Pilate: (to Brian) So you dare to waid uth.
Brian: (rising to his feet) To what?
Pilate: Stwike him, centuwion, vewwy woughly.
Centurion: And throw him to the floor, Sir?
Pilate: What?
Centurion: THWOW him to the floor again, Sir?
Pilate: Oh, yeth. Thwow him to the floor.
(The Centurion knocks Brian hard on the side of the head again and
the two guards throw him to the floor.)
...you stand at the doorway aghast at the sight of a strangely familiar (now mature) call girl and three children with an uncanny resemblance to yourself.
I love how strict societies in modern settings formally become more entrenched even while their younger generation is long past the drama.
Arranged marriages that last a lifetime. No one looks at porn of course, it's evil. No one cheats of course. 7 kids in a 2 bedroom flat. All you really need is love and respecting your parents.
When David Cameron said that we should be able to block illegal adult sites he had no idea how unrealistic he was being...let the those that have no idea how the internet works come up with "solutions" to a problem that is not even technical.
Pablo Escobar ended face down in a pool of blood but he did say one smart thing I can recall, where there is demand there is supply.
As a society we like to believe that nothing stands in the the way of will power. So I dare anyone to try separating man from porn.
Let me tell you that you can always find a McDonalds, Starbucks or some such in central London.
Public urination is an offence that is committed by adults. I don't recall any children getting hit with a £50 fine.
You, parent/responsible adult are doing it wrong if you cannot factor in your kids needing to pee on a trip anywhere. -which is beside the point as this was originally about adults getting drunk and urinating in public.
A strong response because it's disgusting that people piss in the streets because they drink more than they should. That's the reason.
Local councils are funded with tax payer money yes. The establishment in which you buy drinks is not funded (entirely) by tax money and by purchasing a drink the use of the facilities, lightning, heating, space AND toilets is factored in.
In reality what you are asking is that your tax money is used to create/fund toilets (naturally close to areas of drinking where most pissing takes place). Except of course that you have already paid for the use of a toilet when you bought a drink. So really you want to pay for two toilets and basically use one. Why? so when you drink too much you don't need to think about peeing before you go...a basic function that many children have mastered.
Bars, pubs and restaurants, I'm told, have toilets. Why do we need more? -Let's not forget why most public toilets closed to begin with, besides cost. Drugs, rape, basic disgusting and intentional misuse, that sorta thing.
In my opinion the government and local councils got this one right.
Forgive me if I assume that you're an adult; with the ability to gauge how much you've been drinking against the amount of time you can be away from a toilet.
No I do not contradict as those are not the options.
To name a few;
1. Piss in the establishment in which you bought the drinks. They have toilets.
2. Do not drink to the point you cannot control your basic bodily functions.
3. Behave like an adult and find a solution that is superior to a 4 year old.
Many excuse themselves with the stupidity of "I was drunk" but the truth is you can still exercise wilful self control. If you are unable to hold your alcohol then you should not be drinking.
Some may not care whilst they are already plastered true, but when they come to they'll remember for next time and their friends and family will hopefully also help these people come back to the fold of civility.
Imagine that all the people you know knew everything to the smallest detail about you. Can you still hold your head high and look into their eyes as an equal?
Otherwise if you wanna piss everywhere and drink without consequences you might as well go live in some gutter. At least then it will drain somewhere in the sewage system...
As I see it the problem is deterrent. People drink too much, cannot hold it in and need to pee. Given their drunken state they no longer care about how it looks or what others may think and they just piss anywhere.
IF fines were high and CCTV footage or pictures were published to name and shame I'm pretty sure we'll have far less people doing this!
In your opinion, how can a government strike a fair balance between privacy and snooping powers?
Given that the government needs to be able to spy on potentially dangerous people and groups and such desires have grown legs, wings and multiple heads over the years...
Firstly to say I am not arguing against what you said. I do however want to add to point 4.
Getting employee buy-in is important. An employee that is engaged, that believes he has a higher purpose than just working for this company will put more effort and pride into his work. In theory higher quality and more work is the result.
This internal marketing helps employee retention as well as getting many of them to do more for no additional pay because they are committed and feel it is their duty.
Most new employees will eat this up and feel they are part of a larger group, a wider family, with a purpose beyond just plain old Monday work. After a period of time people, being smart, wisen up and read between the lines if they have not already. then the "engagement" becomes a game of pretending. Managers pretend to be engaged and pursue engagement activities (that include making sure no one works from home) and employees pretend to be engage and embrace the "culture" as a valued framework.
Many companies will cite Yahoo's experience and many managers will see it as "proof" of something. I believe it all boils down to the employee in question.
Most employees will be very concerned that they may be viewed as not doing much if they are working from home and will often do more "just to make sure". but perception is the name of the game. If your manager thinks people that wear jeans are not serious about work well...we know what happens if a candidate shows up to an interview in jeans.
As a society we are still a bit far off the holy grail of working from home. The old way of thinking is still prevalent and despite having the technology this way of thinking is holding us back as a society. Imagine the cost savings if you did not have to provide your employees with environmentally controlled facilities and giant office spaces. Imagine how much traffic will be saved if 50% of us do not have to actually be physically at work.
Personally I find working from home easier. I can sleep more and have an environment that I enjoy and helps me concentrate. I don't need a manager to interrupt me as he reads through his emails or colleagues playing music wanting to gossip over coffee or deal with the less than gourmet food on offer.
In conclusion I think that a person wanting to work from home needs to find the right employer and that is where the real challenge lies. Most do not advertise that you can work from home so it's still a matter of finding out manually. It's one of the questions I'd ask of a future employer.
You may have considered it polite and non-offensive but not everyone will, which is the point.
Replace unicorns with snake oil. The points stands. Belief lacking any factual basis that is protected by law may as well be the celestial teapot, pink unicorns or anything else without factual basis.
The point being is that in this case religion itself allows no flexibility. If you deny the holy spirit and evidently I do I cannot be forgiven ergo, according to this baseless belief I am a "sinner". Such a biased belief based on nothing at all should not have legal protection.
You see to deny the holy spirit is apparently a big deal and that offends people. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to deny the holy snake oil. Just as baseless, just as valid.
My argument is for sense. Legislation such as this has too much room for error. Queue "I'm offended" lawsuits.
OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.
I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.
Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable to humans should such a being or entity actually exist it would be impossible for humans to know the will of such a deity and is best left for the deity to express, preferably in written form. (sure you can say some holy book but I'm pretty sure an all powerful deity does not need people to make editing mistakes in written form and then claim divine origins.
If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.
The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.
It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc. Besides, if god doesn't like it, he'll just change it back right?
While I welcome the spirit of the legislation I am concerned about the enforcement.
You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?
While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged if not eliminated what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?
If you think about it, when someone says something and another person is offended it's not clear cut who has it wrong. Did the person intend to offend? was it that you disagreed or are of a gentler nature? did he speak in anger or while intoxicated? -factors that need consideration.
I really hope this bill will be implemented in a measured manner. I can see any number of groups pursuing lawsuits due to some of these items.
Amusing but the truth is there was doubt if this franchise will be killed off due to legal issues.
The truth is loads of geeks want to know this and there was a bit of an interesting intellectual rights battle between Bethesda and Interplay.
So really, this is a little bit of a surprise ifyou think that my most beloved game series of all times was almost axed because of some failed MMO you insesitive clod!
Once upon a time if you denied say the holocaust then it would put you in a very bad light because of mountains of evidence of something that has obviously happened. It was fact and to deny the series of factual events would be shameful at best.
We have climate change as a hot topic. The climate changes, fact. I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.
The supposed denial is in the disagreement about how the climate changes. Some say the poles will melt and the world will be covered in sea water in X time. We argue about X time....we also argue about Y influence of humans in this mix and the Z rate at which some of these changes occur.
More things we argue about; such as the supposed infallible proof that this is not 'seasonal' on a geological time scale and how much of this is outside of the influence of humans.
Things that muddy the waters are inaccurate readings, flawed methodologies, the numerous times equipment malfunctioned and gave incorrect measurements etc.
I wish we had the ability to film ice loss 9000 years ago, would giant ice sheets falling scare everyone? if we had measurements to show one thing or another would we think the sky is falling?
Ice "loss"...reason to be concerned? -maybe. Is this not a normal cycle by which the ice sheet thins and shrinks over very long cycles of years? is it possible that something like this never happened before and yet not because of gas guzzling 4x4??
Please forgive me if I do not immediately stop using fossil fuels etc.
I get labelled with "denier" because I disagree with some assessments, theories and assertions.
So let me just say this one more time; I do not disagree that the climate is changing. How it is changing, at what rate and because of what is subject for debate amongst experts as well and even that is not a fool-proof indication because guess what you can have a large group of so called "experts" and they can all be wrong. Best make up your own mind and risk being an "expert opinion denier".
Look, over there! -A financially successful venture.
Why do they have millions? that's not right 'they' should take all the money away or wikimedia foundation should give us stuff, because.
Sure, we didn;t envy them when it was just a concept considered shaky at best. We didn't envy when they were struggling or were on the verge of collapse...
But look, over there, they have money! -they should have dust, or little else because *anger*, just because.
A few bucks for a rainy day, or an expansion etc. always easy to count costs for someone else and what they should and shouldn't do with money that is not your own.
Have a coke and a smile. Say, 'heck few people thought this will ever make money, now it did even though it was not created solely out of greed. Congratulations and well done!'
Older people have families, experience and have been around the circus before.
Young programmers are much better. Firstly they often have nothing better to do. Their living expense tend to be lower and they often cannot tell when they are being screwed over for pay until they are are feeling the shaft for a couple of years.
They have no family commitments and when the big boss man smiles and asks if you can do this one extra thing for the team you say "sure boss!" and not "My boy has this thing at school..."
Why hire old programmers? they question the logic, they see through the corporate bullshit, they won't work for peanuts and often cannot do overtime. Forget that they actually know what their contract means and exactly what you can and cannot get them to do. They are not cool. They don't any Justin Bieber songs and they don't play COD.
Why bother with those old people when you can have fizzy drinking kids willing to bend over backwards? -code quality? -efficiency? -less re-work? most managers have very little grasp of how those looks like & those people make "suggestions for the business".
Old developers...as old as 40...they are practically dying already, why hire their kind? -makes no sense I tell you.
Of course, if you get the camera slapped out of your hand while being tazed and the officer then claims you assaulted him who's gonna film it?
Just how many cops have behaved inappropriately and have remained on the force. How many messed up or plainly did wrong and are still earning your tax dollar?
Idealistic talk is nice...facts on the ground is another thing.
At least until the locals catch-up to the market requirements...or else they risk being put out of a job because they cannot compete.
Let's not forget that foreigners lower average wage because they are willing to work for less.
Better to make sure they cannot enter the US so they can go elsewhere for a long enough time for the US not to be a destination for talent any more.
OMG competing for resources and needing to be useful at a competitive rate, the shock, the horror. Think you can do better? think you deserve more money? prove it by doing better and getting paid more...or keep blaming greedy corporations and "foreigners stealing jobs".
If companies cannot get the talent in guess what? they'll outsource what they can, move away if possible. Demand is the driving force, supply is the solution to meet demand.
Application quotas will not drive the US forward it will instead ensure it gets left behind.
IF we cannot body scan you
IF we cannot read your emails
IF we cannot read your medical records
IF we cannot detect your location
IF we cannot determine your political beliefs
then one day that will become
The terrorists win IF we cannot read your mind
Because if you're innocent why would you want to hide anything right? because data collection agencies, corporations and the government have done such a stellar job making sure that information is handled ethically and protected privacy in an adequate manner, right?
How is that load of bullshit working so far? -when will draconian security measure applied without cause or reason be seen for what they are?
There is always be those that use violence to influence, no amount of snooping and big brother shit will ever change that.
Slashdot Mirror
Pilate: (to Brian) So you dare to waid uth.
Brian: (rising to his feet) To what?
Pilate: Stwike him, centuwion, vewwy woughly.
Centurion: And throw him to the floor, Sir?
Pilate: What?
Centurion: THWOW him to the floor again, Sir?
Pilate: Oh, yeth. Thwow him to the floor.
(The Centurion knocks Brian hard on the side of the head again and the two guards throw him to the floor.)
...you stand at the doorway aghast at the sight of a strangely familiar (now mature) call girl and three children with an uncanny resemblance to yourself.
I love how strict societies in modern settings formally become more entrenched even while their younger generation is long past the drama.
Arranged marriages that last a lifetime. No one looks at porn of course, it's evil. No one cheats of course. 7 kids in a 2 bedroom flat. All you really need is love and respecting your parents.
When David Cameron said that we should be able to block illegal adult sites he had no idea how unrealistic he was being...let the those that have no idea how the internet works come up with "solutions" to a problem that is not even technical.
Pablo Escobar ended face down in a pool of blood but he did say one smart thing I can recall, where there is demand there is supply.
As a society we like to believe that nothing stands in the the way of will power. So I dare anyone to try separating man from porn.
What makes you think I do not have children?
Let me tell you that you can always find a McDonalds, Starbucks or some such in central London.
Public urination is an offence that is committed by adults. I don't recall any children getting hit with a £50 fine.
You, parent/responsible adult are doing it wrong if you cannot factor in your kids needing to pee on a trip anywhere. -which is beside the point as this was originally about adults getting drunk and urinating in public.
A strong response because it's disgusting that people piss in the streets because they drink more than they should. That's the reason.
I'm glad you agree but on this second point you raise I think it's unrelated and obviously wrong. :D
Some people don't care if they look like a twat and their wife, gf, children, parents, peers etc knows...
But most people do. If it's financially based only you may find that rich people chuck a £50 note at you and laugh.
Local councils are funded with tax payer money yes. The establishment in which you buy drinks is not funded (entirely) by tax money and by purchasing a drink the use of the facilities, lightning, heating, space AND toilets is factored in.
In reality what you are asking is that your tax money is used to create/fund toilets (naturally close to areas of drinking where most pissing takes place). Except of course that you have already paid for the use of a toilet when you bought a drink. So really you want to pay for two toilets and basically use one. Why? so when you drink too much you don't need to think about peeing before you go...a basic function that many children have mastered.
Bars, pubs and restaurants, I'm told, have toilets. Why do we need more? -Let's not forget why most public toilets closed to begin with, besides cost. Drugs, rape, basic disgusting and intentional misuse, that sorta thing.
In my opinion the government and local councils got this one right.
Forgive me if I assume that you're an adult; with the ability to gauge how much you've been drinking against the amount of time you can be away from a toilet.
No I do not contradict as those are not the options.
To name a few;
1. Piss in the establishment in which you bought the drinks. They have toilets.
2. Do not drink to the point you cannot control your basic bodily functions.
3. Behave like an adult and find a solution that is superior to a 4 year old.
Many excuse themselves with the stupidity of "I was drunk" but the truth is you can still exercise wilful self control. If you are unable to hold your alcohol then you should not be drinking.
Some may not care whilst they are already plastered true, but when they come to they'll remember for next time and their friends and family will hopefully also help these people come back to the fold of civility.
Imagine that all the people you know knew everything to the smallest detail about you. Can you still hold your head high and look into their eyes as an equal?
Otherwise if you wanna piss everywhere and drink without consequences you might as well go live in some gutter. At least then it will drain somewhere in the sewage system...
As I see it the problem is deterrent. People drink too much, cannot hold it in and need to pee. Given their drunken state they no longer care about how it looks or what others may think and they just piss anywhere.
IF fines were high and CCTV footage or pictures were published to name and shame I'm pretty sure we'll have far less people doing this!
In your opinion, how can a government strike a fair balance between privacy and snooping powers?
Given that the government needs to be able to spy on potentially dangerous people and groups and such desires have grown legs, wings and multiple heads over the years...
Mr. Stallman. Firstly thank you for all your many amazing and brilliant contribution. The list is long so let me leave it there.
I'd be very grateful if you could answer my question: What changes are necessary to make a smartphone truly secure?
Perhaps a bit of a late reply but just to say that your manager sounds like he's not worth working for.
Otherwise I say "employee buy-in" because managers are employees as well. Although they often forget....
Firstly to say I am not arguing against what you said. I do however want to add to point 4.
Getting employee buy-in is important. An employee that is engaged, that believes he has a higher purpose than just working for this company will put more effort and pride into his work. In theory higher quality and more work is the result.
This internal marketing helps employee retention as well as getting many of them to do more for no additional pay because they are committed and feel it is their duty.
Most new employees will eat this up and feel they are part of a larger group, a wider family, with a purpose beyond just plain old Monday work. After a period of time people, being smart, wisen up and read between the lines if they have not already. then the "engagement" becomes a game of pretending. Managers pretend to be engaged and pursue engagement activities (that include making sure no one works from home) and employees pretend to be engage and embrace the "culture" as a valued framework.
Many companies will cite Yahoo's experience and many managers will see it as "proof" of something. I believe it all boils down to the employee in question.
Most employees will be very concerned that they may be viewed as not doing much if they are working from home and will often do more "just to make sure". but perception is the name of the game. If your manager thinks people that wear jeans are not serious about work well...we know what happens if a candidate shows up to an interview in jeans.
As a society we are still a bit far off the holy grail of working from home. The old way of thinking is still prevalent and despite having the technology this way of thinking is holding us back as a society. Imagine the cost savings if you did not have to provide your employees with environmentally controlled facilities and giant office spaces. Imagine how much traffic will be saved if 50% of us do not have to actually be physically at work.
Personally I find working from home easier. I can sleep more and have an environment that I enjoy and helps me concentrate. I don't need a manager to interrupt me as he reads through his emails or colleagues playing music wanting to gossip over coffee or deal with the less than gourmet food on offer.
In conclusion I think that a person wanting to work from home needs to find the right employer and that is where the real challenge lies. Most do not advertise that you can work from home so it's still a matter of finding out manually. It's one of the questions I'd ask of a future employer.
You may have considered it polite and non-offensive but not everyone will, which is the point.
Replace unicorns with snake oil. The points stands. Belief lacking any factual basis that is protected by law may as well be the celestial teapot, pink unicorns or anything else without factual basis.
The point being is that in this case religion itself allows no flexibility. If you deny the holy spirit and evidently I do I cannot be forgiven ergo, according to this baseless belief I am a "sinner". Such a biased belief based on nothing at all should not have legal protection.
You see to deny the holy spirit is apparently a big deal and that offends people. Imagine how ridiculous it would be to deny the holy snake oil. Just as baseless, just as valid.
My argument is for sense. Legislation such as this has too much room for error. Queue "I'm offended" lawsuits.
OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.
I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.
Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable to humans should such a being or entity actually exist it would be impossible for humans to know the will of such a deity and is best left for the deity to express, preferably in written form. (sure you can say some holy book but I'm pretty sure an all powerful deity does not need people to make editing mistakes in written form and then claim divine origins.
If I believe, wholly and deeply in divine pink unicorns a legislation demanding that others respect such an unfounded belief would be an insult.
The very questioning of belief is repeatedly a cause to offend some. After all, the only unforgivable sin is to deny the holy spirit, should such a spirit exist in the unlikely event that spirits become factual.
It is high time that much like homoeopathy things which have absolutely no basis are removed from legal protections etc. Besides, if god doesn't like it, he'll just change it back right?
While I welcome the spirit of the legislation I am concerned about the enforcement.
You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?
While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged if not eliminated what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?
If you think about it, when someone says something and another person is offended it's not clear cut who has it wrong. Did the person intend to offend? was it that you disagreed or are of a gentler nature? did he speak in anger or while intoxicated? -factors that need consideration.
I really hope this bill will be implemented in a measured manner. I can see any number of groups pursuing lawsuits due to some of these items.
Amusing but the truth is there was doubt if this franchise will be killed off due to legal issues.
The truth is loads of geeks want to know this and there was a bit of an interesting intellectual rights battle between Bethesda and Interplay.
So really, this is a little bit of a surprise ifyou think that my most beloved game series of all times was almost axed because of some failed MMO you insesitive clod!
Read more here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
Just fill out false information, post pictures that are not you, tag things incorrectly, feed the bots dust til they choke.
If you think about it's possible to loop their own ads back to them...just help spread the advertisement.
They agreed to these conditions when they accept me as a user.
An honest politician?!
...and I thought I saw everything after a kosher pig.
Once upon a time if you denied say the holocaust then it would put you in a very bad light because of mountains of evidence of something that has obviously happened. It was fact and to deny the series of factual events would be shameful at best.
We have climate change as a hot topic. The climate changes, fact. I don't know of any climate change so called "deniers" that deny the fact the climate changes.
The supposed denial is in the disagreement about how the climate changes. Some say the poles will melt and the world will be covered in sea water in X time. We argue about X time....we also argue about Y influence of humans in this mix and the Z rate at which some of these changes occur.
More things we argue about; such as the supposed infallible proof that this is not 'seasonal' on a geological time scale and how much of this is outside of the influence of humans.
Things that muddy the waters are inaccurate readings, flawed methodologies, the numerous times equipment malfunctioned and gave incorrect measurements etc.
I wish we had the ability to film ice loss 9000 years ago, would giant ice sheets falling scare everyone? if we had measurements to show one thing or another would we think the sky is falling?
Ice "loss"...reason to be concerned? -maybe. Is this not a normal cycle by which the ice sheet thins and shrinks over very long cycles of years? is it possible that something like this never happened before and yet not because of gas guzzling 4x4??
Please forgive me if I do not immediately stop using fossil fuels etc.
I get labelled with "denier" because I disagree with some assessments, theories and assertions.
So let me just say this one more time; I do not disagree that the climate is changing. How it is changing, at what rate and because of what is subject for debate amongst experts as well and even that is not a fool-proof indication because guess what you can have a large group of so called "experts" and they can all be wrong. Best make up your own mind and risk being an "expert opinion denier".
Look, over there! -A financially successful venture.
Why do they have millions? that's not right 'they' should take all the money away or wikimedia foundation should give us stuff, because.
Sure, we didn;t envy them when it was just a concept considered shaky at best. We didn't envy when they were struggling or were on the verge of collapse...
But look, over there, they have money! -they should have dust, or little else because *anger*, just because.
A few bucks for a rainy day, or an expansion etc. always easy to count costs for someone else and what they should and shouldn't do with money that is not your own.
Have a coke and a smile. Say, 'heck few people thought this will ever make money, now it did even though it was not created solely out of greed. Congratulations and well done!'
Older people have families, experience and have been around the circus before.
Young programmers are much better. Firstly they often have nothing better to do. Their living expense tend to be lower and they often cannot tell when they are being screwed over for pay until they are are feeling the shaft for a couple of years.
They have no family commitments and when the big boss man smiles and asks if you can do this one extra thing for the team you say "sure boss!" and not "My boy has this thing at school..."
Why hire old programmers? they question the logic, they see through the corporate bullshit, they won't work for peanuts and often cannot do overtime. Forget that they actually know what their contract means and exactly what you can and cannot get them to do. They are not cool. They don't any Justin Bieber songs and they don't play COD.
Why bother with those old people when you can have fizzy drinking kids willing to bend over backwards? -code quality? -efficiency? -less re-work? most managers have very little grasp of how those looks like & those people make "suggestions for the business".
Old developers...as old as 40...they are practically dying already, why hire their kind? -makes no sense I tell you.
Of course, if you get the camera slapped out of your hand while being tazed and the officer then claims you assaulted him who's gonna film it?
Just how many cops have behaved inappropriately and have remained on the force. How many messed up or plainly did wrong and are still earning your tax dollar?
Idealistic talk is nice...facts on the ground is another thing.
Land of the free...yeah right.
At least until the locals catch-up to the market requirements...or else they risk being put out of a job because they cannot compete.
Let's not forget that foreigners lower average wage because they are willing to work for less.
Better to make sure they cannot enter the US so they can go elsewhere for a long enough time for the US not to be a destination for talent any more.
OMG competing for resources and needing to be useful at a competitive rate, the shock, the horror. Think you can do better? think you deserve more money? prove it by doing better and getting paid more...or keep blaming greedy corporations and "foreigners stealing jobs".
If companies cannot get the talent in guess what? they'll outsource what they can, move away if possible. Demand is the driving force, supply is the solution to meet demand.
Application quotas will not drive the US forward it will instead ensure it gets left behind.
IF we cannot body scan you
IF we cannot read your emails
IF we cannot read your medical records
IF we cannot detect your location
IF we cannot determine your political beliefs
then one day that will become
The terrorists win IF we cannot read your mind
Because if you're innocent why would you want to hide anything right? because data collection agencies, corporations and the government have done such a stellar job making sure that information is handled ethically and protected privacy in an adequate manner, right?
How is that load of bullshit working so far? -when will draconian security measure applied without cause or reason be seen for what they are?
There is always be those that use violence to influence, no amount of snooping and big brother shit will ever change that.