A guy named Frederick Hertzberg suggested that employees are motivated by a hierarchy of needs.
They start at the very low levels: Physical Environment, Salary, Job Security, Status, etc.
Then they proceed to higher levels. Recognition is actually the second highest motivator, and it certainly is a motivator for some. But Google is actually a good example of Hertzberg's highest motivator which is achievement: people are motivated by the work itself. Self-actualization.
It'd be a terrible idea. I've read my Heinlein; I know what happens when you put convicts higher up the gravity well than you are. They drop rocks on your head.
How does that work? The US government creates little portable islands of no-man's-land around incoming passengers at airports within its borders? So if I'm not in the US at that point, how am I subject to its laws?
Maybe you and all your friends should march into the nearest Apple store and take turns spending hours harassing the Geniuses there about Apple's DRM policies so that all the regular customers get so sick of waiting for assistance that they go home and build Linux boxes.
Fun fact: The Longhorn codename has nothing to do with Texas. Two hours north of Vancouver is Whistler Blackcomb Resort, the largest ski area in North America. Microsoft chose Whistler as the code name for Windows XP and Blackcomb as the one for the upcoming Windows 7. Longhorn, Vista's codename, is taken from a bar nestled in the square at the base of both Whistler & Blackcomb Peaks.
I'm no OS expert, but I don't think it's necessary to back up the entire image. All Time Machine does is receive notifications that certain files have changed, then copies those files to your backup disk. Presumably the OS can generate the same notifications when a file is written to an encrypted disk image like your home directory. It seems like it should be simple to just have another encrypted disk image with the same key as your home directory, and have Time Machine write the files to that disk image on its regular schedule while you're logged in rather than backing up your whole home directory disk image when you log out.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, or if it's an issue for you, but if you use FileVault to encrypt your home directory, you should be aware that Time Machine backs up things like your Applications directory hourly, but doesn't do the same with your home directory--that gets backed up only when you log out of your account. If you ask me, this is a big problem that seriously undermines Time Machine's usefulness, as I tend to remain logged in unless I have a good reason to log out (such as a required restart after a software upgrade). I'm really surprised Apple did something that bone-headed.
Um... Duh. A "feature" designed to prevent you from using a device you've paid good money for in the way you expect to be able to. Deliberate sabotage on the part of the manufacturer.
Because it has not been smoothed down by water and wind. Only hits of meteorites scatter stuff there, and that is not enough to smooth away edges on grains of silica and other rough rocks.
Exactly. It's like inhaling microscopic shards of glass.
No, counting ballots doesn't have to be hard. What's extremely hard is:
Making sure everyone only votes once
Keeping the entire process anonymous
If you only had to to either instead of both, it would be a piece of cake. Unfortunately, having to do both is hard, and with each and every county running their own elections for tens of millions of people, all with different aims, populations, budgets, and so on, it's a lot harder than you think.
The Iraqis seemed to manage it pretty well with indelible purple ink on their fingers.
Yeah, things are beyond ridiculous when entire states of matter are excluded from airplanes. I actually saw a newspaper article a month ago that used the phrase "explosive water".
I keep expecting to open up a newspaper (other than the Onion) and see a headline that reads "To prevent future terror attacks, DHS bans the future."
Even in a total lunar eclipse, there's always a reddish glow on the moon's face--the light of every sunrise and sunset in the world hitting it after passing through Earth's atmosphere. So it's eternal sunlight...it's just not 100% constant.
How about making bribery of public officials illegal, making torture illegal, and making all laws available for public scrutiny. Eventually one or both major parties are going to have to do all those before the USA becones a complete political then economic laughing stock.
They already are illegal.
The problem isn't that our laws are inadequate; it's that the enforcement mechanisms have been subverted, corrupted, or otherwise compromised. A couple of weeks ago, Justice Department lawyers investigating December's revelation of NSA warrantless phone surveillance had to shut down their investigation because the NSA refused to give them the necessary security clearances. Earlier this year, the federal prosecutor looking into the Jack Abramoff scandal was taken off the case through a promotion to a federal judgeships to get them off the case. When the military established the detainment camp at Guantanamo, the Bush administration declared that Geneva Convention protections--enacted in a treaty with as much legal force as the Constitution itself--would not apply there. When the McCain anti-torture amendment was approved by Congress, Bush signed into law, but attached a signing statement saying he'll interpret the law to mean he's allowed to torture when he deems it necessary--the exact opposite of the intent of the bill. When the media reports on blatantly illegal secret government programs--secret prison camps in eastern Europe, illegal surveillance of phone communications, etc.--the administration threatens to charge the reporters with espionage. And so on, ad infinitum.
The Republican Party controls all three branches of government. They have total power to draft new laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constitutionality of laws. Regrettably, the Bush administration has chosen to violate the law blatantly and repeatedly; the Supreme Court has shown their traditional deference to presidential wartime powers; Republican members of Congress refuse to acknowledge the criminality of the administration and instead make inane and pusillanimous statements like "Civil liberties are useless to you when you're dead" (therefore we need to take them away from you while you're alive?) And Democrats, who have no authority to introduce new legislation, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc.--whose only power is that of the bully pulpit--are helpless to do anything while they're in the minority. In that context, I think honestly, the fewer new laws there are, the better.
Even if you elect people who are less abusive of the power I doubt you are going to see any elected officials vote to reduce their own power/influence.
Nice idea, and if it were any other president, I'd agree. But after witnessing George Bush attaching a bogus "signing statement" to John McCain's anti-torture law basically saying he won't torture anyone unless he wants to, claiming he has the right to conduct warrantless surveillance on international calls despite a law to the contrary, and refusing to acknowledge that he doesn't have the right to do so for purely domestic calls...do you really think that such a provision would make the slightest difference to the fascist criminals currently running this country?
The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?
What would happen if George Bush ate a baby live on national TV:
Democrats call for Congressional hearings
Russ Feingold would call for a mild reprimand, because censure is probably too much to ask for. Tom Harkin signs on; the other Democrats say they want more information from the hearings before deciding.
Alberto Gonzales testifies that the President has the inherent authority to eat babies as a preemptive measure against terrorist attacks, in accordance with his powers as commander in chief and Congress's authorization to use military force against terrorists
Republicans accuse Democrats of partisan sniping and hurting the war effort in Iraq by depriving the President of the authority he needs to defend the country
Ann Coulter calls for immediately rounding up and devouring the babies of all liberals before their parents can corrupt them
Joe Lieberman works out a compromise bill with the Republicans to allow the President to eat a limited number of babies, but require him to submit quarterly reports to Congress on the nature and scope of his baby consumption
Alaska senator Ted Stevens sneaks in an amendment to immediately open all of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Nobody notices.
Bush signs the bill into law, but attach a signing statement asserting his right to consume as many babies as he wants without reporting to Congress, declaring those obligations to be an unconstitutional usurpation of his Presidential authority
Rush Limbaugh offers savory recipes for preparing and serving baby meat
Chris Matthews wonders aloud why no one gives the President any credit for his novel approach to dealing with terrorists
Bill O'Reilly admits to having a craving for baby, then asks his cohost Lis Wiehl if he can get her drunk and knock her up, then set a dinner date with her for nine months later. Keith Olbermann names him Worst Person in the World for a whole week straight.
Pat Robertson says we shouldn't eat American babies, but suggests that China might consider exporting their own babies to us to deal with their overpopulation issues
The latest FOX News poll shows the President's approval rating dropping to an all-time low of 30%
There's no public outcry because everyone's too busy watching American Idol to pay attention.
The FISA process is broken, and all it takes is a libtard judge to block a FISA warrant to get something like Zacharias Moussaoui, who's picked up for immigration violations, is strongly suspected of having terrorist ties, but our agents are blocked from looking at his computer because of civil liberties concerns.
*snort* Yeah, 'cause when someone's been picked up for another crime and terrorist ties are "strongly suspected" (based on sufficient legally-obtained evidence to rise to the level of probably cause?), that damn FISA court, which as we all know is just crawling with liberal activist judges, would never grant a warrant. They've gotten 19,000 requests, and they've had the nerve to deny six. SIX!!! What if one of those six had been Zacharias Moussaoui?!? Don't they know their job is just to rubberstamp anything the White House wants to do? Don't they know their place?!?
Has Rush Limbaugh been sharing his oxycontin with you or something? Jeez, turn off the Fox News and walk away. Like you can trust this administration to tell you the truth about anything.
Whether or not Bush broke the FISA law is debatable...
de-bat-a-bleadj. Open to debate. Often used to wrongly imply uncertainty where there is none.
Bush broke the law. Period. The law states that surveillance may be conducted without a warrant for 72 hours prior to obtaining one, and there's a 15-day exception in time of war. The administration chose to ignore those requirements. Alberto Gonzales and his team of legal thugs are determined to find any little loophole they can to expand executive power and free themselves of the shackles of checks and balances. That kind of legalistic wrangling is suited to a defense attorney determined to get his clients acquitted regardless of their innocence or guilt, but it's utterly inappropriate for any president to violate the spirit of the law after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution (even if he does think it's "just a goddamned piece of paper.")
I can pretty much guarantee you, if he broke the law, it'll go to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will find he acted within the powers delegated to him by the Constitution and that the FISA law is an Unconstitutional usurpation of Executive authority by the Legislative branch.
Where exactly in the Constitution is the power to conduct warrantless surveillance granted to the President in a way that isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment?
(Please don't spout the canard about the president having limitless power by virtue of his role as Commander in Chief. The neo-cons are always quick to point that out and give it the most expansive meaning conceivable. We're at war, they claim, and Congress authorized the President to take whatever measures he deems necessary to conduct the War on Terror...as if the phrasing of a resolution--not a law, a resolution--can grant a giant, irrevocable loophole that gives him total immunity even from the Constitution, and having granted those powers, Congress cannot further regulate them. But they overlook Article 1, Section 8, which empowers Congress "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.")
I agree with you that FISA is probably unconstitutional. I just think it violates the Fourth Amendment rather than infringing on executive authority.
Slashdot Mirror
A guy named Frederick Hertzberg suggested that employees are motivated by a hierarchy of needs.
They start at the very low levels: Physical Environment, Salary, Job Security, Status, etc.
Then they proceed to higher levels. Recognition is actually the second highest motivator, and it certainly is a motivator for some. But Google is actually a good example of Hertzberg's highest motivator which is achievement: people are motivated by the work itself. Self-actualization.
That was Abraham Maslow.
It'd be a terrible idea. I've read my Heinlein; I know what happens when you put convicts higher up the gravity well than you are. They drop rocks on your head.
How does that work? The US government creates little portable islands of no-man's-land around incoming passengers at airports within its borders? So if I'm not in the US at that point, how am I subject to its laws?
Maybe you and all your friends should march into the nearest Apple store and take turns spending hours harassing the Geniuses there about Apple's DRM policies so that all the regular customers get so sick of waiting for assistance that they go home and build Linux boxes.
How are they supposed to control you if they don't know who you are?
Mmmm...no, I like mine better.
That's a great idea, but it needs a catchy acronym. Hmm...a relative dimension in space, and targetted time. How about ARDISATT?
Evidence schmevidence, I for one won't believe in any of this black hole nonsense until I actually see one.
Fun fact: The Longhorn codename has nothing to do with Texas. Two hours north of Vancouver is Whistler Blackcomb Resort, the largest ski area in North America. Microsoft chose Whistler as the code name for Windows XP and Blackcomb as the one for the upcoming Windows 7. Longhorn, Vista's codename, is taken from a bar nestled in the square at the base of both Whistler & Blackcomb Peaks.
I'm no OS expert, but I don't think it's necessary to back up the entire image. All Time Machine does is receive notifications that certain files have changed, then copies those files to your backup disk. Presumably the OS can generate the same notifications when a file is written to an encrypted disk image like your home directory. It seems like it should be simple to just have another encrypted disk image with the same key as your home directory, and have Time Machine write the files to that disk image on its regular schedule while you're logged in rather than backing up your whole home directory disk image when you log out.
I don't know if you're aware of this or not, or if it's an issue for you, but if you use FileVault to encrypt your home directory, you should be aware that Time Machine backs up things like your Applications directory hourly, but doesn't do the same with your home directory--that gets backed up only when you log out of your account. If you ask me, this is a big problem that seriously undermines Time Machine's usefulness, as I tend to remain logged in unless I have a good reason to log out (such as a required restart after a software upgrade). I'm really surprised Apple did something that bone-headed.
Two months of smugness is definitely worth $200.
Um... Duh. A "feature" designed to prevent you from using a device you've paid good money for in the way you expect to be able to. Deliberate sabotage on the part of the manufacturer.
Exactly. It's like inhaling microscopic shards of glass.
The Iraqis seemed to manage it pretty well with indelible purple ink on their fingers.
Yeah, things are beyond ridiculous when entire states of matter are excluded from airplanes. I actually saw a newspaper article a month ago that used the phrase "explosive water".
I keep expecting to open up a newspaper (other than the Onion) and see a headline that reads "To prevent future terror attacks, DHS bans the future."
Even in a total lunar eclipse, there's always a reddish glow on the moon's face--the light of every sunrise and sunset in the world hitting it after passing through Earth's atmosphere. So it's eternal sunlight...it's just not 100% constant.
Right. It's not eeevil repubs, it's eeevil libruls.
Whatever.
They already are illegal.
The problem isn't that our laws are inadequate; it's that the enforcement mechanisms have been subverted, corrupted, or otherwise compromised. A couple of weeks ago, Justice Department lawyers investigating December's revelation of NSA warrantless phone surveillance had to shut down their investigation because the NSA refused to give them the necessary security clearances. Earlier this year, the federal prosecutor looking into the Jack Abramoff scandal was taken off the case through a promotion to a federal judgeships to get them off the case. When the military established the detainment camp at Guantanamo, the Bush administration declared that Geneva Convention protections--enacted in a treaty with as much legal force as the Constitution itself--would not apply there. When the McCain anti-torture amendment was approved by Congress, Bush signed into law, but attached a signing statement saying he'll interpret the law to mean he's allowed to torture when he deems it necessary--the exact opposite of the intent of the bill. When the media reports on blatantly illegal secret government programs--secret prison camps in eastern Europe, illegal surveillance of phone communications, etc.--the administration threatens to charge the reporters with espionage. And so on, ad infinitum.
The Republican Party controls all three branches of government. They have total power to draft new laws, enforce laws, and rule on the constitutionality of laws. Regrettably, the Bush administration has chosen to violate the law blatantly and repeatedly; the Supreme Court has shown their traditional deference to presidential wartime powers; Republican members of Congress refuse to acknowledge the criminality of the administration and instead make inane and pusillanimous statements like "Civil liberties are useless to you when you're dead" (therefore we need to take them away from you while you're alive?) And Democrats, who have no authority to introduce new legislation, hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc.--whose only power is that of the bully pulpit--are helpless to do anything while they're in the minority. In that context, I think honestly, the fewer new laws there are, the better.
Just paint it mauve, the universal symbol for danger.
I'll do it...vote for me!
Nice idea, and if it were any other president, I'd agree. But after witnessing George Bush attaching a bogus "signing statement" to John McCain's anti-torture law basically saying he won't torture anyone unless he wants to, claiming he has the right to conduct warrantless surveillance on international calls despite a law to the contrary, and refusing to acknowledge that he doesn't have the right to do so for purely domestic calls...do you really think that such a provision would make the slightest difference to the fascist criminals currently running this country?
I'd like to see such monitoring restricted to Republicans only, given that they seem to have issues with this sort of thing.
What would happen if George Bush ate a baby live on national TV:
*snort* Yeah, 'cause when someone's been picked up for another crime and terrorist ties are "strongly suspected" (based on sufficient legally-obtained evidence to rise to the level of probably cause?), that damn FISA court, which as we all know is just crawling with liberal activist judges, would never grant a warrant. They've gotten 19,000 requests, and they've had the nerve to deny six. SIX!!! What if one of those six had been Zacharias Moussaoui?!? Don't they know their job is just to rubberstamp anything the White House wants to do? Don't they know their place?!?
Has Rush Limbaugh been sharing his oxycontin with you or something? Jeez, turn off the Fox News and walk away. Like you can trust this administration to tell you the truth about anything.
de-bat-a-ble adj. Open to debate. Often used to wrongly imply uncertainty where there is none.
Bush broke the law. Period. The law states that surveillance may be conducted without a warrant for 72 hours prior to obtaining one, and there's a 15-day exception in time of war. The administration chose to ignore those requirements. Alberto Gonzales and his team of legal thugs are determined to find any little loophole they can to expand executive power and free themselves of the shackles of checks and balances. That kind of legalistic wrangling is suited to a defense attorney determined to get his clients acquitted regardless of their innocence or guilt, but it's utterly inappropriate for any president to violate the spirit of the law after swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution (even if he does think it's "just a goddamned piece of paper.")
Where exactly in the Constitution is the power to conduct warrantless surveillance granted to the President in a way that isn't subject to the Fourth Amendment?
(Please don't spout the canard about the president having limitless power by virtue of his role as Commander in Chief. The neo-cons are always quick to point that out and give it the most expansive meaning conceivable. We're at war, they claim, and Congress authorized the President to take whatever measures he deems necessary to conduct the War on Terror...as if the phrasing of a resolution--not a law, a resolution--can grant a giant, irrevocable loophole that gives him total immunity even from the Constitution, and having granted those powers, Congress cannot further regulate them. But they overlook Article 1, Section 8, which empowers Congress "to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.")
I agree with you that FISA is probably unconstitutional. I just think it violates the Fourth Amendment rather than infringing on executive authority.