Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.
There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.
Yes. There is such a thing. In fact, there are quite a few people who act like children their whole lives. This issue is so emotionally charged for you, that you aren't able to step back and understand the point these other folks are trying to get across.
I agree that those who are emotionally and intellectually unable to give informed consent (regardless of age, but children are the largest group that fits that description) need to be protected from those who would take advantage of such people. It is certainly *possible* (perhaps even likely) that someone incapable of consenting to sexual activity could be harmed by it.
I also agree that it would be much too onerous on our legal system to take each case and evaluate all those involved to determine whether or not consent is possible. As such, arbitrary age limits are applied, just as we do WRT driving and purchasing alcohol or tobacco. However, I suspect that *most* of us would agree that the overwhelming majority of pre-pubescent kids are generally too immature emotionally and intellectually to give consent. This is the issue addressed by TFA. Whether using an AI to entrap folks is appropriate is a difficult question.
AFAICT, the points that many folks who are up in arms about this are trying to make are valid as well. 1. Viewing fictional depictions, reading or talking about sexual contact with those unable to consent should be protected expression. Ideas should not be criminalized. 2. Teenagers have sex with each other all the time. And do other things like send each other explicit photos and videos of themselves. Criminally prosecuting teenagers for doing what teenagers do, and them branding them as predators for the rest of their lives is both cruel and counterproductive.
Can you get your head around those concepts? Feel free to disagree, but if you are going to disagree, please provide some reasoned arguments. And "herp derp, think of the children" or "herp derp, there is such a thing as childhood you know" don't qualify, IMHO.
Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.
But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not.
You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.
Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.
I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.
Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.
Oh, and just to cut off your sanctimonious "you didn't answer the question about third-party witnesses!" because I know you won't go and actually spend the time to actually think it through, you braying ass. If any witness can refuse to answer any question, even if it does not incriminate them, our trial system wouldn't be able to function. As members of our society, we have a duty to participate in our legal system, whether it be as a juror or a witness, with criminal penalties attached if we refuse. Don't like it? Elect some folks to change it. Oh, and good luck with that. With all the flaws in our judicial system, requiring witnesses to answer questions that do not incriminate them is not one of them.
You've wasted enough of my valuable time. Based on your hagiography, one would expect more from you. If you're trying to be didactic with your obvious questions and inane comments, you've failed. Good bye.
But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not.
You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.
Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.
I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.
Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.
We know what the Fifth Amendment says. My question, once again, is: Is there a logical argument, from first principles about rights of the state vs. rights of the individual, as to why we should grant defendants the right to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses? Is there a good reason that we enshrine the right against self-incrimination, but not the right against incrimination of others?
Yes. No one should be forced to given evidence against themselves. This prevents the most egregious abuses (e.g., forcing confessions through coercion) by the government. Third-party witnesses have the same right -- that is, not to incriminate *themselves*.
This idea is neither new, nor especially profound. IMHO, it is intuitively obvious. If it isn't that way to you, I question the quality of your education. If it is, you're just trolling or, more likely, attention whoring. Get over yourself. You aren't asking worthwhile questions.
Why don't you pose something more useful for discussion? Perhaps something like "Does the United States Government's current position on journalist shield laws betray the spirit of the the First Amendment? If so, is that a betrayal of the right to free speech or the rights of a free press? If not, why not? Discuss."
Re:
"There was once a common practice of forcing defendants to testify, and adding more charges if they denied guilt and then were found guilty anyways. The Fifth Amendment protects against that practice, and only that practice."
Well if the court system is corrupt or sloppy enough that they can convict you even if you're innocent, then that's a problem with or without the Fifth Amendment. Suppose you remain silent instead of denying guilt, and they railroad you on a murder charge anyway. If you're already getting convicted of murder, an extra charge of lying under oath wouldn't have mattered very much.
On the other hand, if you really are guilty, and you testify that you didn't do it, but evidence comes out that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did it (caught on high-quality tape, for example), then you should be charged with perjury as well as with the original crime, shouldn't you?
But regardless, this all goes back to the previous article I wrote, asking what was the real rationale for the Fifth Amendment. This article is arguing a different question -- what is the rationale for giving defendants the right to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses.
It is the right not to be forced to be a witness against oneself. This goes back to English Common Law. From Wikipedia:
In the United Kingdom and countries formerly part of the British Empire (such as Commonwealth nations, the United States and the Republic of Ireland) the right to silence has remained enshrined in the common-law tradition inherited from England. In the US the right existed prior to the American Revolution. However, it was considered one of the most important safeguards protecting citizens against arbitrary actions of the state, and was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, along with the words "due process", which was first mentioned in a statute of Edward III in 1354 and contains similar wording to the Fifth Amendment.
In the United States witnesses are protected from incriminating themselves via the Fifth Amendment. That protection does not extend to others:
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves.[2] Incriminating oneself is defined as exposing oneself to "an accusation or charge of crime," or as involving oneself "in a criminal prosecution or the danger thereof."[3] The privilege against self-incrimination is "[t]he privilege derived from the Fifth Amendment, U.S. Const., and similar provisions in the constitutions of states....[that] requires the government to prove a criminal case against the defendant without the aid of the defendant as a witness against himself...."[4] To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could form self incriminating evidence.[5] Historically, the legal protection against self-incrimination is directly related to the question of torture for extracting information and confessions.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1966) the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.[6][7] Justice Robert H. Jackson further notes that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances."[8]
Miranda warnings must be given before there is any "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way."[9] The suspect must be warned, prior to the interrogation, that he/she has the right to remain silent, that anything he/she says may be used
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance.
If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
IIRC, Open source in this context refers to intelligence gathering from public sources like newspapers and public records and such.
Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.
This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.
I am responsible for the things that *I* do. If others are irresponsible with the results of what I do, you're saying that I'm somehow responsible for their actions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
Assuming that the other person isn't mentally challenged or has some sort of mental illness that makes it possible for me to manipulate them, they have to be responsible for their own actions regardless of what I do. Whether that's driving safely or not pilfering the brownies with nuts that I asked them to give to their wife, it's not my fault if someone *chooses* to read my text messages or emails or tweets while driving. I'm not forcing them to look at their phone while they should be watching the road.
Holding a texter responsible for the irresponsible acts of a driver is like arresting the truck driver that delivered the E-Coli tainted beef to the supermarket. That assumes of course, that the driver didn't roll around in the beef before he delivered it. If someone texts or emails me when I'm driving, they have to wait until I can safely look at their message.
This is just expanding the pool of people who can be sued for traffic accidents. Has anyone looked into the background of the judge who made this ruling?
Having grown up in NYC and spent much of my life riding a bicycle on the streets of Manhattan, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that my first priority when riding my bicycle or driving a car is, wait for it, to not die.
Having lived and driven in many parts of the U.S. I've often been appalled at the cavalier way in which people drive. You're in a 1+ ton box of metal usually traveling at least 100km/h. Lots of ways to die in that scenario.
Perhaps others might decide that they too do not want to die, but I won't hold my breath. As such, I think autonomous vehicles will be a huge win for everyone except those with a death wish.
That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.
Which ideals have long ceased to be relevant? Freedom of expression? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Freedom of religion? The right to be secure in our persons and papers? Inquiring minds want to know. Personally, I think they're still quite relevant.
Was "National 'Don't Be A Dick' Day." Don't be a dick. Give appropriate notice. Whether or not your employer cares or handles it well, is another story and, IMHO, not really relevant to not being a dick. Even if your boss/employer is a dick, that doesn't mean you have to stoop to his/her level, does it? And what does it say about you if you just up and leave without giving your employer and co-workers an opportunity to plan for your departure? even if they don't take advantage of said opportunity, you are being a stand-up guy/girl.
I expect that there will be some who will pooh-pooh this and say something to the effect of "it's a tough world, no one is going to go out of their way to make things easier for me, why should I stick my neck out for anyone if it doesn't directly benefit me?"
Well, the reason is simple. quality human beings are honest and do the right thing *because it's the right thing to do* not for some perceived or real benefit. So I guess the question is, "do you want to be a quality human being?" answer that question and you'll know what to do.
You are another HR moron if you think that. An enormous amount of companies have a policy to give exactly that as a reference even if the person was the greatest employee to ever work that company, and the CEO offered to bend over if they would stay. You deserve to fail professionally, and morally i think you deserve to die slowly while watching your children raped by convicts.
Remind me not to take the last copy of the newspaper when you're standing behind me. I imagine you'd run me through with your umbrella for that, eh? Geez Louise!
If they're still courting bob, asking him to come back, perhaps with a raise, they will not be likely to give a glowing reference.
Relying on references is futile.
Company references are absolutely a waste, but personal references are *not* useless. If a candidate can't find three people they worked for/with in the past to say something nice about them, that's a pretty good sign that they may be a problem, IMHO.
What is crony capitalism other than a buzzword that those that prefer less governmental regulation in the economy throw out to explain things the free market does without regulations that they don't like to prevent them from having to re-evaluate their economic policies?
Thats defines freedom the polar opposite of what Islam is for the most. I wonder if Heinlein have had some interactions with Islam in his personal life. Oh, wait, he did wrote the Revolt 2100 and had apparently a strong position in the culture wars of the US. Would Heinlein see American Christianity equivalent to Islam as a counterpositions to freedom?
Heinlein was an individualist and social darwinist. Religion, regardless of its outer trappings was all pretty much the same to him -- a check on individuals and on the survival of the most successful. Since he also grew up in the bible belt, it's unlikely that he needed to look to Islam to foment his distaste for religious oppression. Christianity was anti-freedom enough.
Now, they do have some valid points which I do advocate for, but so many things they want to do would be so terrible, IMHO ( like their crony capitalism economics, and lack of support for social programs) I have to vote to keep them out. They would do more harm than good.
He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.
You seem a little confused.
ITAR only covers military equipment, ordnance and services. Perhaps I missed something, but servers and encrypted emails aren't included in the Munitions List which details stuff that can't be exported.
...I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Robert Heinlein
That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place for its citizens and everyone else.
Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.
solution? go back to a time tested techniques -- minimum security, transportation to elsewhere. eg an island or somethign? one of those aleutian islands in alaska? that would be pretty sweet. maybe the prisoners could run it with their own local gov't and services and such? sounds pretty good to me...
...aaaaaaaaaaand he's gone. Hopefully out of reach of all repressive regimes, including the USA.
Snowden left a free society and the first place he landed was a city in a one party communist state, the People's Republic of China, well known for its repression. From there he somewhat improved things by going to Russia, which left communism behind, but now has been sliding back towards authoritarianism for some time. From there Snowden hopes to travel to one of several leftist regimes in Latin America. Those regimes are not exactly known as beacons of freedom and respect for civil rights. Snowden traded life in a free society for life in repressive regimes. I suppose it is somewhat fair given the damage he did to the security of the US and its allies.
I know you're a troll and all, but please elucidate as to exactly what "damage he did to the security of the US and its allies."
Slashdot Mirror
Interestingly, I turned these up.
These have been, obviously, publicly posted on purpose. Should Google not return this sort of thing in search results as well?
Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.
Obligatory You must be new here.
Ummm. No. Not obligatory at all and I'm not new here. As you could easily find out, friend.
I usually post as an AC when I'm moderating on a thread.
Sorry. There's a difference between me not necessarily being wise about my sexual indiscretions, and a 5 year old having no idea what's going on.
There is such a thing as childhood. This shouldn't be a point of debate. At all.
Yes. There is such a thing. In fact, there are quite a few people who act like children their whole lives. This issue is so emotionally charged for you, that you aren't able to step back and understand the point these other folks are trying to get across.
I agree that those who are emotionally and intellectually unable to give informed consent (regardless of age, but children are the largest group that fits that description) need to be protected from those who would take advantage of such people. It is certainly *possible* (perhaps even likely) that someone incapable of consenting to sexual activity could be harmed by it.
I also agree that it would be much too onerous on our legal system to take each case and evaluate all those involved to determine whether or not consent is possible. As such, arbitrary age limits are applied, just as we do WRT driving and purchasing alcohol or tobacco. However, I suspect that *most* of us would agree that the overwhelming majority of pre-pubescent kids are generally too immature emotionally and intellectually to give consent. This is the issue addressed by TFA. Whether using an AI to entrap folks is appropriate is a difficult question.
AFAICT, the points that many folks who are up in arms about this are trying to make are valid as well.
1. Viewing fictional depictions, reading or talking about sexual contact with those unable to consent should be protected expression. Ideas should not be criminalized.
2. Teenagers have sex with each other all the time. And do other things like send each other explicit photos and videos of themselves. Criminally prosecuting teenagers for doing what teenagers do, and them branding them as predators for the rest of their lives is both cruel and counterproductive.
Can you get your head around those concepts? Feel free to disagree, but if you are going to disagree, please provide some reasoned arguments. And "herp derp, think of the children" or "herp derp, there is such a thing as childhood you know" don't qualify, IMHO.
Screw it. I'm going to blow my mods on this thread for this. Hopefully not posting as AC will give you more incentive to respond intelligently.
But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not. You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.
Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.
That it doesn't extend to incriminating others is, again, intuitively obvious. I'm not your high school civics teacher. Do it yourself.
I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.
Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.
Oh, and just to cut off your sanctimonious "you didn't answer the question about third-party witnesses!" because I know you won't go and actually spend the time to actually think it through, you braying ass. If any witness can refuse to answer any question, even if it does not incriminate them, our trial system wouldn't be able to function. As members of our society, we have a duty to participate in our legal system, whether it be as a juror or a witness, with criminal penalties attached if we refuse. Don't like it? Elect some folks to change it. Oh, and good luck with that. With all the flaws in our judicial system, requiring witnesses to answer questions that do not incriminate them is not one of them.
You've wasted enough of my valuable time. Based on your hagiography, one would expect more from you. If you're trying to be didactic with your obvious questions and inane comments, you've failed. Good bye.
But you still haven't said why you think requiring an answer from a defendant (a potentially self-incriminating one) is an "egregious abuse", but requiring an answer from a third-party witness (which might potentially incriminate someone else) is not. You mention "forcing confessions through coercion". Every time someone says that the Fifth Amendment is what protects us against the police beating us up if we give an answer they don't like, I point out the same thing: Third-party witnesses don't have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, but they still have the right not to get beaten up by the police. So wherever that right comes from, it doesn't come from the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Actually, I did say why I thought the right against self-incrimination was important. It limits the government's ability to coerce testimony. I'll add another reason as well. If someone lies while testifying under oath, they open themselves up to criminal charges of perjury. The right against self-incrimination allows a defendant (or a third-party witness) to avoid lying under oath without becoming a witness against himself.
Actually, third-party witnesses (as I already pointed out. I guess poor reading comprehension is another one of your many shortcomings) *do* have the right to not to incriminate themselves. However, witnesses can be compelled to testify (via something called a subpoena) and should they lie, they open themselves up to criminal perjury charges.
That it doesn't extend to incriminating others is, again, intuitively obvious. I'm not your high school civics teacher. Do it yourself.
I answered your stupid question. Why don't you attempt to answer mine? Yeah. That would actually require spending some time understanding the issue and formulating cogent thoughts. I know. That's way too much for you to handle.
Since you are so obviously trolling here, I'm going to stop wasting my time responding to you, except for extremely rude, graphic and nasty ad hominem attacks you stupid motherfucker.
We know what the Fifth Amendment says. My question, once again, is: Is there a logical argument, from first principles about rights of the state vs. rights of the individual, as to why we should grant defendants the right to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses? Is there a good reason that we enshrine the right against self-incrimination, but not the right against incrimination of others?
Yes. No one should be forced to given evidence against themselves. This prevents the most egregious abuses (e.g., forcing confessions through coercion) by the government. Third-party witnesses have the same right -- that is, not to incriminate *themselves*.
This idea is neither new, nor especially profound. IMHO, it is intuitively obvious. If it isn't that way to you, I question the quality of your education. If it is, you're just trolling or, more likely, attention whoring. Get over yourself. You aren't asking worthwhile questions.
Why don't you pose something more useful for discussion? Perhaps something like "Does the United States Government's current position on journalist shield laws betray the spirit of the the First Amendment? If so, is that a betrayal of the right to free speech or the rights of a free press? If not, why not? Discuss."
See how easy that was?
Re: "There was once a common practice of forcing defendants to testify, and adding more charges if they denied guilt and then were found guilty anyways. The Fifth Amendment protects against that practice, and only that practice." Well if the court system is corrupt or sloppy enough that they can convict you even if you're innocent, then that's a problem with or without the Fifth Amendment. Suppose you remain silent instead of denying guilt, and they railroad you on a murder charge anyway. If you're already getting convicted of murder, an extra charge of lying under oath wouldn't have mattered very much. On the other hand, if you really are guilty, and you testify that you didn't do it, but evidence comes out that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you did it (caught on high-quality tape, for example), then you should be charged with perjury as well as with the original crime, shouldn't you? But regardless, this all goes back to the previous article I wrote, asking what was the real rationale for the Fifth Amendment. This article is arguing a different question -- what is the rationale for giving defendants the right to remain silent, but not third-party witnesses.
It is the right not to be forced to be a witness against oneself. This goes back to English Common Law. From Wikipedia:
In the United States witnesses are protected from incriminating themselves via the Fifth Amendment. That protection does not extend to others:
Between the CIA and the DoDIA they have over half a billion in the category "open source". Very interesting.
The notion of CIA and "open" impacts my mind pretty much as cognitive dissonance. If I leave aside the software context and put "CIA + open source" alongside, the impact is double (what the hell can be source from CIA and still be open?)
IIRC, Open source in this context refers to intelligence gathering from public sources like newspapers and public records and such.
Which is commonsense. You don't get an out for something you initiate simply because the mechanism you're relying upon involves someone else being irresponsible. And the court's not making you solely responsible, but it isn't letting you off the hook either.
This is about personal responsibility. Personal responsibility does not mean blaming one person for the actions of multiple people, it means each person involved stepping up to the plate and taking responsible for their part. If you're texting people knowing they're reading those texts while driving, then you're an irresponsible jerk. The driver's irresponsible too, but you know they're reading those messages, and you're sending the messages anyway. Don't pretend it's got nothing to do with you.
I am responsible for the things that *I* do. If others are irresponsible with the results of what I do, you're saying that I'm somehow responsible for their actions. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life.
Assuming that the other person isn't mentally challenged or has some sort of mental illness that makes it possible for me to manipulate them, they have to be responsible for their own actions regardless of what I do. Whether that's driving safely or not pilfering the brownies with nuts that I asked them to give to their wife, it's not my fault if someone *chooses* to read my text messages or emails or tweets while driving. I'm not forcing them to look at their phone while they should be watching the road.
Holding a texter responsible for the irresponsible acts of a driver is like arresting the truck driver that delivered the E-Coli tainted beef to the supermarket. That assumes of course, that the driver didn't roll around in the beef before he delivered it. If someone texts or emails me when I'm driving, they have to wait until I can safely look at their message.
This is just expanding the pool of people who can be sued for traffic accidents. Has anyone looked into the background of the judge who made this ruling?
Geez Louise!
Having grown up in NYC and spent much of my life riding a bicycle on the streets of Manhattan, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that my first priority when riding my bicycle or driving a car is, wait for it, to not die.
Having lived and driven in many parts of the U.S. I've often been appalled at the cavalier way in which people drive. You're in a 1+ ton box of metal usually traveling at least 100km/h. Lots of ways to die in that scenario.
Perhaps others might decide that they too do not want to die, but I won't hold my breath. As such, I think autonomous vehicles will be a huge win for everyone except those with a death wish.
Teenage boys are horny. Film at 11:00.
That's one of the other things that are wrong with America, too much hype about ideals that have long ceased to be relevant.
Which ideals have long ceased to be relevant? Freedom of expression? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Freedom of religion? The right to be secure in our persons and papers? Inquiring minds want to know. Personally, I think they're still quite relevant.
"On that train, all graphite and glitter. Undersea by rail. 90 minutes from New York to Paris, well by '76 we'll be A-Ok."
-- Donald Fagan
Was "National 'Don't Be A Dick' Day." Don't be a dick. Give appropriate notice. Whether or not your employer cares or handles it well, is another story and, IMHO, not really relevant to not being a dick. Even if your boss/employer is a dick, that doesn't mean you have to stoop to his/her level, does it? And what does it say about you if you just up and leave without giving your employer and co-workers an opportunity to plan for your departure? even if they don't take advantage of said opportunity, you are being a stand-up guy/girl.
I expect that there will be some who will pooh-pooh this and say something to the effect of "it's a tough world, no one is going to go out of their way to make things easier for me, why should I stick my neck out for anyone if it doesn't directly benefit me?"
Well, the reason is simple. quality human beings are honest and do the right thing *because it's the right thing to do* not for some perceived or real benefit. So I guess the question is, "do you want to be a quality human being?" answer that question and you'll know what to do.
Oh, and you're welcome.
You are another HR moron if you think that. An enormous amount of companies have a policy to give exactly that as a reference even if the person was the greatest employee to ever work that company, and the CEO offered to bend over if they would stay. You deserve to fail professionally, and morally i think you deserve to die slowly while watching your children raped by convicts.
Remind me not to take the last copy of the newspaper when you're standing behind me. I imagine you'd run me through with your umbrella for that, eh? Geez Louise!
references are useless.
If they're still courting bob, asking him to come back, perhaps with a raise, they will not be likely to give a glowing reference.
Relying on references is futile.
Company references are absolutely a waste, but personal references are *not* useless. If a candidate can't find three people they worked for/with in the past to say something nice about them, that's a pretty good sign that they may be a problem, IMHO.
What is crony capitalism other than a buzzword that those that prefer less governmental regulation in the economy throw out to explain things the free market does without regulations that they don't like to prevent them from having to re-evaluate their economic policies?
Crony capitalism is a term describing an economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.
Thats defines freedom the polar opposite of what Islam is for the most. I wonder if Heinlein have had some interactions with Islam in his personal life. Oh, wait, he did wrote the Revolt 2100 and had apparently a strong position in the culture wars of the US. Would Heinlein see American Christianity equivalent to Islam as a counterpositions to freedom?
Heinlein was an individualist and social darwinist. Religion, regardless of its outer trappings was all pretty much the same to him -- a check on individuals and on the survival of the most successful. Since he also grew up in the bible belt, it's unlikely that he needed to look to Islam to foment his distaste for religious oppression. Christianity was anti-freedom enough.
Now, they do have some valid points which I do advocate for, but so many things they want to do would be so terrible, IMHO ( like their crony capitalism economics, and lack of support for social programs) I have to vote to keep them out. They would do more harm than good.
There. FTFY.
He cannot legally take it out of the country due to ITAR.
You seem a little confused.
ITAR only covers military equipment, ordnance and services. Perhaps I missed something, but servers and encrypted emails aren't included in the Munitions List which details stuff that can't be exported.
N.B: IANAL
Where at least I know I'm free!
-- Robert Heinlein
That's a shame, and I say that as a proud American. We came up with the modern national park (Yosemite was the first); we have a great deal of ecological and geographic diversity, and some lovely people. We have some fantastic cultural things. It's a shame that our government is working overtime to make our beautiful country such an unwelcoming place for its citizens and everyone else.
Sorry; hopefully we'll come to our senses soon enough.
There. FTFY.
have 24 hour surveillance and use "man traps" which require multiple access keys, electronic or otherwise.
solution? go back to a time tested techniques -- minimum security, transportation to elsewhere. eg an island or somethign? one of those aleutian islands in alaska? that would be pretty sweet. maybe the prisoners could run it with their own local gov't and services and such? sounds pretty good to me...
cf. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress
...aaaaaaaaaaand he's gone. Hopefully out of reach of all repressive regimes, including the USA.
Snowden left a free society and the first place he landed was a city in a one party communist state, the People's Republic of China, well known for its repression. From there he somewhat improved things by going to Russia, which left communism behind, but now has been sliding back towards authoritarianism for some time. From there Snowden hopes to travel to one of several leftist regimes in Latin America. Those regimes are not exactly known as beacons of freedom and respect for civil rights. Snowden traded life in a free society for life in repressive regimes. I suppose it is somewhat fair given the damage he did to the security of the US and its allies.
I know you're a troll and all, but please elucidate as to exactly what "damage he did to the security of the US and its allies."
Thought so.