The American government may not represent every American equally, but it represents citizens, not a king, and not a god.
Of course, some of the people you're complaining about are trying to change that.
Saying things like "the American government is the enemy of the people" is exactly what they're doing to make it happen.
Their primary goal is to tear down the current system entirely. Then, because they have the money and an infrastructure of mind control (you know, religion) in place, they will buy and bully their way in to be the new government.
One based on assets, inheritance, and Ghawd. You know. Like the one we kicked out in 1776.
So go ahead. Keep disenfranchising yourself through apathy and self-denial. You're making their job easier.
You either don't know how math works, or don't know how sales works.
She could have set a lower discount, still set no limit, got fewer takers, but got a better class of takers (those who were interested not just because of the size of the discount).
She would then (a) profit from every cupcake sold even though she was offering a discount and (b) profit even more from repeat business.
Groupon should care about anyone who they serve, whether it's the merchant or the consumer. But they don't. They only care about shovelling in numbers so they can bedazzle Wall Street.
The circumstances are taken account of in the law, and include the fact that Manning ignored the law and the large provision it made for legally accomplishing what he tried illegally to accomplish.
You're the scary one, here, blathering from a place of total ignorance, trying to get the rule of law subordinated to the rule of excuses.
It's not just in Groupon's interest to leave that limit off. Spreading the opportunity to new customers is the point of coupons, and limiting it only to those who happen to see it limits your reach.
The key here is the 75%, which is too big a discount. Groupon should know by now how many people will take advantage of something like that, and should apprise the merchant of the statistics. Then, instead of setting a hard limit, the merchant can select a smaller discount that still allows all interested parties to participate, but discourages apathetic freeloaders and aims at a number of participants that is more in line with the merchant's full capacity.
But that's not in Groupon's interest. Groupon wants volume and for its hordes of users to be happy because that's the volume that means revenue to them and revenue means their stock goes up.
Same result, different variable. Groupon would make you promise 100% discounts to everyone on Earth if they thought they could get away with it.
If it says "one per customer" and someone tries to use a second, that's not accepting an offer, it's theft.
I'd not only refuse to give them a second item, I'd take back the first and call the cops.
And if they get violent, well, you ever seen the equipment they use in a professional bakery? Would be a shame if someone accidentally fell into that dough mixer. Y'know?
A limit is self-defeating. If you want one person to get a 75% discount, you might as well want everyone who gets a chance to get a 75% discount.
Groupon's issue is that it's aggressive about marketing these overgenerous discounts to merchants. So her mistake was engendered by their suggestions. If Groupon used its statistical information wisely, they'd have guided her to a discount level that would get her a reasonable increase in business, not a flood.
But Groupon doesn't really care if the merchant is happy. It's trying to sell stock, and what sells stock is gaudy revenues for itself.
Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret.
False. Very little deserved to be declassified without some sort of redaction to protect those named or otherwise made identifiable by it. Much of it deserved to remain secret to protect methods of operation from interdiction, infiltration, and exploitation. What little of it should have been declassified should have been declassified properly, and the fact that it should have been declassified in no way mitigates Manning's crime.
The enemy thanks you for your attitude, though. It makes their job so easy we might as well never have come up with the idea of keeping secrets.
He believed there was one specific crime, and he actually did expose evidence of it.
Problem is, that was illegal. Releasing every other document in the database was just piling on.
There's a procedure for getting criminally classified documents declassified. In fact, it might not even be necessary, since all he had to do was show certain people within the system that they existed, and the crime would be dealt with without declassifying the documents.
if for some reason he didn't like the result, his recourse was to take it another step up the chain. He's got a dozen commanders and a dozen Inspectors General (who checks-and-balances his associated commander) between him and the Commander-in-Chief, plus he can write his Congressmen (all three of them) or a number of officials in the Defense security apparatus whose sole job is to deal with illegal classification, and he's completely within his rights -- and encouraged -- to do those things, and told (probably on a poster in the classified storage area) that it is illegal for anyone to retaliate against him.
Instead he decided he knew that there were no honest men or women anywhere in that system, so he was above the law, and glory would shine on him for his actions.
I think he had help coming to that belief, and that encouragement constitutes a violation of law itself.
Actually, one person does, but Manning is not the President.
The President delegates his classification authority in a very detailed way, and that delegation filters down to someone like Manning. He read the rules when he got his clearance, and probably several times since then. He knew what he was and wasn't allowed to do, and he did one of the things they told him not to do. He broke laws and violated a spoken oath and a signed agreement.
Anyone judging this fairly will conclude that he's guilty and deserves the maximum penalty for being so brazen about it. His behavior and expression of remorse since he did it is the only mitigation they'll consider. His excuses will probably be thrown back in his face.
Whether it's a military or civilian court shouldn't matter. The only difference will be the amount of emotion you're likely to find coming from the bench when they toss away the key.
He's had days in court. Administrative matters relating to his basic rights rather than addressing of the larger issues of whether he should or shouldn't be there, but court nonetheless. He hasn't been denied counsel and a judge been in charge of his incarceration and care since shortly after his arrest. The spooks didn't disappear him. He's getting due process (unless maybe someone in the process screws up and he's getting technicalities his lawyer can exploit, but those are details, not a basic denial of any rights beyond his own signing away of anything but military justice).
Truck driving may cease to be a job. But hijacking trucks, and then riding shotgun (literally), will replace it.
I mean, seriously, would you ship anything cross-country that could be tipped into a ditch and looted?
BTW, cowboys were an American fixture. You'll get mixed views of whether their demise is a good thing or not. "Cowboy" is a slur or a compliment, depending on the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
having to watch that "inspect and walk away" video must be what it's like to have to interview with Herman Cain for a job...
The American government may not represent every American equally, but it represents citizens, not a king, and not a god.
Of course, some of the people you're complaining about are trying to change that.
Saying things like "the American government is the enemy of the people" is exactly what they're doing to make it happen.
Their primary goal is to tear down the current system entirely. Then, because they have the money and an infrastructure of mind control (you know, religion) in place, they will buy and bully their way in to be the new government.
One based on assets, inheritance, and Ghawd. You know. Like the one we kicked out in 1776.
So go ahead. Keep disenfranchising yourself through apathy and self-denial. You're making their job easier.
*Ahem*
I am about to explain the joke:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57328344-71/pakistan-bans-rude-text-messages/
The hell you say.
George W Bush has been at sea for decades.
Not me. I lie the most when I know people are trying to read tells.
But you still have to get the cards, so, no bracelets for me. Yet.
[eom]
If you'd said you were in Islamabad, that'd be funnier.
You either don't know how math works, or don't know how sales works.
She could have set a lower discount, still set no limit, got fewer takers, but got a better class of takers (those who were interested not just because of the size of the discount).
She would then (a) profit from every cupcake sold even though she was offering a discount and (b) profit even more from repeat business.
Groupon should care about anyone who they serve, whether it's the merchant or the consumer. But they don't. They only care about shovelling in numbers so they can bedazzle Wall Street.
The American government is the American people.
Or did you think you were living in Iran?
Wouldn't be surprised, with a schizo attitude like that.
The only people who are interested in harming us are the people we have BOMBED TO FUCKING OBLIVION and back ten fucking times
We never bombed bin Laden. We trained him and armed him and helped him beat the Soviets.
We then walked away and went back to being free.
That's what pissed him off.
You idiot.
The circumstances are taken account of in the law, and include the fact that Manning ignored the law and the large provision it made for legally accomplishing what he tried illegally to accomplish.
You're the scary one, here, blathering from a place of total ignorance, trying to get the rule of law subordinated to the rule of excuses.
It's not just in Groupon's interest to leave that limit off. Spreading the opportunity to new customers is the point of coupons, and limiting it only to those who happen to see it limits your reach.
The key here is the 75%, which is too big a discount. Groupon should know by now how many people will take advantage of something like that, and should apprise the merchant of the statistics. Then, instead of setting a hard limit, the merchant can select a smaller discount that still allows all interested parties to participate, but discourages apathetic freeloaders and aims at a number of participants that is more in line with the merchant's full capacity.
But that's not in Groupon's interest. Groupon wants volume and for its hordes of users to be happy because that's the volume that means revenue to them and revenue means their stock goes up.
Same result, different variable. Groupon would make you promise 100% discounts to everyone on Earth if they thought they could get away with it.
If it says "one per customer" and someone tries to use a second, that's not accepting an offer, it's theft.
I'd not only refuse to give them a second item, I'd take back the first and call the cops.
And if they get violent, well, you ever seen the equipment they use in a professional bakery? Would be a shame if someone accidentally fell into that dough mixer. Y'know?
On the other hand, they have thousands of people who will likely come back and average-up that margin, and they're now world-famous.
Best $40k that lady ever spent on her business, I'm guessing.
They only did it because Barbra Streisand campaigned against it.
A limit is self-defeating. If you want one person to get a 75% discount, you might as well want everyone who gets a chance to get a 75% discount.
Groupon's issue is that it's aggressive about marketing these overgenerous discounts to merchants. So her mistake was engendered by their suggestions. If Groupon used its statistical information wisely, they'd have guided her to a discount level that would get her a reasonable increase in business, not a flood.
But Groupon doesn't really care if the merchant is happy. It's trying to sell stock, and what sells stock is gaudy revenues for itself.
Two words:
Star
bucks.
Your punctuation errors are "give aways".
Or you could just be taken for no reason then released for fake reasons and told to pay a fine for something that never really happened.
But you'd have to be Chinese to do that.
Some things are secret for good reason.
True.
Very little in what Manning released had any reason to be secret.
False. Very little deserved to be declassified without some sort of redaction to protect those named or otherwise made identifiable by it. Much of it deserved to remain secret to protect methods of operation from interdiction, infiltration, and exploitation. What little of it should have been declassified should have been declassified properly, and the fact that it should have been declassified in no way mitigates Manning's crime.
The enemy thanks you for your attitude, though. It makes their job so easy we might as well never have come up with the idea of keeping secrets.
yes they are. and he deserves whatever he gets as a result of that trial. no matter how old he is.
He believed there was one specific crime, and he actually did expose evidence of it.
Problem is, that was illegal. Releasing every other document in the database was just piling on.
There's a procedure for getting criminally classified documents declassified. In fact, it might not even be necessary, since all he had to do was show certain people within the system that they existed, and the crime would be dealt with without declassifying the documents.
if for some reason he didn't like the result, his recourse was to take it another step up the chain. He's got a dozen commanders and a dozen Inspectors General (who checks-and-balances his associated commander) between him and the Commander-in-Chief, plus he can write his Congressmen (all three of them) or a number of officials in the Defense security apparatus whose sole job is to deal with illegal classification, and he's completely within his rights -- and encouraged -- to do those things, and told (probably on a poster in the classified storage area) that it is illegal for anyone to retaliate against him.
Instead he decided he knew that there were no honest men or women anywhere in that system, so he was above the law, and glory would shine on him for his actions.
I think he had help coming to that belief, and that encouragement constitutes a violation of law itself.
Actually, one person does, but Manning is not the President.
The President delegates his classification authority in a very detailed way, and that delegation filters down to someone like Manning. He read the rules when he got his clearance, and probably several times since then. He knew what he was and wasn't allowed to do, and he did one of the things they told him not to do. He broke laws and violated a spoken oath and a signed agreement.
Anyone judging this fairly will conclude that he's guilty and deserves the maximum penalty for being so brazen about it. His behavior and expression of remorse since he did it is the only mitigation they'll consider. His excuses will probably be thrown back in his face.
Whether it's a military or civilian court shouldn't matter. The only difference will be the amount of emotion you're likely to find coming from the bench when they toss away the key.
He's had days in court. Administrative matters relating to his basic rights rather than addressing of the larger issues of whether he should or shouldn't be there, but court nonetheless. He hasn't been denied counsel and a judge been in charge of his incarceration and care since shortly after his arrest. The spooks didn't disappear him. He's getting due process (unless maybe someone in the process screws up and he's getting technicalities his lawyer can exploit, but those are details, not a basic denial of any rights beyond his own signing away of anything but military justice).
Truck driving may cease to be a job. But hijacking trucks, and then riding shotgun (literally), will replace it.
I mean, seriously, would you ship anything cross-country that could be tipped into a ditch and looted?
BTW, cowboys were an American fixture. You'll get mixed views of whether their demise is a good thing or not. "Cowboy" is a slur or a compliment, depending on the situation.