If the company is in any sort of regulated sector, this should be reported to their regulator
If the company is big enough to have an auditor - and that's pretty small - they should be informed
If it's a European company, then the Information commissioner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or the equivalent should be notified. This is clearly unsatisfactory behaviour
The 'they would like to be our friends but X' argument wore very thin during the Cold War, and in retrospect, given what we now know about the actual behaviour of the Soviet Union and its treatment of its conquests, it's clear that we needed to carry a very big stick to keep them quiet. Sadly the same siren call to be nice to our enemies is being heard again, on the core assumption that their priorities and values are essentially similar to our own. Once you remove that assumption - which is certainly NOT evidenced by the history of Islam on which Iran seeks to model its behaviour - you are forced to conclude they are a very dangerous country.
It's always nice to nice and live in a comfortable bubble believing that all is well. Unfortunately it ain't, and pretending otherwise is how a country gets itself into big trouble.
Khomeni in 1942 argued:
'Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law].... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.'1
The 13th century Ibn Taimiya articulates a more comprehensive theological justification for the marauding, arguing that the property of non-Muslims must revert legitimately to the followers of the true religion; Jihad is the means to recover these illegally usurped possession, offering a justification for any Muslim to steal from an infidel. This legitimation of their earlier practice suggests that independent Arab marauders descending on villages to steal did do so with religious sanction. This, occurring in advance of the formal expansion of the Islamic Empire, softens up the target for actual conquest.2
1 Barry M. Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, eds. Anti-American terrorism and the Middle East: A documentary reader. (Oxford: OUP), 2004), 29.
2 Ye'Or, The decline of eastern Christianity under Islam: from jihad to dhimmitude. (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, US: 1996) 39-40.
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes. The fact that a majority of a minority culture in the world has chosen to call a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog.
Thank you for reminding of what should be the ideal in the property world; as a major in Economics I've spent too long looking at the current situation and lost sight of where we should be aiming. It's interesting to note that the Hebrew Bible has the concept of 'Jubilee' when all productive land is returned to its original owner, though not houses. Tony Benn, the maverick left wing Labour MP and even cabinet minister in the 60s and 70s later proposed a replacement of all freehold property rights with a 50 year lease; strangely enough it's not an idea that has been picked up by anybody;)
As ever with law and economics, the problem is that any rules you introduce will be gamed to the benefit of the seriously rich and the wider general interest tends to get lost; the problem is that most people who think like you propose solutions that have very negative consequences in practice. I suspect a steady increase in property taxes combined with a move towards a citizen's income may be the right solution, but the pain of such a property tax probably makes it impossible to impose.
1) Students
2) People doing a short term job in a location
3) People who have been bankrupt
That's before we get to those who will never afford their own property.
Given the existence of all these groups, a rental market must exist. The only question is what institution is going to be the owner of those properties that are up for rent.
Beyond that however is the issue of how the next generation gets to own the house that they are going to live in. The Soviet solution was to reinvent serfdom, requiring people to stay on the collective farm they were born on. Is that your solution?
A better solution is to tax property increasingly heavily. This results in the profits from the rising rents going to the government not the investors.
Compared with the minor hiccough of 2008, previous downturns have been PAINFUL. The many actors in the system have acted highly effectively to reduce the amplitude of the waves, not increase them. Remember that in 2008 the economy of China kept growing - as did Australia and Poland; that's in marked contrast to the past slumps.
As the revelations about the failure of the IRS to fulfil the requirements of email archiving law showed, the executive branch doesn't do things just because it's told to. Let's hope this one's got teeth; a breach of a system that has not been secured according to the regulations will result in the loss of pension of all those in the chain of command above the person responsible? Sadly, hanging, drawing and quartering isn't allowed any more...
Given that there is a defence to a charge of criminal damage of preventing a crime - as demonstrated in the damage done to some jets on their way to an oppressive regime, break one and see who complains. The TLA that emerges will be upset, whilst the defence you proffer will force a discussion of their actual use in a court
Because God is not a repeatable phenomenon but a person who sometimes chooses to intervene, and sometimes doesn't. It's therefore impossible to prove He exists; the best that we can do is engage with the testimonies of today and the past, and decide whether those stories of miracles are best explained by there being a God. For me the resurrection of Jesus remains the most convincing story from the bible; the reestablishment of the state of Israel and its survival in the 1973 war (especially on the Golan Heights where a small unit fought off most of the Syrian army).
However for a 'scientific' demonstration, the work of the Lourdes International Medical Commitee in studying the miracles that do occur at Lourdes and seeing if there is a non-miraculous explanation takes some beating. http://en.lourdes-france.org/d... Enjoy.
Nope - you are making a false distinction here. I can only assume that you don't have any friends who are seriously religious with whom you have discussed the matter; especially for those who grew up outside the faith and later became believers, there is no doubt that they made a decision to live by the new world view which now became the most reasonable to accept. And remember that many many people who are intellectual giants have made that choice - it is a foolish canard that only the intellectually weak are religious.
Your claim that you can make 'tests' in geology is especially interesting. One of the more striking features in geology is the persistence of discordant dates in radioisotope dating; if you use different methods you get dates that do NOT overlap. Because the consensus is so strong that is a 'stoning offence' to seriously question the old earth hypothesis, these are routinely ignored. The alternative - suggested by the trick of offering newly generated rocks from volcanoes that show up as millions of years old when commercially dated - is that it's all actually hogwash. But you just get shouted at for that...
I have to be honest - there are facts that give creationists a hard time. But equally there are facts that give evolutionists a hard time as well. Both sides enjoy pointing out the planks in their opponent's eye. And both have vast amounts invested in being right - because their life choices in far wider areas are often determined by the perceived credibility of these claims: the trope of the fundamentalist kid who rejects his faith because evolution comes to convince him is well founded in reality. Add in the observation that humans usually conform to the dominant world belief when exposed to it over an extended period, it is a surprise that any survive exposure to secular colleges...
Given the absence of test tubes in which geological and palaeontological observations can be recreated to demonstrate that the interpretations made are correct, it is simplistic to categorise evolution and chemistry together as the same sort of science. As someone who started as a STEM student and is now a historian, it makes far more sense to see geology and palaeontology as branches of that arts subject and not 'science'. We historians tell stories based on observations culled from 'sources', both written and archaeological. Ultimately so does evolution and palaeontology.
In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale, but only interpret the data to believe that it is the case, it is correct to deny it the status of fact. Of course it is the current consensus BELIEF of all scientists in the field that want to be taken seriously...
Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material. By contrast nuclear power comes from uranium which isn't anything to do with fossils in that sense.
The UK probably achieves a good compromise; after 2 years of service a person can't be sacked without cause, and if made redundant is eligible for a relatively small amount (1 week's pay per year of service). As to being deceived by your employer - that's just nasty...
My argument is that the reality of such experiences makes France less attractive to future start ups, regardless of whether this specific firm is a start up or not.
The fear of this sort of fiasco makes establishing the company in London instead far more attractive. So the French are ever more stripped of talent. As a Brit I am grateful to the French for sending us so many talented people, but for the folk in France this is BAD NEWS. And this sort of story will discourage risk taking there even more.
People want to work from home and companies recognise that this is desirable, so I think you're hoping for too much in trying to ban it. However making it safer - and getting insurance companies to impose the right constraints - may be the best way forward. 'If your system is hacked because an unauthorised laptop was attached to it, we don't pay out' should be a standard insurance clause. Similarly trying to separate the email system from the rest of system to sandbox spear fishing attacks should be required.
The point of course is that risks always exist; the challenge is to identify them and manage them. At the moment those risks are not being recognised, and the insurance companies are beginning to take exception to taking the fall for things going wrong.
This may offer a useful weapon in such debates; doctors - having been sued for everything - have developed a respect for the impact of law suits. Beyond that: making sure that your concerns are logged in an email to your supervisor gives you significant protection - and looking for another job may be the only answer after that...
If a company cuts corners on security, then in the same way that if I leave my door unlocked and get burgled, I can't make a claim. There's going to be a good living for lawyers establishing what is the required level of security. But if this incentivises senior managers to ask the right questions, then it's probably a good development.
After a serious grounding in statistics, you throw the class at a load of scientific articles - by the barrow load - and get them to spot the howlers for the term paper. Then submit the results to the publishing journals...
Slashdot Mirror
If the company is in any sort of regulated sector, this should be reported to their regulator
If the company is big enough to have an auditor - and that's pretty small - they should be informed
If it's a European company, then the Information commissioner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or the equivalent should be notified. This is clearly unsatisfactory behaviour
A series of nukes are sent in hidden in containers to as many US ports as possible and boom... Iran? IS? N. Korea? A. N. Other?
The only question is 'when' this will happen...
The 'they would like to be our friends but X' argument wore very thin during the Cold War, and in retrospect, given what we now know about the actual behaviour of the Soviet Union and its treatment of its conquests, it's clear that we needed to carry a very big stick to keep them quiet. Sadly the same siren call to be nice to our enemies is being heard again, on the core assumption that their priorities and values are essentially similar to our own. Once you remove that assumption - which is certainly NOT evidenced by the history of Islam on which Iran seeks to model its behaviour - you are forced to conclude they are a very dangerous country.
It's always nice to nice and live in a comfortable bubble believing that all is well. Unfortunately it ain't, and pretending otherwise is how a country gets itself into big trouble.
Khomeni in 1942 argued: 'Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s law].... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.'1
The 13th century Ibn Taimiya articulates a more comprehensive theological justification for the marauding, arguing that the property of non-Muslims must revert legitimately to the followers of the true religion; Jihad is the means to recover these illegally usurped possession, offering a justification for any Muslim to steal from an infidel. This legitimation of their earlier practice suggests that independent Arab marauders descending on villages to steal did do so with religious sanction. This, occurring in advance of the formal expansion of the Islamic Empire, softens up the target for actual conquest.2
1 Barry M. Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin, eds. Anti-American terrorism and the Middle East: A documentary reader. (Oxford: OUP), 2004), 29.
2 Ye'Or, The decline of eastern Christianity under Islam: from jihad to dhimmitude. (Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, US: 1996) 39-40.
The reality is that for thousands of years and across all known cultures marriage has been defined as a relationship between different sexes. The fact that a majority of a minority culture in the world has chosen to call a cat a dog doesn't make it a dog.
Thank you for reminding of what should be the ideal in the property world; as a major in Economics I've spent too long looking at the current situation and lost sight of where we should be aiming. It's interesting to note that the Hebrew Bible has the concept of 'Jubilee' when all productive land is returned to its original owner, though not houses. Tony Benn, the maverick left wing Labour MP and even cabinet minister in the 60s and 70s later proposed a replacement of all freehold property rights with a 50 year lease; strangely enough it's not an idea that has been picked up by anybody ;)
As ever with law and economics, the problem is that any rules you introduce will be gamed to the benefit of the seriously rich and the wider general interest tends to get lost; the problem is that most people who think like you propose solutions that have very negative consequences in practice. I suspect a steady increase in property taxes combined with a move towards a citizen's income may be the right solution, but the pain of such a property tax probably makes it impossible to impose.
1) Students 2) People doing a short term job in a location 3) People who have been bankrupt
That's before we get to those who will never afford their own property.
Given the existence of all these groups, a rental market must exist. The only question is what institution is going to be the owner of those properties that are up for rent.
Beyond that however is the issue of how the next generation gets to own the house that they are going to live in. The Soviet solution was to reinvent serfdom, requiring people to stay on the collective farm they were born on. Is that your solution?
A better solution is to tax property increasingly heavily. This results in the profits from the rising rents going to the government not the investors.
Compared with the minor hiccough of 2008, previous downturns have been PAINFUL. The many actors in the system have acted highly effectively to reduce the amplitude of the waves, not increase them. Remember that in 2008 the economy of China kept growing - as did Australia and Poland; that's in marked contrast to the past slumps.
As the revelations about the failure of the IRS to fulfil the requirements of email archiving law showed, the executive branch doesn't do things just because it's told to. Let's hope this one's got teeth; a breach of a system that has not been secured according to the regulations will result in the loss of pension of all those in the chain of command above the person responsible? Sadly, hanging, drawing and quartering isn't allowed any more...
Given that there is a defence to a charge of criminal damage of preventing a crime - as demonstrated in the damage done to some jets on their way to an oppressive regime, break one and see who complains. The TLA that emerges will be upset, whilst the defence you proffer will force a discussion of their actual use in a court
Rather you than me...
Because God is not a repeatable phenomenon but a person who sometimes chooses to intervene, and sometimes doesn't. It's therefore impossible to prove He exists; the best that we can do is engage with the testimonies of today and the past, and decide whether those stories of miracles are best explained by there being a God. For me the resurrection of Jesus remains the most convincing story from the bible; the reestablishment of the state of Israel and its survival in the 1973 war (especially on the Golan Heights where a small unit fought off most of the Syrian army).
However for a 'scientific' demonstration, the work of the Lourdes International Medical Commitee in studying the miracles that do occur at Lourdes and seeing if there is a non-miraculous explanation takes some beating. http://en.lourdes-france.org/d... Enjoy.
Nope - you are making a false distinction here. I can only assume that you don't have any friends who are seriously religious with whom you have discussed the matter; especially for those who grew up outside the faith and later became believers, there is no doubt that they made a decision to live by the new world view which now became the most reasonable to accept. And remember that many many people who are intellectual giants have made that choice - it is a foolish canard that only the intellectually weak are religious.
Your claim that you can make 'tests' in geology is especially interesting. One of the more striking features in geology is the persistence of discordant dates in radioisotope dating; if you use different methods you get dates that do NOT overlap. Because the consensus is so strong that is a 'stoning offence' to seriously question the old earth hypothesis, these are routinely ignored. The alternative - suggested by the trick of offering newly generated rocks from volcanoes that show up as millions of years old when commercially dated - is that it's all actually hogwash. But you just get shouted at for that...
I have to be honest - there are facts that give creationists a hard time. But equally there are facts that give evolutionists a hard time as well. Both sides enjoy pointing out the planks in their opponent's eye. And both have vast amounts invested in being right - because their life choices in far wider areas are often determined by the perceived credibility of these claims: the trope of the fundamentalist kid who rejects his faith because evolution comes to convince him is well founded in reality. Add in the observation that humans usually conform to the dominant world belief when exposed to it over an extended period, it is a surprise that any survive exposure to secular colleges...
Given the absence of test tubes in which geological and palaeontological observations can be recreated to demonstrate that the interpretations made are correct, it is simplistic to categorise evolution and chemistry together as the same sort of science. As someone who started as a STEM student and is now a historian, it makes far more sense to see geology and palaeontology as branches of that arts subject and not 'science'. We historians tell stories based on observations culled from 'sources', both written and archaeological. Ultimately so does evolution and palaeontology.
In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale, but only interpret the data to believe that it is the case, it is correct to deny it the status of fact. Of course it is the current consensus BELIEF of all scientists in the field that want to be taken seriously...
The 'peak oil' claims have persisted for many a decade, and always look silly in retrospect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Fossil has something to do with living creatures; both coal and oil exist because the carbon in them derives from dead biological material. By contrast nuclear power comes from uranium which isn't anything to do with fossils in that sense.
Let's see the hackers arrange for Bill Gates to get 100% of the votes; maximum embarrassment all round...
HELP HELP WHO CAN I TRUST...
We're from the government and we're here to help you...
'The most terrifying words you can hear' Ronald Reagan
The UK probably achieves a good compromise; after 2 years of service a person can't be sacked without cause, and if made redundant is eligible for a relatively small amount (1 week's pay per year of service). As to being deceived by your employer - that's just nasty...
My argument is that the reality of such experiences makes France less attractive to future start ups, regardless of whether this specific firm is a start up or not.
The fear of this sort of fiasco makes establishing the company in London instead far more attractive. So the French are ever more stripped of talent. As a Brit I am grateful to the French for sending us so many talented people, but for the folk in France this is BAD NEWS. And this sort of story will discourage risk taking there even more.
And then can avoid it if it doesn't appeal...
People want to work from home and companies recognise that this is desirable, so I think you're hoping for too much in trying to ban it. However making it safer - and getting insurance companies to impose the right constraints - may be the best way forward. 'If your system is hacked because an unauthorised laptop was attached to it, we don't pay out' should be a standard insurance clause. Similarly trying to separate the email system from the rest of system to sandbox spear fishing attacks should be required.
The point of course is that risks always exist; the challenge is to identify them and manage them. At the moment those risks are not being recognised, and the insurance companies are beginning to take exception to taking the fall for things going wrong.
This may offer a useful weapon in such debates; doctors - having been sued for everything - have developed a respect for the impact of law suits. Beyond that: making sure that your concerns are logged in an email to your supervisor gives you significant protection - and looking for another job may be the only answer after that...
If a company cuts corners on security, then in the same way that if I leave my door unlocked and get burgled, I can't make a claim. There's going to be a good living for lawyers establishing what is the required level of security. But if this incentivises senior managers to ask the right questions, then it's probably a good development.
After a serious grounding in statistics, you throw the class at a load of scientific articles - by the barrow load - and get them to spot the howlers for the term paper. Then submit the results to the publishing journals...