Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.
That's the stupidest thing I've read today (and that's saying something!). By the same principle, if I can sneak into your house (or break down the doors) and take your stuff, that's your problem. I didn't do anything wrong.
That's still true. They lock the accused up when they think one of the following is true:
the person is a threat to public safety
the person is a threat to public order
the person is likely to flee prosecution.
No, they did not do that. They simply established that they were going to govern themselves according to their assumed rights and the precedents of English Common Law, with some innovations. The "right to exist" was granted to the new Federal government by the States. The Constitution was simply the document that described how it worked and how power was to be shared between it and the States.
The way it works is you need to see what the prosecution is going to bring against you, which they have to disclose to you in advance of the trial. Then you have to construct a defensive strategy based on what you now know the prosecution has. Demanding a speedy trial is risky because although you would give the prosecution less time to build their case against you, you would also deprive your lawyers of the enough time to mount a good defense. It's only advised if you know the prosecution's case is weak.
Also, in many cases the defendant is on bail anyway. That's not the case with Jeremy Hammond. He was denied bail. Given the sentence he could be facing (and his general disregard for authority), he's a flight risk.
...without sounding like a shill, but I'm really curious if the end result works just as well. If all your people are are trained on Windows and Office, switching to Linux and OpenOffice will have an associated cost in terms of retraining and reduced productivity while people become proficient in the new software, right?
Of course it would, but there's also a license cost and a training cost in upgrading Windows and Office to stay current. The total cost of Linux and OpenOffice is less.
The real difference would show in productivity. If your staff ended up spending more time fiddling with settings and formats in OpenOffice or in Microsoft Office, that could tip the scale either way.
But a city ought to have a policy regarding formatting and adhere to a bare style that minimizes the time spent fiddling with formatting and other unproductive work.
One of the best lines that sums up the confusion is "greed is good". No. By definition, greed cannot be good.
That's an unjustified assertion, and one that shows that you misunderstood the meaning behind that line.
The purpose of our business environment is to turn selfish motives - greed - towards good ends. The simplest way it accomplishes that is by facilitating trade. If I am greedy, and want hookers and cocaine, I need to get money. To get people to give me money, I work hard to produce and sell goods or services that they want.
That's not how greed works in the real world. In the real world, greed motivates people to cheat their employers and their customers and ultimately works to the failure of the organization.
It's not easy keeping the wrong sorts of people away from power, but we could definitely do better. If testing can help, we ought to do it.
Given the sort of people that corporations tend to employ at their top levels, I don't think psychopathy tests would be used the way you would hope. I think they'd be used to identify people who "have upper management written all over them." That is, borderline psychopaths. Not so horrible that you can't trust them even under your supervision, but definitely the kind ready to take ruthless advantage of their subordinates and customers.
Where do the innocent go? There are plenty of Israelis whose ancestral lands are all over the Middle East - countries that won't even let them in as tourists. The Palestinians are such a miserable, terrorist-infested bunch that neither Jordan nor Egypt has volunteered to take over security in the West Bank or Gaza, respectively. Neither country offered citizenship to their Arab brothers. So the innocents there are stuck just as badly as the (mostly) Jews on the other side of the fence.
No, the innocents in the Palestinian territories are stuck in a MUCH worse situation than the Israelis. (Which doesn't mean the Israelis' situation isn't also bad.) They're crammed into tiny territories where it's literally impossible to get out of range of bombs targeted at the militants running the show. They're also affected by effective collective punishments such as the blockade of Gaza and the consequent lack of paying jobs -- not a problem in Israel, which has control of its own coast and airspace.
Unfortunately a real solution to the problem won't be countenanced by either side. The Israelis and the Palestinians need reconciliation and to become one people in one country that does not discriminate based on ancestry and religion. The people who have been dispossessed of land need to be somehow compensated and invested in the new regime. And they need to lock up or expel anybody who won't play along.
This means that management should be unempathic, but not necessarily psychopathic. Ideally you want someone who cares about humanity in the abstract, but not in individual cases - and, particularly unlike the standard psychopath, has no great love for themself.
No, it means that management should not play up empathic concerns but should exclude people who lack all (or sufficient) empathy. In the example of life-saving improvements to cars, there is a balance to be found. If you put in too many expensive improvements, you will make the cars no fun to drive and so expensive that nobody will buy them. No lives will be saved. If you include none of them, no lives will be saved. If you include the most cost effective ones, many lives will be saved. There's an optimum at which you get the safest cars you can into the hands of as many consumers as you can maximizing the benefit to society. This probably does not coincide with the point of greatest profit. But you can move those two balance points closer together by advertising your safety features.
Now, shifting to a subject that's nearer and dearer to Slashdot's heart, let's consider government policy as regards internet privacy. Law enforcement wants access to your communications and files because they are trying to fight crime. In part, they are driven by a desire to prevent harm to potential victims of fraud, child porn, harassment and intimidation. On the other hand, we recognize that the steps necessary to completely protect us from such threats would dramatically reduce our rights to free expresssion and the general usefulness of the internet. There's a balance to be struck between our individual desires for privacy and our desire to make the internet safe. You can't have both in unlimited degree. Decisions about where that balance should be struck shouldn't be made by people who lack empathy and identification with either side of the balance.
Actually, I would say that a society ruled by "empathy" would quickly collapse, as the people in charge would be unable to make decisions based on an objective cost/benefit analysis, but instead would be paralyzed by emotional concerns.
Good thing that's not the ONLY characteristic of psychologically normal people then.
Ms. Sloan's organization (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - CREW) tends to go after conservative politicians (are they more corrupt than liberal politicians? I think it's about equal...) and receives the majority of their funding from liberal sources.
You mean any place they think (or want you to think) there are shoals, sand banks or small island groups. If Google doesn't correct this within a few days, I'll be surprised. As of now, there's a 15-mile long virtual island out there where ships have sailed and say there's no such thing.
S 19 13' E 156 56'
67% overhead in a computing system is considered unacceptable in most applications.
How you respond to a failure is a big deal when you get to systems so large that they're statistically likely to have component failures frequently. It's often unacceptable to just throw out the result and start over. The malfunctioning system needs to be taken offline dynamically and the still-working systems have to compute around it without stopping the process. That's a tricky problem.
Of course you can. But the first time somebody actually does get killed, there's going to be a prosecution and a lawsuit for modifying a normally safe electric fence system to be lethal.
One ought to not be harassed at work even if the pay also sucked, don't you agree?
And if you want to find out if she made more or less after she was fired, it would be more efficient to examine her pay records.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh, National Security. Convenient excuse, that. Stratford should have paid attention to securing it's own shit instead of crying to the FBI. Oh well. At least their reputation is in the gutter where it belongs.
That's the stupidest thing I've read today (and that's saying something!). By the same principle, if I can sneak into your house (or break down the doors) and take your stuff, that's your problem. I didn't do anything wrong.
That's still true. They lock the accused up when they think one of the following is true:
the person is a threat to public safety
the person is a threat to public order
the person is likely to flee prosecution.
No, they did not do that. They simply established that they were going to govern themselves according to their assumed rights and the precedents of English Common Law, with some innovations. The "right to exist" was granted to the new Federal government by the States. The Constitution was simply the document that described how it worked and how power was to be shared between it and the States.
I was with you until you went Full Retard:
That's a yellow card for Improper Use of Terms.
The proper term is Full Metal Jackass.
The way it works is you need to see what the prosecution is going to bring against you, which they have to disclose to you in advance of the trial. Then you have to construct a defensive strategy based on what you now know the prosecution has. Demanding a speedy trial is risky because although you would give the prosecution less time to build their case against you, you would also deprive your lawyers of the enough time to mount a good defense. It's only advised if you know the prosecution's case is weak.
Also, in many cases the defendant is on bail anyway. That's not the case with Jeremy Hammond. He was denied bail. Given the sentence he could be facing (and his general disregard for authority), he's a flight risk.
8 months with no trial has completely violated his constitutional rights, therefore the state should not be able to charge him.
Did he demand a speedy trial?
...without sounding like a shill, but I'm really curious if the end result works just as well. If all your people are are trained on Windows and Office, switching to Linux and OpenOffice will have an associated cost in terms of retraining and reduced productivity while people become proficient in the new software, right?
Of course it would, but there's also a license cost and a training cost in upgrading Windows and Office to stay current. The total cost of Linux and OpenOffice is less. The real difference would show in productivity. If your staff ended up spending more time fiddling with settings and formats in OpenOffice or in Microsoft Office, that could tip the scale either way. But a city ought to have a policy regarding formatting and adhere to a bare style that minimizes the time spent fiddling with formatting and other unproductive work.
One of the best lines that sums up the confusion is "greed is good". No. By definition, greed cannot be good.
That's an unjustified assertion, and one that shows that you misunderstood the meaning behind that line.
The purpose of our business environment is to turn selfish motives - greed - towards good ends. The simplest way it accomplishes that is by facilitating trade. If I am greedy, and want hookers and cocaine, I need to get money. To get people to give me money, I work hard to produce and sell goods or services that they want.
That's not how greed works in the real world. In the real world, greed motivates people to cheat their employers and their customers and ultimately works to the failure of the organization.
It's not easy keeping the wrong sorts of people away from power, but we could definitely do better. If testing can help, we ought to do it.
Given the sort of people that corporations tend to employ at their top levels, I don't think psychopathy tests would be used the way you would hope. I think they'd be used to identify people who "have upper management written all over them." That is, borderline psychopaths. Not so horrible that you can't trust them even under your supervision, but definitely the kind ready to take ruthless advantage of their subordinates and customers.
Where do the innocent go? There are plenty of Israelis whose ancestral lands are all over the Middle East - countries that won't even let them in as tourists. The Palestinians are such a miserable, terrorist-infested bunch that neither Jordan nor Egypt has volunteered to take over security in the West Bank or Gaza, respectively. Neither country offered citizenship to their Arab brothers. So the innocents there are stuck just as badly as the (mostly) Jews on the other side of the fence.
No, the innocents in the Palestinian territories are stuck in a MUCH worse situation than the Israelis. (Which doesn't mean the Israelis' situation isn't also bad.) They're crammed into tiny territories where it's literally impossible to get out of range of bombs targeted at the militants running the show. They're also affected by effective collective punishments such as the blockade of Gaza and the consequent lack of paying jobs -- not a problem in Israel, which has control of its own coast and airspace.
Unfortunately a real solution to the problem won't be countenanced by either side. The Israelis and the Palestinians need reconciliation and to become one people in one country that does not discriminate based on ancestry and religion. The people who have been dispossessed of land need to be somehow compensated and invested in the new regime. And they need to lock up or expel anybody who won't play along.
This means that management should be unempathic, but not necessarily psychopathic. Ideally you want someone who cares about humanity in the abstract, but not in individual cases - and, particularly unlike the standard psychopath, has no great love for themself.
No, it means that management should not play up empathic concerns but should exclude people who lack all (or sufficient) empathy. In the example of life-saving improvements to cars, there is a balance to be found. If you put in too many expensive improvements, you will make the cars no fun to drive and so expensive that nobody will buy them. No lives will be saved. If you include none of them, no lives will be saved. If you include the most cost effective ones, many lives will be saved. There's an optimum at which you get the safest cars you can into the hands of as many consumers as you can maximizing the benefit to society. This probably does not coincide with the point of greatest profit. But you can move those two balance points closer together by advertising your safety features.
Now, shifting to a subject that's nearer and dearer to Slashdot's heart, let's consider government policy as regards internet privacy. Law enforcement wants access to your communications and files because they are trying to fight crime. In part, they are driven by a desire to prevent harm to potential victims of fraud, child porn, harassment and intimidation. On the other hand, we recognize that the steps necessary to completely protect us from such threats would dramatically reduce our rights to free expresssion and the general usefulness of the internet. There's a balance to be struck between our individual desires for privacy and our desire to make the internet safe. You can't have both in unlimited degree. Decisions about where that balance should be struck shouldn't be made by people who lack empathy and identification with either side of the balance.
Actually, I would say that a society ruled by "empathy" would quickly collapse, as the people in charge would be unable to make decisions based on an objective cost/benefit analysis, but instead would be paralyzed by emotional concerns.
Good thing that's not the ONLY characteristic of psychologically normal people then.
Ms. Sloan's organization (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington - CREW) tends to go after conservative politicians (are they more corrupt than liberal politicians? I think it's about equal...) and receives the majority of their funding from liberal sources.
(Wikpedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washington)
Regardless of where they get their funding, they are going after both Democrats and Republicans according to their corrupt practices.
You pay the $20 and report it to your company as a robbery by a police officer. The company compensates you and reports it as a theft loss.
I think we can read between the lines that the site she attempted to use was not Pirate Bay but a honey pot.
S 19 13' E 156 56'
Actually, Sandy Island is S 19 13' E 159 56' not E 156, maybe this is the reason why they cant find it!
Actually, Sandy Island isn't there, either.
You mean any place they think (or want you to think) there are shoals, sand banks or small island groups. If Google doesn't correct this within a few days, I'll be surprised. As of now, there's a 15-mile long virtual island out there where ships have sailed and say there's no such thing.
S 19 13' E 156 56'
Not unless the ship is 12 miles long.
The funny thing is Google seems to have doctored the satellite photos to put a dark blob where this fictitious island is supposed to be.
No, that doesn't solve the problem in general. It only solves the problem in the case where getting a result in a timely fashion is not critical.
67% overhead in a computing system is considered unacceptable in most applications.
How you respond to a failure is a big deal when you get to systems so large that they're statistically likely to have component failures frequently. It's often unacceptable to just throw out the result and start over. The malfunctioning system needs to be taken offline dynamically and the still-working systems have to compute around it without stopping the process. That's a tricky problem.
Of course you can. But the first time somebody actually does get killed, there's going to be a prosecution and a lawsuit for modifying a normally safe electric fence system to be lethal.
You missed the part where I suggested that the states take enforcement actions.
One ought to not be harassed at work even if the pay also sucked, don't you agree?
And if you want to find out if she made more or less after she was fired, it would be more efficient to examine her pay records.
That doesn't bear on the validity of the harassment claim.