..the better. I will soon be starting a company and hiring people, and I'll pick up all the technically brilliant workers who were rejected by these companies for such petty reasons.
Anything that harms my competition's business is good news to me!
... and this is why you have draconian policies in many companies about installing ANY unapproved software. I've seen people complain about "just let me do my job" and install anything they want, but the fact of the matter is that it only takes one dumb-ass like this to wreak major havoc.
On the other hand, businesses exist to make money. Too far in the restrictive direction, and the employees will become unproductive and leave. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.
It's all about balance - security is a process, not a rule set. If the security group is responsive to employee requests, and the rulebase is reasonable, a happy medium can be achieved - some security breaches, and some productivity.
I was about to cancel my subscription to Teksavvy (a fantastic ISP) to go with Videotron because, being cable, it's slightly faster.
Now that I'm aware of Videotron's stance on Net Neutrality (something Teksavvy is fight vehemently for), I'm canning the idea. Videotron will not be receiving my money.
You're correct, and I think most hardcore supporters of this type of facism know this.
Which.. sadly.. is why they continue to push as hard as they do.
Their twisted sense of morality does not really revolve around protecting children, but securing control over other people. They are perverts in the grandest sence - bullies who get off on controlling others. They come up with all kinds of bizarre little excuses (protecting society, protecting religion, protecting children, etc.) but they are all driven by the same imperitive.
The founding fathers of the US so perfectly recognized this behavior and made it illegal for the state to allow it to flourish. If only the spirit was really understood and followed (worldwide, including in the US)...
For whatever reason, I've been a diehard tcsh user for the last 15 years. It's clear that bash is the standard, and where all the development effort is going (at least relative to csh/tcsh).
Sometimes it feels like I'm the only tcsh user left.
Well, actually, probably not. Nor is it illegal for cops to have illegal images of young people.
For a long time now, the laws have been intended to produce fear/hate in the population, and to criminalize certain thoughts. The law now has very little to do with protecting young people; see here for an example.
If, beyond any doubt, you can prove your mental innocence, a judge would probably let it slide.
If you examine these cases with "the purpose of these laws is to outlaw impure thoughts about young people" then everything starts to make sense.
I'd wager a lot of money that people are going to find your post quaint and backwards in 50 years. "Intellectual property" laws are on their way out; they cannot survive in an age where copying information is inherent in human and computer activity. Either they will be repealed, or go unenforced.
Either way, attempting to paint information sharing as immoral is amusing at best.
It's not about protection. It's about control. It's about inciting self-hate and body image problems. It's about inciting misery, and sexual frustration later in life.
Why?
Because people with sexual psychosis are more likely to seek pleasure somewhere else. Some percentage of these pleasure seekers will investigate church/religion.
Religious laws exist to create customers for the Church.
To suggest that blatant anti-sex laws are not religious in nature is idiotic. To suggest sexually active teenagers should not be "exposed" to pornography is idiotic.
There is a time to kill. There is a time when it's justified.
If it were my daughter attacked by these thugs, it would be their last day on this earth. Probably mine as well. However, there could be no greater gift to a child then to give your life to protect them.
Those with snide remarks should be aware that (A) this is legitimately needed by military and police to keep your life safe and comfortable, and (B) long-range target shooting is a legitimate and popular sport.
I can prove you're wrong on point A. My government's military does not possess advanced weaponry like this, and nor does my government's police force. Yet, my life is safe and comfortable.
Now if I may add some input of my own: the comfort and safety of American lives is not dependent on advanced weaponry, but rather intelligence and education, science, non-corrupt leadership, the separation of church and state, and the constitution.
Weapon makers will do what they do. But please don't try to use the average world citizen as an excuse.
Would our society be safer or more dangerous if instead of listening to these lunatics, we barred them from politics for life for even suggesting such a disgusting measure?
Killing (or even punishing) someone for their beliefs, no matter how asinine they are, is just as immoral. It's when they cross the line from beliefs to enforcement of their beliefs on others that they need to be taken out.
I have no problem with John Fuckhead believing that, for example, women should be in the kitchen and gays shouldn't have sex. Your life, your mind. As soon as he translates that into an action against women and gays (ie. lobbying for facist laws), he is harming others. But not before.
When are we, as humans, going to learn that we don't have to cater to the whiny religious/moral nutcases out there?
Politicians: GROW A SPINE. When a whiny anti-sex/anti-drugs/anti-rock-and-roll nutcase writes you, complaining that their sensibilities are affected by the private actions of others, tell them to get bent.
Please, please, please. For the good of society and the world. Tell those miserable people that they can stick their pathetic little psychosis where the sun doesn't shine.
We rely on you. You are our leaders. Please act like it!
How about the obvious? Sometimes, babies need to eat wherever they are, regardless of social setting. No one NEEDS to have sex at any particular time. And, I'll add that if you think watching a couple have sex is as equally disconcerting as a mother breastfeeding, you may want to move to the nearest monastery. Nothing there should ever disconcert you.
Monastery? While that might solve his problem, that is only treating the symptoms.
If you find the sight of a mother breastfeeding highly disconcerting, you should probably see a psychologist. Your subconscious is clearly grappling with something unpleasant...
My friend, I have the perfect solution to your problem!
It takes some practice, but I guarentee (nay, promise!) you it'll be worth the effort.
Step 1: Find something you don't like looking at (ie. a paint chip on your car).
Step 2: Stare at the thing you don't like looking at for 30 seconds.
Step 3: Direct your vision away from the thing you don't want to see.
Step 4: Go to step 1.
There's a variation for step 3; instead of looking away, you can also close your eyes, then look away. You can even just close your eyes. The point is if you're not looking at the thing you don't want to see, you won't see it anymore.
If you practice this maneuver for five minutes, once per day, I guarentee you'll develop the instinctive reflex to divert your attention from scenes which bother you. As a bonus, it may even aid you in developing the skill of minding your own fucking business.
My point was that North American electricity prices (averaging around 10 cents/kWh), being amongst the cheapest in the world, would not bias in my argument's favor. Diesel is a hell of a lot more expensive per kWh, anywhere in the world.
But if we want to take the diesel argument instead, the numbers are even worse - probably more like $150 or $200 to produce/ship - yet still selling for $2.99. Clearly it does not take 480kWh of energy to produce a CFL bulb.
YEah, my neighsbor said he pissed in public and got arrested and put on the list. LAter on I found he sexually assaulted a 14 year old -- after he was picked up again for assaulting a 16 year old. But hey, yeah, he "pissed on a bush". I can understand not trusting the government, but that doesn't mean that you can trust the criminal, either. Don't let your hate for the government mean your common sense goes out the window.
When you say sexually assaulted, do you mean raped, or that they had illegal sex?
There is a difference, and it is an important one, despite the recent sex crimes NewSpeak.
Scratch that, not every sex offender necessarily looked at kiddie porn - my ignorant mistake. What actually made me remember was a neighbor that moved in a while back that had to do the door-to-door signature thing, and when I asked him what he did he said he got caught pissing in the bushes by the wrong cop back when he was in his twenties, and now he's registered for life.
Its kind of sad for those situations really, because for one I didn't even know you could get registered for that, and now that poor guy who probably just had to pee really bad now has to get sigs and (if he lives in Georgia) hand over his internet passwords. Pissing in the bushes apparently lands you on the same level of shame as Gary Glitter these days.
Kind of sad? Kind of sad is when your hampster dies. How about it's a travesty, and an unconstitutional abuse of the justice system?
Yeah, I'm fine with banning child molesters from social networks and forcing at least a reasonable degree of transparency in their online activity
No, NO, NO.
These are the little cracks facists drive a wedge into. You may be well intentioned, but not everyone is as well-intentioned as you.
The constitution is not just a silly piece of paper.
If the convict has served his time, his name must be cleared. For every crime. Always. Without condition.
If he is still perceived as a danger to the public, then someone fucked up. He should have been sentenced more time in jail, or should not have been released on parole.
Any attempts to punish a person after they have served their sentence are unconstitutional and petty facism, masquerading under the sick guise of morality.
Slashdot Mirror
..the better. I will soon be starting a company and hiring people, and I'll pick up all the technically brilliant workers who were rejected by these companies for such petty reasons.
Anything that harms my competition's business is good news to me!
On the other hand, businesses exist to make money. Too far in the restrictive direction, and the employees will become unproductive and leave. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, I suppose.
It's all about balance - security is a process, not a rule set. If the security group is responsive to employee requests, and the rulebase is reasonable, a happy medium can be achieved - some security breaches, and some productivity.
I was about to cancel my subscription to Teksavvy (a fantastic ISP) to go with Videotron because, being cable, it's slightly faster.
Now that I'm aware of Videotron's stance on Net Neutrality (something Teksavvy is fight vehemently for), I'm canning the idea. Videotron will not be receiving my money.
Thank you, slashdot.
You're correct, and I think most hardcore supporters of this type of facism know this.
Which .. sadly .. is why they continue to push as hard as they do.
Their twisted sense of morality does not really revolve around protecting children, but securing control over other people. They are perverts in the grandest sence - bullies who get off on controlling others. They come up with all kinds of bizarre little excuses (protecting society, protecting religion, protecting children, etc.) but they are all driven by the same imperitive.
The founding fathers of the US so perfectly recognized this behavior and made it illegal for the state to allow it to flourish. If only the spirit was really understood and followed (worldwide, including in the US)...
The problem is not the belief in "if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear."
The problem is these insane laws affect people who have done something wrong.
Everyone has done something wrong.
It's the way modern society works.
That is why these laws are immoral, unethical, and often illegal.
For whatever reason, I've been a diehard tcsh user for the last 15 years. It's clear that bash is the standard, and where all the development effort is going (at least relative to csh/tcsh).
Sometimes it feels like I'm the only tcsh user left.
Well, actually, probably not. Nor is it illegal for cops to have illegal images of young people.
For a long time now, the laws have been intended to produce fear/hate in the population, and to criminalize certain thoughts. The law now has very little to do with protecting young people; see here for an example.
If, beyond any doubt, you can prove your mental innocence, a judge would probably let it slide.
If you examine these cases with "the purpose of these laws is to outlaw impure thoughts about young people" then everything starts to make sense.
For speech/a picture to be ruled illegal, it must be obscene.
Nude photos with no explicit sexual content of young people are illegal, and thus are obscene.
Great message we're sending young people. Sure that won't come back to bite us in the ass in 20 years.
who wants to "educate" you on their opinion.
... Nokia's assets would be seized, their senior employees and lobbyists arrested, and the company shut down.
Threat of a corporation leaving? Seriously? That's enough to violate the foundation of the Finnish constitutional republic?
How cute.
"Move over grandpa."
I'd wager a lot of money that people are going to find your post quaint and backwards in 50 years. "Intellectual property" laws are on their way out; they cannot survive in an age where copying information is inherent in human and computer activity. Either they will be repealed, or go unenforced.
Either way, attempting to paint information sharing as immoral is amusing at best.
I've lived much of my adult life (29 now) under Bush's rule. Bad news every day.
This is the first time I can remember hope. I feel pride. I feel... safe. I'm sort of at a loss for words.
..and I'm Canadian.
Now if we can kick Bush Jr. (Harper) out of our own office and restore Canada to how we were 10 years ago....
These next 10 years could inspire like I've never experienced.
It's not about protection. It's about control. It's about inciting self-hate and body image problems. It's about inciting misery, and sexual frustration later in life.
Why?
Because people with sexual psychosis are more likely to seek pleasure somewhere else. Some percentage of these pleasure seekers will investigate church/religion.
Religious laws exist to create customers for the Church.
To suggest that blatant anti-sex laws are not religious in nature is idiotic. To suggest sexually active teenagers should not be "exposed" to pornography is idiotic.
...and yes, this would apply if they were taliban or Iranian clerics as well.
Sir, I came here to say this.
There is a time to kill. There is a time when it's justified.
If it were my daughter attacked by these thugs, it would be their last day on this earth. Probably mine as well. However, there could be no greater gift to a child then to give your life to protect them.
Those with snide remarks should be aware that (A) this is legitimately needed by military and police to keep your life safe and comfortable, and (B) long-range target shooting is a legitimate and popular sport.
I can prove you're wrong on point A. My government's military does not possess advanced weaponry like this, and nor does my government's police force. Yet, my life is safe and comfortable.
Now if I may add some input of my own: the comfort and safety of American lives is not dependent on advanced weaponry, but rather intelligence and education, science, non-corrupt leadership, the separation of church and state, and the constitution.
Weapon makers will do what they do. But please don't try to use the average world citizen as an excuse.
Would our society be safer or more dangerous if instead of listening to these lunatics, we barred them from politics for life for even suggesting such a disgusting measure?
Damnit.. there must be a middle ground.
Killing (or even punishing) someone for their beliefs, no matter how asinine they are, is just as immoral. It's when they cross the line from beliefs to enforcement of their beliefs on others that they need to be taken out.
I have no problem with John Fuckhead believing that, for example, women should be in the kitchen and gays shouldn't have sex. Your life, your mind. As soon as he translates that into an action against women and gays (ie. lobbying for facist laws), he is harming others. But not before.
When are we, as humans, going to learn that we don't have to cater to the whiny religious/moral nutcases out there?
Politicians: GROW A SPINE. When a whiny anti-sex/anti-drugs/anti-rock-and-roll nutcase writes you, complaining that their sensibilities are affected by the private actions of others, tell them to get bent.
Please, please, please. For the good of society and the world. Tell those miserable people that they can stick their pathetic little psychosis where the sun doesn't shine.
We rely on you. You are our leaders. Please act like it!
How about the obvious? Sometimes, babies need to eat wherever they are, regardless of social setting. No one NEEDS to have sex at any particular time. And, I'll add that if you think watching a couple have sex is as equally disconcerting as a mother breastfeeding, you may want to move to the nearest monastery. Nothing there should ever disconcert you.
Monastery? While that might solve his problem, that is only treating the symptoms.
If you find the sight of a mother breastfeeding highly disconcerting, you should probably see a psychologist. Your subconscious is clearly grappling with something unpleasant...
My friend, I have the perfect solution to your problem!
It takes some practice, but I guarentee (nay, promise!) you it'll be worth the effort.
Step 1: Find something you don't like looking at (ie. a paint chip on your car).
Step 2: Stare at the thing you don't like looking at for 30 seconds.
Step 3: Direct your vision away from the thing you don't want to see.
Step 4: Go to step 1.
There's a variation for step 3; instead of looking away, you can also close your eyes, then look away. You can even just close your eyes. The point is if you're not looking at the thing you don't want to see, you won't see it anymore.
If you practice this maneuver for five minutes, once per day, I guarentee you'll develop the instinctive reflex to divert your attention from scenes which bother you. As a bonus, it may even aid you in developing the skill of minding your own fucking business.
My point was that North American electricity prices (averaging around 10 cents/kWh), being amongst the cheapest in the world, would not bias in my argument's favor. Diesel is a hell of a lot more expensive per kWh, anywhere in the world.
But if we want to take the diesel argument instead, the numbers are even worse - probably more like $150 or $200 to produce/ship - yet still selling for $2.99. Clearly it does not take 480kWh of energy to produce a CFL bulb.
YEah, my neighsbor said he pissed in public and got arrested and put on the list. LAter on I found he sexually assaulted a 14 year old -- after he was picked up again for assaulting a 16 year old. But hey, yeah, he "pissed on a bush". I can understand not trusting the government, but that doesn't mean that you can trust the criminal, either. Don't let your hate for the government mean your common sense goes out the window.
When you say sexually assaulted, do you mean raped, or that they had illegal sex?
There is a difference, and it is an important one, despite the recent sex crimes NewSpeak.
Scratch that, not every sex offender necessarily looked at kiddie porn - my ignorant mistake. What actually made me remember was a neighbor that moved in a while back that had to do the door-to-door signature thing, and when I asked him what he did he said he got caught pissing in the bushes by the wrong cop back when he was in his twenties, and now he's registered for life.
Its kind of sad for those situations really, because for one I didn't even know you could get registered for that, and now that poor guy who probably just had to pee really bad now has to get sigs and (if he lives in Georgia) hand over his internet passwords. Pissing in the bushes apparently lands you on the same level of shame as Gary Glitter these days.
Kind of sad? Kind of sad is when your hampster dies. How about it's a travesty, and an unconstitutional abuse of the justice system?
Let's not mince words here.
Yeah, I'm fine with banning child molesters from social networks and forcing at least a reasonable degree of transparency in their online activity
No, NO, NO.
These are the little cracks facists drive a wedge into. You may be well intentioned, but not everyone is as well-intentioned as you.
The constitution is not just a silly piece of paper.
If the convict has served his time, his name must be cleared. For every crime. Always. Without condition.
If he is still perceived as a danger to the public, then someone fucked up. He should have been sentenced more time in jail, or should not have been released on parole.
Any attempts to punish a person after they have served their sentence are unconstitutional and petty facism, masquerading under the sick guise of morality.