shove another baseball bat up your fucking asshole.
BTW: your homepage sucks much dick. Bitchtard.
Strong case you're making for why we should care about your opinion.
Oh wait, no - the opposite of what I just said.
My point was that an electromagnetic pulse weapon would not be microscopic in scale, thus negating OP's conjecture. Granted, it probably wouldn't give off nuclear-detonation-levels of EMR, but it sure as hell wouldn't be "microscopic" either.
Not yet, although I do admit I've been considering taking a run at it.
Do you think a general lack of respect for human life is enough to overcome the absence of campaign funding, or do I need to pick some pet issue to go 50-kinds-of-stupid with as well?
Neutralizing all weapons is a worthwhile goal. How are we going to defend ourselves against them now? More nukes? I'm hoping for something a little less harmful...
Engineered plague would be the obvious solution; no need to worry about nukes if there's no one alive to launch them!
OK, so maybe not an ideal solution, but hey - it solves the problem. I call that a win.
...when they say EMP they mean on microscopic scales, not like the emp that is emitted when a nuke goes off.
The use of the phrase "electromagnetic weapons" in the summary kinda belies that hypothesis.
90% of the parties I attend have been set up by someone on Facebook. If it wasn't for Facebook, I'd miss nine out of ten parties my friends were throwing. (As opposed to the half I miss now due to conflicting obligations or not feeling like going.)
While the dire warnings in the book have some merit, we should also recognize that there are legitimate tools and uses in our social media and not discount it wholesale. (I always call Facebook the junk food of the Internet. Even junk food can have a few fortified vitamins tossed in there.)
Uh-huh.
You know how we used to organize parties before facebook? We'd turn to our buddies (who were all in the same room together) and say, "Hey, we should get some booze and have a party!" At most, somebody would run down to the nearest Kinko's, print out a handful of flyers, and go canvas the local college campuses. In other words, it was easy to get one going because you were already directly engaged with your peers, not sitting behind a computer screen, alone, waiting for an IM.
The irony of a decidedly anti-social mechanism (facebook) being considered essential to the organization of a social event (party) is not lost on this guy.
I think the idea was to point out that drinking is a direct social engagement, rather than an indirect one like everything you do online; I doubt "teh booze industry" would bother with subliminal ads on a marginal website, when blatant advertising on major media networks is so damn effective.
Now go grab me a sixxer of Silver Bullets so I can have a bunch of models come and hang off my junk like they do in the commercials. That happens, right?
Like, I like, totally like think you like, missed his point.
Like.
It goes from corporate espionage to some guy stealing credit card numbers as a 'hobby'.
I work at a major corporation that has security cards to get into the building and my computer is password protected with an encrypted hard drive & a physical lock on the computer. Are security guards with guns really necessary?
A security-minded person would say 'yes, because security guards with guns deter threats that locks and passwords do not.' If your valuables are really that valuable, then there is no such thing as too much security.
Of course, the article is mainly focused on start-ups who rarely focus on security, not large corporations who have years experience at deterring the bad guys.