The National Security Agency revealed to an angry congressional panel on Wednesday that its analysis of phone records and online behavior goes exponentially beyond what it had previously disclosed.
If it's true that members of Congress are angry, that's favorable news! Maybe they can be persuaded to get off their butts and do something about this.
Except that as they are all three hops away from the people on the watch list, the NSA knows all they need to know to keep them in line.
It's like a bad action film turned into a real world nightmare.
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
It's a gated community, not a fortress. If Martin wanted to lose Zimmerman, it would have been trivial. He could have entered his father's home. He could have walked out the eastern entrance to the community. Or he could have just hopped over the community's fence at any point, a trivial acrobatic feat for a 17-year-old athlete. (I say that as a former 17-year-old athlete).
And what part of that says that Z didn't follow M and attack him? You don't know fuck all and neither do I or anyone else so stop acting like you were there.
Also, I don't think that Zimmerman wanted to follow Martin, at all. Z was scared of M. Listen to his call with police dispatch: Dispatcher: What's your apartment number? Zimmerman: It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
How do you get that he was scared out of that? I get that he didn't feel like taking the time to give out his full address because he was chasing a 'bad guy'. He didn't want to give his address to dispatch - how does that make him afraid of M?????
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
Dispatch never gives orders. It's against policy. I know it's a detail, but can't we be precise?
Annoying is more like it. How do you know Dispatch never gives orders? Are you a dispatcher? Do you have access to the policy for the police department at your fingertips perhaps? You have reviewed all the Dispatch records over time and determined they never give orders?
Anyway, I think we've come full circle. You are operating with the assumption that Z followed M after dispatch said Z didn't need to, despite having no evidence that he did so.
No. I am not OPERATING WITH ANYTHING CONCRETE. For the UMPTEENTH TIME I am telling you that I HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKING CLUE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED and that I postulated ONE POSSIBILITY that does not agree with your point of view.
I have presented evidence that he stopped following M. That evidence is that dispatch asked some questions about M. After that, you hear the car door opening and the car's chime going off and then you hear a fat, out-of-shape man panting into the phone, suggesting that he was running after M. Dispatch hears all this and asks Z if he's running after M, and Z says that he is. D says you don't need to follow, so Z says, "Ok". After that, the panting stops. For the remainder of the call, Z makes further statements that he does not know the whereabouts of M and wants to meet a police officer.
You have presented evidence that he stopped following M...DURING THE PHONE CALL. As you, me nor anyone else has any idea what happened after the phone call ended you are basically talking out your ass if you think that your evidence covers anything after the call ends.
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
It's not a question of liking or not liking. It's a question of you saying that you "know" something, but then when I ask how you "know" it, all of a sudden it's all wishy-washy. If you merely suspect something and don't really know it, couldn't you just say it that way?
How about, "I suspect Z was trying to reestablish contact with M because he initially observed him and thought he was suspicious and wanted to lead the police to him."? That would be a totally reasonable thing to say, would it not? I would happily agree with that, because for all I know, that *was* what Z was doing. But saying that you *know* what Z was doing is a different ballgame, and that's why I called you on it. I think you don't really know what Z was doing. Which is fine. I wonder if even Z knew what he was doing!
"Throughout the rest of the call, Z is answering D's questions, arranging a meeting with police. Z even says that he doesn't know where M is. How could Z follow M if he doesn't know where M is?"
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
"...what you think Z should have done differently."
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
"what happened between Z and D's call ending and Z being observed being severely beaten by M, MMA style, is anybody's guess."
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
"I'll also offer an alternate theory: if M would have just gone inside after he had lost Z, M would still be alive today."
- and I'll say that it's as (in)valid as the one that I put forth as neither of us has any substantive idea what actually happened
With a cell, you're attempting to force it into a reaction by breaking it more. We do this because we dont have the knowledge or experience to fix it ourselves. With networks it's the opposite, isolate the damage, route around it if need be and then fix the broken components. Yes that's a simple view, but the basis for fixing network issues.
Assuming they're talking about fixing the physical aspect.
Now, if you dealt with a broken politician by removing more of them from the political system it just might work.
"Destiny," that's up there with Why, Arizona, or Idiotville, Oregon. I mean, a fully sustainable community blazing a path to the glorious Green future shouldn't have a name that makes you think about putting dollar bills in G strings, mkay?
How else did you expect young people to work in such a middle of nowhere place?
If you had a substantial argument you wouldn't resort to nitpicking about whether it's a 911 dispatcher or a police department dispatcher which makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
This is getting repetitive but to answer your questions:
- Z himself in the dispatch record says that M ran off toward the back exit and then later says he doesn't know where M is
- Z probably (again based on the fact that he had been so far doing so) went after M
- Z may have confronted M or M may have confronted Z with the (valid) question of what the hell was he doing following him
- This could easily have escalated into a two way fight that Z found himself on the losing end of
You don't know what happened. I don't know what happened.
That being said, if Z hadn't followed M then none of this would have happened.
With a lot of PC related things in general, yes. I feel that we are in a period where the media presents a phony, forced acceptance of sensitive issues. As if media has to say "LOOK WE LOVE %s", where %s is gay, racial tensions, feminism etc. It does not feel sincere and comes off feeling like some writer thought "Lets throw a flamboyant gay character or couple into the script to make the queers happy and show everyone that we are progressive and gain a larger audience" then proceed to pat themselves on the back.
During the beginning of the zimmerman/martin incident I was driving and flipping through the AM dial. The thing that caught my attention was randy rhoads on air america radio blathering about how she loves black people. She sounded like she was not in a radio booth but on the streets telling black people she loves them to their faces. Seriously? You have to announce you love black people as if by default being white makes you a racist and you have to force the point that you aren't. Why would you ever need to say that? WHY!?
I went to a community college, had two black lab partners, one who was a very lovely girl from jamaica. I could tell she liked me and I thought why not ask her out? I did and I never once had to say well you're black and i'm white so how does this work? I never had to tell her that I am not a racist or that my family isn't in the KKK, that I love black people or how jamaica is so great. I didn't have to kiss ass or apologize because there was no fucking reason to. We were just two horney young adults. Though, I did come away from that relationship with a better understanding of why african hair is a pain in the ass to take care of when she took her hair off and it turned out to be a wig.
Same with my friend from Sri Lanka who married a white girl. I never had to tell him that I accept his marriage, in fact I was his best man. I even dated one of his cousins.
Point is people who go around and have to vocally proclaim they accept something constantly feel fake. Same for any other form of media including TV, movies, games etc. Its awkward and it's not going to suddenly boost acceptance of sensitive issues with hateful assholes.
There are a lot of people who probably say such things to convince themselves as much as to convince anyone else - especially when they are unfamiliar with being around other cultures or shades of skin color.
That is people in general though, and I was wondering if the OP was feeling a bit...overwhelmed by the generally increasing public acceptance / support (and it's relative coverage in the media).
As an aside I strongly suspect the whole gay marriage issue was thrown at the media by the white house so people wouldn't focus on Obama's general uselessness.
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
We don't actually know that. Listen to the tape of Zimmerman and the dispatcher.
Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok. Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name? Zimmerman: George... He ran.
And for the rest of the call, Zimmerman is just answering questions about where to meet the officer when he arrives.
To me, it sounds like Z did not follow M after D said it was unnecessary to follow M. M ran off and is not mentioned again in the call.
If you have evidence to the contrary, that Z did follow M after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary, please go ahead and present it. I'm already a little concerned that the "facts" that you're presenting with a "we know _______" are not as factual as you believe them to be. You may be relying on incorrect information.
By way of example, GZ never called 911 to report TM as a suspicious person. He called the local police non-emergency number. I know, it's a small difference, but it does suggest that your source of information might not be as rigorous with respect to what is "fact" as you'd probably like. After all, since this is/., I'm going to assume that you like to deal in truths rather than rumors. We tend to be a rigorous bunch around here.
The transcript of the call does not last until the confrontation. During the call, Z states that M ran off and says he doesn't know where he is. Based on the behavior of M up to this point (running away) and the way Z behaved up to this point (following M), Z then continued looking for M, found him and had the confrontation.
If you have any evidence contrary to what I'm stating, feel free to present it. (to paraphrase your attitude)
I noticed that a ton of IT students at my college don't use Facebook. And it wasn't some hippie fine arts college or something with people bringing typewriters in to be ironic, it's a low cost public one. So I researched it and in the #1 most likely demographics to use Facebook, the least likely group within it is IT professionals. I have a feeling we're all on to something, as I don't use it either.
My problem is it feels like the writers shoehorned the characters in to appeal to the gay community. It is said that Dr. Who is very popular among the gay population as the character of the Dr is indifferent to things like religion, race, sex, etc. He is always on the side of good, he fights for everyones rights. So they jumped on that train and awkwardly shoved gay characters into the story.
Its so in your face that it feels fake which ruins the story.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about what's happening in the real world these days?
GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave" TM: "Fuck off" GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!"
As a short, middle-aged, fat, out-of-shape man, I'll just tell you right now that the chances that I would initiate a physical confrontation with a 6'2" football player are precisely 0%. To believe that GZ initiated physical confrontation, we'd need to get past the above point, as well as the fact that GZ called 911 before the altercation took place.
If GZ had designs on beating up and/or shooting TM, why did he call the cops first? All that would accomplish is to increase his chances of getting arrested and he'd also risk losing track of TM's whereabouts while on the phone with 911. That makes so sense to me, and I guess it made no sense to the jury, either.
You're assigning rational decisions (without all the information perhaps) to someone who may or may not be fully rational.
What do we 'know'? We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation. We know that GZ got out of his car which led towards the confrontation.
So you believe returning to the barter system would increase general quality of life for humanity?
Nowhere near as much as you believe in putting random words in my mouth based, perhaps, on which way the wind is blowing.
But no, to answer your question. I think that people could do with a bit more thinking about morals and ethics before only thinking about how much (more) money they can make regardless of the human cost.
I found these extremely fast. I've seen nothing at all to suggest that the male participant in adultery is given leniency under strict Islamic societies, and am surprised to hear that someone actually thinks the men are excused in those societies or given lesser sentences. (Actually in Saudi Arabia the sentence is different; beheading for the man, stoning for the woman.)
Well, thank you for educating me on this. I had thought this to lean very much against women, as many things in islam seem to do.
Even better, take Obama's away and give it to Snowden.
If I were Snowden, I'd rather hang myself than to join the kind of people who actually got it. Who'd ever want to be associated with a bunch of scumbags?
A lot of good people have received the Nobel. Hopefully many will again in the future.
And anyway, the point still stands that unless you actually do it you can't say that you will do it. People think they can do things all the time and then cannot.
Why do you think the phrase 'warning shots' exists?
Do you think that the military shoots warning shots because they don't have the balls to follow through if they're not listened to?
She fired warning shots and the guy buggered off. What she did worked in every way except fairness for her.
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal; understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.
Assuming it's actually integrity and not disgruntlement...
Slashdot Mirror
The first paragraph of TFA is:
If it's true that members of Congress are angry, that's favorable news! Maybe they can be persuaded to get off their butts and do something about this.
Except that as they are all three hops away from the people on the watch list, the NSA knows all they need to know to keep them in line.
It's like a bad action film turned into a real world nightmare.
there was no effective oversize of these programs.
Actually, I think this programme is demonstrably oversized ;)
Perhaps even monstrously oversized...
"adding the center does not release exact numbers"
Might be quite a bit larger than one percent.
And yes that would be cynical and paranoid but given this discussion?
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
It's a gated community, not a fortress. If Martin wanted to lose Zimmerman, it would have been trivial. He could have entered his father's home. He could have walked out the eastern entrance to the community. Or he could have just hopped over the community's fence at any point, a trivial acrobatic feat for a 17-year-old athlete. (I say that as a former 17-year-old athlete).
And what part of that says that Z didn't follow M and attack him? You don't know fuck all and neither do I or anyone else so stop acting like you were there.
Also, I don't think that Zimmerman wanted to follow Martin, at all. Z was scared of M. Listen to his call with police dispatch:
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
How do you get that he was scared out of that? I get that he didn't feel like taking the time to give out his full address because he was chasing a 'bad guy'. He didn't want to give his address to dispatch - how does that make him afraid of M?????
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
Dispatch never gives orders. It's against policy. I know it's a detail, but can't we be precise?
Annoying is more like it. How do you know Dispatch never gives orders? Are you a dispatcher? Do you have access to the policy for the police department at your fingertips perhaps? You have reviewed all the Dispatch records over time and determined they never give orders?
Anyway, I think we've come full circle. You are operating with the assumption that Z followed M after dispatch said Z didn't need to, despite having no evidence that he did so.
No. I am not OPERATING WITH ANYTHING CONCRETE. For the UMPTEENTH TIME I am telling you that I HAVEN'T GOT A FUCKING CLUE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED and that I postulated ONE POSSIBILITY that does not agree with your point of view.
I have presented evidence that he stopped following M. That evidence is that dispatch asked some questions about M. After that, you hear the car door opening and the car's chime going off and then you hear a fat, out-of-shape man panting into the phone, suggesting that he was running after M. Dispatch hears all this and asks Z if he's running after M, and Z says that he is. D says you don't need to follow, so Z says, "Ok". After that, the panting stops. For the remainder of the call, Z makes further statements that he does not know the whereabouts of M and wants to meet a police officer.
You have presented evidence that he stopped following M...DURING THE PHONE CALL. As you, me nor anyone else has any idea what happened after the phone call ended you are basically talking out your ass if you think that your evidence covers anything after the call ends.
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
It's not a question of liking or not liking. It's a question of you saying that you "know" something, but then when I ask how you "know" it, all of a sudden it's all wishy-washy. If you merely suspect something and don't really know it, couldn't you just say it that way?
How about, "I suspect Z was trying to reestablish contact with M because he initially observed him and thought he was suspicious and wanted to lead the police to him."? That would be a totally reasonable thing to say, would it not? I would happily agree with that, because for all I know, that *was* what Z was doing. But saying that you *know* what Z was doing is a different ballgame, and that's why I called you on it. I think you don't really know what Z was doing. Which is fine. I wonder if even Z knew what he was doing!
Okay you called me on it. Big who
"Throughout the rest of the call, Z is answering D's questions, arranging a meeting with police. Z even says that he doesn't know where M is. How could Z follow M if he doesn't know where M is?"
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
"...what you think Z should have done differently."
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
"what happened between Z and D's call ending and Z being observed being severely beaten by M, MMA style, is anybody's guess."
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
"I'll also offer an alternate theory: if M would have just gone inside after he had lost Z, M would still be alive today."
- and I'll say that it's as (in)valid as the one that I put forth as neither of us has any substantive idea what actually happened
Sorry I commented on this thread as I'd mod your excellent post UP -
With a cell, you're attempting to force it into a reaction by breaking it more. We do this because we dont have the knowledge or experience to fix it ourselves. With networks it's the opposite, isolate the damage, route around it if need be and then fix the broken components. Yes that's a simple view, but the basis for fixing network issues.
Assuming they're talking about fixing the physical aspect.
Now, if you dealt with a broken politician by removing more of them from the political system it just might work.
"Destiny," that's up there with Why, Arizona, or Idiotville, Oregon. I mean, a fully sustainable community blazing a path to the glorious Green future shouldn't have a name that makes you think about putting dollar bills in G strings, mkay?
How else did you expect young people to work in such a middle of nowhere place?
If you had a substantial argument you wouldn't resort to nitpicking about whether it's a 911 dispatcher or a police department dispatcher which makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
This is getting repetitive but to answer your questions:
- Z himself in the dispatch record says that M ran off toward the back exit and then later says he doesn't know where M is
- Z probably (again based on the fact that he had been so far doing so) went after M
- Z may have confronted M or M may have confronted Z with the (valid) question of what the hell was he doing following him
- This could easily have escalated into a two way fight that Z found himself on the losing end of
You don't know what happened.
I don't know what happened.
That being said, if Z hadn't followed M then none of this would have happened.
With a lot of PC related things in general, yes. I feel that we are in a period where the media presents a phony, forced acceptance of sensitive issues. As if media has to say "LOOK WE LOVE %s", where %s is gay, racial tensions, feminism etc. It does not feel sincere and comes off feeling like some writer thought "Lets throw a flamboyant gay character or couple into the script to make the queers happy and show everyone that we are progressive and gain a larger audience" then proceed to pat themselves on the back.
During the beginning of the zimmerman/martin incident I was driving and flipping through the AM dial. The thing that caught my attention was randy rhoads on air america radio blathering about how she loves black people. She sounded like she was not in a radio booth but on the streets telling black people she loves them to their faces. Seriously? You have to announce you love black people as if by default being white makes you a racist and you have to force the point that you aren't. Why would you ever need to say that? WHY!?
I went to a community college, had two black lab partners, one who was a very lovely girl from jamaica. I could tell she liked me and I thought why not ask her out? I did and I never once had to say well you're black and i'm white so how does this work? I never had to tell her that I am not a racist or that my family isn't in the KKK, that I love black people or how jamaica is so great. I didn't have to kiss ass or apologize because there was no fucking reason to. We were just two horney young adults. Though, I did come away from that relationship with a better understanding of why african hair is a pain in the ass to take care of when she took her hair off and it turned out to be a wig.
Same with my friend from Sri Lanka who married a white girl. I never had to tell him that I accept his marriage, in fact I was his best man. I even dated one of his cousins.
Point is people who go around and have to vocally proclaim they accept something constantly feel fake. Same for any other form of media including TV, movies, games etc. Its awkward and it's not going to suddenly boost acceptance of sensitive issues with hateful assholes.
There are a lot of people who probably say such things to convince themselves as much as to convince anyone else - especially when they are unfamiliar with being around other cultures or shades of skin color.
That is people in general though, and I was wondering if the OP was feeling a bit...overwhelmed by the generally increasing public acceptance / support (and it's relative coverage in the media).
As an aside I strongly suspect the whole gay marriage issue was thrown at the media by the white house so people wouldn't focus on Obama's general uselessness.
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
We don't actually know that. Listen to the tape of Zimmerman and the dispatcher.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George... He ran.
And for the rest of the call, Zimmerman is just answering questions about where to meet the officer when he arrives.
To me, it sounds like Z did not follow M after D said it was unnecessary to follow M. M ran off and is not mentioned again in the call.
If you have evidence to the contrary, that Z did follow M after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary, please go ahead and present it. I'm already a little concerned that the "facts" that you're presenting with a "we know _______" are not as factual as you believe them to be. You may be relying on incorrect information.
By way of example, GZ never called 911 to report TM as a suspicious person. He called the local police non-emergency number. I know, it's a small difference, but it does suggest that your source of information might not be as rigorous with respect to what is "fact" as you'd probably like. After all, since this is /., I'm going to assume that you like to deal in truths rather than rumors. We tend to be a rigorous bunch around here.
The transcript of the call does not last until the confrontation. During the call, Z states that M ran off and says he doesn't know where he is. Based on the behavior of M up to this point (running away) and the way Z behaved up to this point (following M), Z then continued looking for M, found him and had the confrontation.
If you have any evidence contrary to what I'm stating, feel free to present it. (to paraphrase your attitude)
I noticed that a ton of IT students at my college don't use Facebook. And it wasn't some hippie fine arts college or something with people bringing typewriters in to be ironic, it's a low cost public one. So I researched it and in the #1 most likely demographics to use Facebook, the least likely group within it is IT professionals. I have a feeling we're all on to something, as I don't use it either.
Sounds like a good "Ask Slashdot" poll idea
My problem is it feels like the writers shoehorned the characters in to appeal to the gay community. It is said that Dr. Who is very popular among the gay population as the character of the Dr is indifferent to things like religion, race, sex, etc. He is always on the side of good, he fights for everyones rights. So they jumped on that train and awkwardly shoved gay characters into the story.
Its so in your face that it feels fake which ruins the story.
Just out of curiosity, do you feel the same way about what's happening in the real world these days?
Hah. I watched it when it was first broadcast.
Did you tape it by any chance? I'm missing a few episodes.
Sure - you've got betamax right?
So, it's like a teapot when it gets boiling?
Or maybe a....pressure cooker?
We should be scientists and get grant money and grad students and and um...
Or, as someone has said before, the problem isn't white, black or brown, it's green.
Nice one :-)
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's greed.
FTFY.
FTFY.
Semantics, the result is the same.
GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave"
TM: "Fuck off"
GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!"
As a short, middle-aged, fat, out-of-shape man, I'll just tell you right now that the chances that I would initiate a physical confrontation with a 6'2" football player are precisely 0%. To believe that GZ initiated physical confrontation, we'd need to get past the above point, as well as the fact that GZ called 911 before the altercation took place.
If GZ had designs on beating up and/or shooting TM, why did he call the cops first? All that would accomplish is to increase his chances of getting arrested and he'd also risk losing track of TM's whereabouts while on the phone with 911. That makes so sense to me, and I guess it made no sense to the jury, either.
You're assigning rational decisions (without all the information perhaps) to someone who may or may not be fully rational.
What do we 'know'?
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
We know that GZ got out of his car which led towards the confrontation.
These are not the decisions of a rational person.
So you believe returning to the barter system would increase general quality of life for humanity?
Nowhere near as much as you believe in putting random words in my mouth based, perhaps, on which way the wind is blowing.
But no, to answer your question. I think that people could do with a bit more thinking about morals and ethics before only thinking about how much (more) money they can make regardless of the human cost.
So. You're in favor of firing a gun in random directions in an urban environment.
Got it!
You can criticize because you know everything, no doubt.
You were there? You know what she shot at?
Which are we talking about> Saudi Arabia they executed a princess and her lover (1977), Misha'al bint Fahd al Saud, a famous case.
Here's one with 3 men and 1 women being executed in Pakistan. http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Four-executed-for-adultery-in-Pakistan/2007/06/05/1180809502745.html
A couple executed by Taliban. http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271594
I found these extremely fast. I've seen nothing at all to suggest that the male participant in adultery is given leniency under strict Islamic societies, and am surprised to hear that someone actually thinks the men are excused in those societies or given lesser sentences. (Actually in Saudi Arabia the sentence is different; beheading for the man, stoning for the woman.)
Well, thank you for educating me on this. I had thought this to lean very much against women, as many things in islam seem to do.
Even better, take Obama's away and give it to Snowden.
If I were Snowden, I'd rather hang myself than to join the kind of people who actually got it. Who'd ever want to be associated with a bunch of scumbags?
A lot of good people have received the Nobel. Hopefully many will again in the future.
The major cause of war/unrest in the world isn't skin color, it's money.
FTFY.
Big talk - how many people have you killed?
And anyway, the point still stands that unless you actually do it you can't say that you will do it. People think they can do things all the time and then cannot.
Why do you think the phrase 'warning shots' exists?
Do you think that the military shoots warning shots because they don't have the balls to follow through if they're not listened to?
She fired warning shots and the guy buggered off. What she did worked in every way except fairness for her.
Either way, it would take months, if not years, before the guy saw any justice/money/compensation/etc. Unfortunately, no CxO in his/her right mind would even think of hiring the guy in the interim, given the toxicity of the events and who is backing the potential defendants
A CxO in their right mind would be able to hire the guy...it takes integrity to stand up to a superior for what's just and what's legal;
understanding the risk that you might be fired for it.
Integrity, Intelligence, and Energy are the the most important characteristics to look for in a good employee, and Integrity is the hardest to find -- but the most important one.
Assuming it's actually integrity and not disgruntlement...