The same professional deniers that insisted there was nothing unhealthy about smoking cigarettes, are now working the Koch brother's PR firm, and insisting that global warming is a hoax.
These scientists also work for, and support: the nuclear industry, Monsanto, and factory farmers.
You might also want to watch "That Sugar Film"
Patrick Moore, a scientist who help found Greenpeace, now works for several corporations.
Here he is promoting the wholesomeness of GMOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A
Here he claims that rising levels of CO2 are good for the environment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
> It’s your own fault if you don’t know that Windows 10 is spying on you. That’s what people always say when users fail to read through a company’s terms of service document, right?
> If you're taking up Microsoft on its offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10, you should know that the new operating system has a feature, called Wi-Fi Sense, that automatically shares your Wi-Fi passwords with others.
Aside from new movies, all the time, there are so many shows on television: Gotham, Super Girl, Flash, Arrow, Agent Carter, Agents of Shield, Daredevil. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
As a kid, I read comic books. At first, it was fun seeing the super heroes come to life. Now it's getting tiresome.
Also, does every other movie have to be a re-boot of the origin story?
It is very difficult to catch these guys in the act. The existence of these laws demonstrate the lengths these factory farmers will go to cover up the truth.
I doubt it is easy to take out a camera and record the abuse. The undercover people, who take the video, have to have their names legally changed, all the time.
You can be sure that way less than 1% of the abuse is ever recorded.
Watch the HBO documentary "Death on a Factory Farm"
> There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
Because 1) government is corrupt. In Idaho, the gov are a bunch ag people themselves. 2) when the government is watching, you know they are watching you, and you modify your behavior. What matters is what happens when the government is not watching.
> These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
1) So what? 2) Of course the long-time employees would be okay with it, otherwise they would not be long time employees. The torturers were stung by an undercover whistle blower, what is wrong with that?
> The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
"Resorted to fraud" - just listen to you. These concerned individuals wanted to document what actually happens. How else can you do it? How else do you stop the torture?
> This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
It is not about food safety, so much, as cruelty to animals. And these factory farmers are horrifically cruel to animals.
> Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
How else do you stop these animal torturers?
BTW: it's okay to "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" if the theater is on fire.
Funny how Americans have to train their "best and brightest" replacements. Americans are too stupid for tech work, but not too stupid to train the people who do the tech work.
Also funny that those "best and brightest" nations are technologically backwards, and do not have much to show for nations of tech geniuses.
Let's say you claim 20 years of experience as a systems administrator.
What does that mean? Is your experience in Windows, Solaris, HP/UX, Linux, or what? Also, how much of each? Do you know Perl? Oracle? Cisco?
How does an employer know that your experience is with Solaris and not HP/UX? I suppose the employer could test you, but isn't that what a certification is all about?
I think it's very fair to say that standardized cert tests are far more objective than interview tech questions. I have been tech interviewed by some real bozos in my time. People who said I was wrong, when I was right. People who ask questions far more ridiculous than I would be asked on the crappiest cert exam.
In some fields, like health care, job specializations are extremely well defined. The credentials for doing those jobs are also very well defined.
You can look at somebody's credentials, and answer: yes or no; whether that person is technically qualified to be an R.N., or a phlebotomist, or whatever.
IT, by contrast, has always been pure slop. The credentials to do a job are arbitrary. What one employer considered a valid credential, another considers to be a negative. Practically no jobs in IT have hard requirements - except for security clearances.
Every employers was five years experience in each item of their list of technologies - and every employer has a different list.
Maybe if the jobs were better defined, then the credentials for those jobs could be better defined?
Slashdot Mirror
I watched Jon Stewart on Plex for free. Although, I think he was also available on Hulu.
Corporations have been doing this for ages.
The same professional deniers that insisted there was nothing unhealthy about smoking cigarettes, are now working the Koch brother's PR firm, and insisting that global warming is a hoax.
These scientists also work for, and support: the nuclear industry, Monsanto, and factory farmers.
You might also want to watch "That Sugar Film"
Patrick Moore, a scientist who help found Greenpeace, now works for several corporations.
Here he is promoting the wholesomeness of GMOs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A
Here he claims that rising levels of CO2 are good for the environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
Just typical corporate shenanigans.
Systemd is now, essentially, the entire OS.
Best refuge for now.
> It’s your own fault if you don’t know that Windows 10 is spying on you. That’s what people always say when users fail to read through a company’s terms of service document, right?
http://bgr.com/2015/07/31/windows-10-upgrade-spying-how-to-opt-out/
> If you're taking up Microsoft on its offer of a free upgrade to Windows 10, you should know that the new operating system has a feature, called Wi-Fi Sense, that automatically shares your Wi-Fi passwords with others.
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/windows-10-may-share-wi-164057617.html
Apple, and Microsoft, have always been just as bad.
Literally: every other movie is a re-boot.
Aside from new movies, all the time, there are so many shows on television: Gotham, Super Girl, Flash, Arrow, Agent Carter, Agents of Shield, Daredevil. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
As a kid, I read comic books. At first, it was fun seeing the super heroes come to life. Now it's getting tiresome.
Also, does every other movie have to be a re-boot of the origin story?
> No doubt there are some instances of abuse
I think a lot more than "some instances"
It is very difficult to catch these guys in the act. The existence of these laws demonstrate the lengths these factory farmers will go to cover up the truth.
I doubt it is easy to take out a camera and record the abuse. The undercover people, who take the video, have to have their names legally changed, all the time.
You can be sure that way less than 1% of the abuse is ever recorded.
Watch the HBO documentary "Death on a Factory Farm"
Excellent post.
How could anybody defend animal torture?
> There is a substantial difference between someone breaking and entering your property and filming, vs. committing fraud by accepting employment, and potential other crimes in the process, when compared to a legally designated government inspector from the Department of Health or Department of Agriculture.
Because 1) government is corrupt. In Idaho, the gov are a bunch ag people themselves. 2) when the government is watching, you know they are watching you, and you modify your behavior. What matters is what happens when the government is not watching.
> These were not long time employees suddenly incensed by recent activity, and they were not long time employees who suddenly got the anti-factory-farm religion because they happened to start dating a vegetarian.
1) So what? 2) Of course the long-time employees would be okay with it, otherwise they would not be long time employees. The torturers were stung by an undercover whistle blower, what is wrong with that?
> The laws happened because there is an ongoing problem of these activists illegally entering the property -- technically breaking and entering, criminal trespass, and a large set of other chargeable crimes, and the police were getting sick and tired of responding to those acts, so they strengthened the penalties. When it became to costly, in terms of risk vs. reward to use those tactics any more, then the activists resorted to fraud. The specific law which was declared unconstitutional in Idaho was enact to strengthen the penalties against this fraud. In other words, it's an escalation of tactics.
"Resorted to fraud" - just listen to you. These concerned individuals wanted to document what actually happens. How else can you do it? How else do you stop the torture?
> This judges decision will likely be thrown out on appeal on the basis of contravening the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory of limitations on first amendment rights, since what they were filming on the farm generally has no bearing on actual food safety, according to the Ag. Inspectors, and was intended to be alarmist and result in a negative backlash, rather than an increase in food safety. These people are in fact anti-meat activists.
It is not about food safety, so much, as cruelty to animals. And these factory farmers are horrifically cruel to animals.
> Like the "shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" theory, you are in fact free to say what you want; however, what you say may also have social, civil, or even criminal consequences which you don't like and don't want. But that's what happens to people who acto out sociopathic tendencies for what they see as justifiable ends: ostracism, lawsuits, or (ultimately) criminal charges.
How else do you stop these animal torturers?
BTW: it's okay to "shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" if the theater is on fire.
I think this is one of the videos in question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN_YcWOuVqk
Tell me how they were actually being nice to the cows, but the video makes it look like animal torture?
Also, are there not experts who can tell if a video is edited?
These factory farms are not going to stop torturing animals unless they are forced to do so.
If you cannot record what actually happens, then how would anybody know?
Excellent video.
As I understand it, that would do way more to prevent greenhouse gasses than anything else you could reasonably do.
> Learn from your mistakes.
By that you must mean: stop using Linux and learn FreeBSD.
Funny how Americans have to train their "best and brightest" replacements. Americans are too stupid for tech work, but not too stupid to train the people who do the tech work.
Also funny that those "best and brightest" nations are technologically backwards, and do not have much to show for nations of tech geniuses.
Not as far away either.
Is Wayland dependent on systemd, or not?
Why accuse me of trolling if you don't even know?
If so, this is another victory for Red Hat.
It is looking like Red Hat will monopolize Linux.
Let's say you claim 20 years of experience as a systems administrator.
What does that mean? Is your experience in Windows, Solaris, HP/UX, Linux, or what? Also, how much of each? Do you know Perl? Oracle? Cisco?
How does an employer know that your experience is with Solaris and not HP/UX? I suppose the employer could test you, but isn't that what a certification is all about?
I think it's very fair to say that standardized cert tests are far more objective than interview tech questions. I have been tech interviewed by some real bozos in my time. People who said I was wrong, when I was right. People who ask questions far more ridiculous than I would be asked on the crappiest cert exam.
In some fields, like health care, job specializations are extremely well defined. The credentials for doing those jobs are also very well defined.
You can look at somebody's credentials, and answer: yes or no; whether that person is technically qualified to be an R.N., or a phlebotomist, or whatever.
IT, by contrast, has always been pure slop. The credentials to do a job are arbitrary. What one employer considered a valid credential, another considers to be a negative. Practically no jobs in IT have hard requirements - except for security clearances.
Every employers was five years experience in each item of their list of technologies - and every employer has a different list.
Maybe if the jobs were better defined, then the credentials for those jobs could be better defined?
Same is true of drivers licence, or a licence to practice law, or medicine, no?
Is it fair to say the CPA is bullshit because once you have been a CPA for 20 years, the experience counts more than the credential?
I wonder if those posting about certs being all route memorization have their CCIE? Or RHCE?
Actually I wonder if they have any certs at all, since the route memorization claim is bullshit.
I must admit, a lot of the multiple guess cert questions do not really test your ability.
But could certs be better implemented, and thereby more worthwhile?