If I were your supervisor and you dealt with your peers that way, I'd can your happy ass in a heartbeat. There is no possible way that you are competent enough to warrant abusiveness of your coworkers.
People who actually have to build things that function (unlike software designers) often come up with "conceptual designs" to identify problems, and then work to solve them.
I know it's hard to understand. I'm sure you can get it if you try hard.
(snerk.)
(I think it's just freakin' adorable when people call themselves "software engineers".)
Likely true. And there are no engines that are sufficiently efficient (heh) to make the business case, particularly with the regulatory requirements.
Will it happen? Probably someday. But I think it's unlikely that we'll see a large supersonic passenger jet until the rules on supersonic flight in the US change.
"IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens"
Fortunately for all of us, the authors of the Constitution knew that this was a stupid idea, and specifically and explicitly constructed the document to disabuse people of this notion.
But don't let the words on the page disabuse you of your humble opinion.
"The Church did what it thought was best - in most cases rehabilitation was attempted."
Were all cases of abuse referred to local authorities? No? Then the Church did evil. It might not have ALWAYS done evil. But it did evil. And evil should not be done. Period.
"Of course I could also say that all of NASA covered up cost cutting and hence two shuttles blew up "
A moral relativism argument. "NASA blew up a space shuttle, so it's OK if priests molest children!" I'm not going to dignify your ridiculous comparison with further analysis. If you think these two things are the same, you are stupid. Sorry.
"Pedophilia is a difficult problem to treat."
But it's not a particularly difficult crime to prosecute.
"The Church was deficient and negligent in some cases but not in all. "
And if the Church had owned up to its shortcomings (confessed them) and made amends to the victims, and not covered up these heinous crimes, there would be no outcry.
This is not people ganging up on those poor ol' Catholics. This is people refusing to tolerate a wealthy, powerful organization colluding with child abusers.
Any other interpretation is simply wrong. How's that for moral absolutes?
he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.
I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of reason that isn't wrong or evil, but I'll be over here with a couple moral absolute:
Concealing the abuse of children is evil. Abetting the abuse of children is evil. Making sure that people who abuse children get to keep abusing children is evil. Threatening children with excommunication for speaking the truth is evil.
You're right, it's only since the advent of Facebook that people tended to not talk to every single random stranger they encounter. What a shocking turn of events.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were your supervisor and you dealt with your peers that way, I'd can your happy ass in a heartbeat. There is no possible way that you are competent enough to warrant abusiveness of your coworkers.
Mine are.
They cost me little, and get me lots. Common courtesy is a very good investment.
Yeah, but you still look like an idiot holding your minitower case next to your ear to make phone calls.
And you just pulled out your extension cord.
People who actually have to build things that function (unlike software designers) often come up with "conceptual designs" to identify problems, and then work to solve them.
I know it's hard to understand. I'm sure you can get it if you try hard.
(snerk.)
(I think it's just freakin' adorable when people call themselves "software engineers".)
Likely true. And there are no engines that are sufficiently efficient (heh) to make the business case, particularly with the regulatory requirements.
Will it happen? Probably someday. But I think it's unlikely that we'll see a large supersonic passenger jet until the rules on supersonic flight in the US change.
Spoken like somebody who hasn't been paying attention to the staggering increases in fuel economy and noise in the last 50 years.
If you think that's not important stuff, you're not very good at airplanes.
Good luck if you ever try to change jobs. I hope that works out for you.
I wonder if the market is going to change now that there's another player in it? Hmmm...time for another experiment!
Or just whining on /.
Whatever.
Yeah, if you don't mind being detained indefinitely, sure. That due process of the law thing was overrated.
" Not arrested, but detained."
You're going to have to 'splain to me where that distinction is articulated in the Constitution. Must be next to the part about "Enemy Combatants".
Demanding I show ID is unreasonable search and seizure. Got it in one.
And what if, for whatever reason, I do not choose to carry any of those things? They can just arrest me whenever they want?
My birth certificate doesn't have a photo on it. Sounds like they can arrest whoever they want, whenever they want.
"So it's not like Americans have never had to deal with the inconvenience of police asking for ID before."
Yup. And it was unconstitutional then too.
"Non-citizens do not have all of the rights that a citizen does"
You're right. They can't vote, and they can't hold elected office. What the hell does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
How do I, a US Citizen, prove that I am a US Citizen?
"IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens"
Fortunately for all of us, the authors of the Constitution knew that this was a stupid idea, and specifically and explicitly constructed the document to disabuse people of this notion.
But don't let the words on the page disabuse you of your humble opinion.
I'm a United States citizen.
How do I prove it?
The kind that has jurisdiction, which is not the Arizona police forces.
"The Church did what it thought was best - in most cases rehabilitation was attempted."
Were all cases of abuse referred to local authorities? No? Then the Church did evil. It might not have ALWAYS done evil. But it did evil. And evil should not be done. Period.
"Of course I could also say that all of NASA covered up cost cutting and hence two shuttles blew up "
A moral relativism argument. "NASA blew up a space shuttle, so it's OK if priests molest children!" I'm not going to dignify your ridiculous comparison with further analysis. If you think these two things are the same, you are stupid. Sorry.
"Pedophilia is a difficult problem to treat."
But it's not a particularly difficult crime to prosecute.
"The Church was deficient and negligent in some cases but not in all. "
And if the Church had owned up to its shortcomings (confessed them) and made amends to the victims, and not covered up these heinous crimes, there would be no outcry.
This is not people ganging up on those poor ol' Catholics. This is people refusing to tolerate a wealthy, powerful organization colluding with child abusers.
Any other interpretation is simply wrong. How's that for moral absolutes?
It's worse than that.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do
he seems to have threatened the victims with (in his view) eternal damnation and hellfire if they repeated their allegations.
I'm sure you'll be able to come up with some sort of reason that isn't wrong or evil, but I'll be over here with a couple moral absolute:
Concealing the abuse of children is evil.
Abetting the abuse of children is evil.
Making sure that people who abuse children get to keep abusing children is evil.
Threatening children with excommunication for speaking the truth is evil.
People who do those things are evil people.
"Priests are human and did fail"
And the Church aided, abetted, and concealed that failure, systematically, for decades (if not generations).
This is far bigger than a few flawed humans. This is about a system that has perverted itself.
You're right, it's only since the advent of Facebook that people tended to not talk to every single random stranger they encounter. What a shocking turn of events.
Did you think I disagreed with anything you just said?
Do you really, really think that somebody who owns a Hasselblad is going to drop $14k on it just because digital is the new hotness?
No.
They're going to do it if they have a job they can do with the digital back that can't be done with film.
Okay. That's great?