most people can see that both parties are functionally dead and it's all one big scam
Most people are ignorant and unintelligent, so I doubt they have even figured out this much. Of course, even if they did, all they're doing is continually voting for evil.
Should a user have to be a computer expert in order to actually use a computer?
They don't need to be experts; they just need to not be absolutely retarded. You learn to drive (maybe) before you get your license. Learning a few basic facts before you go off and do a bunch of stupid shit with a computer is something everyone should be able to do, though I don't think there should be a license.
Especially when it's a torrent of a movie you want to watch while simultaneously arguing that it's not worth your hard-earned money to pay for a ticket.
If there is a reasonable and effective method that women can use to protect themselves from getting raped, why would they not use it? Sadly, there is no such reasonable or effective method. Becoming a shut-in is not reasonable, and unlikely to be effective. Rapists don't rape because of someone's choice of clothes, so telling them to not wear certain clothing is just idiotic.
Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad. In fact, just think about what you're saying; you're essentially saying that people shouldn't mention to other people that there are ways to protect themselves from bad things. It's just absurd.
It all depends on how the advice is given. If you're blaming a victim for someone else's actions (say, someone breaking into their home), then I could see that as "victim blaming." However, if you merely fault them for not taking reasonable and effective steps to mitigate the chances that they will be harmed, that is entirely different than blaming them for the actions of another. This "victim blaming" nonsense needs to be put to rest.
Whether they're noticeably lower or not is irrelevant. You have to pay for colleges and universities (or taxpayers do), whereas it is trivial to find information on the Internet and trivial to verify it. Once you're giving away your own money, it's already too late.
What is the "best interest of society"? That's vague, and it sounds like another form of mob-rule, only without as much input from the mob. Individual liberties will be sacrificed left and right for the "greater good," and that's exactly what we're seeing here: Government thugs infringing upon people's fundamental liberties under the guise of safety. That cannot be allowed.
Now he suggests he saw the violations only when he was working at the contractor..
He was promoted to a position where he could obtain those documents.
the man willingly signed a NDA-contract knowing he wouldn't abide it anyway
Such petty contracts mean nothing in comparison to the constitution (which the US government is supposed to be bound by) and freedom.
Personally I really don't believe Snowden even tried the proper channels
The "proper channels" aren't actually proper, though. The only proper channel is leaking the unconstitutional and evil activities of the government to the American people.
However, it remains the case in my experience, that people who lack the theoretical fundamentals can, on occasion, do things in horribly contrived or inefficient ways (even when relying on libraries).
It remains the case in my experience that people can do that no matter how much theory they know or don't know. And they often do.
One of the key differences is that taking a formal course on it forces you to study the boring and hard parts as well as the fun bits
If you don't have enough willpower or intelligence to study such things, chances are you don't have the aptitude for it anyway. Just give up, if that's the case. Too many losers going to colleges.
Otherwise the employers won't know you from some random jerk walking in off the street claiming something which isn't true.
Then maybe employers should get off their lazy asses and actually evaluate people. That's what my employer did, and I actually have a good job and work in a good environment. You don't want to work for any employer who hires HR drones.
We have hundreds of thousands of code monkeys who write crappy code but very few who write good code. There is no CS class I've taken that has turned out to be pointless; and I took every one of them except databases and VLSI (and those two are useful also).
Anyone worth their salt will be able to figure out the how & why just by doing things and doing a bit of thinking. These code monkeys who write crappy code would be just as incompetent if they 'learned' (they'd just memorize facts, because they're unintelligent) the theory, because they're not intelligent enough to understand it or apply it.
There's a big problem with this vocational approach you advocate. History of the Roman Empire may not seem to be of any immediate use, but it is.
And it's also something you can do on your own time. Quit wasting everyone's time by forcing them to go to filler classes. I can rationalize forcing literally any subject down people's throat, no matter how mundane or useless it is. It's quite easy to do, and especially so when you say vague things like you do throughout your comment, without providing any real evidence of anything.
We have our 'broad' (and yet it still manages to be about nothing), force-fed education right now; it isn't working.
I know about computer science because I have three degrees in the field, namely BS, MS, and PhD from top-20 US universities.
You might be knowledgeable, but the fact that you have degrees (pieces of paper) isn't proof of that. Lots of losers and cretins have degrees, and yes, some even have PhDs.
But that's because you're assuming that everyone will always be good, and never be evil
No, I don't.
And you still haven't mentioned why, if checks and balances are so useful, a country with precisely zero checks or balances (the Brits) is actually freer then us in a lot of ways.
And less free in many ways. They do many of the same things that the American government does, even if not to the same degree. The problem I see is that the US doesn't have enough checks and balances.
So you recommend voting for the greater evil? Or not voting (and getting chewed out for being 'lazy')?
*sigh* Really? While you were listing all the things I could possibly recommend, you seem to have neglected the possibility of voting for third parties, as 'useless' as people think that is. Still, it's more worthwhile than voting for known evils, it's more rational (if you want to increase the probability that things will change), it's more principled, and it sends a message to the two major evils if enough people do it.
That would carry a lot more weight if he hadn't lied on his applications, by his own admission, specifically to gain access to protected information, the contents of which he could not have known, only to immediately sell that information to America's frenemies.
Why sell it when it's being released to the public? Furthermore, anyone with a brain has known that the NSA has been doing this evil shit for years. Snowden just provided further evidence. That you think he couldn't have known the NSA would have such documents (even after working for it a while) makes you an idiot.
But it's not a problem, anyway. Government thugs should have their evil activities leaked.
Basically he says that he told his supervisors that, in his opinion, a spy agency shouldn't be spying.
A spy agency, which is part of the government, shouldn't be violating people's fundamental rights, nor should it be violating the very constitution that it's supposed to be bound to. A mere straw man.
But hey, I guess we shouldn't tell murderers not to murder, or act outraged when they do. Because that's what it's all about, right?
If someone would have a problem with the fact that he might have just leaked the information without consulting the 'proper' sources, then they're idiots. The People deserve to know when the government is abusing its powers in horrendous ways such as this, and I say he should not have gone through the 'proper' channels first if he did, as he risked being taken out of a position where he could leak the information to the people.
Perhaps the criticsm of the NSA should focus on the very poor use of resources.
No. We must focus on the fact that they're infringing upon our freedoms. As soon as you make it about efficacy, you start to seem as if you're saying it would be okay if the programs were effective, and that is simply not true. The US is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, so freedom should reign above all.
The real victims here are those like me who don't vote for republicans or democrats. Want to know who's not a victim? People who vote for evil. They're getting exactly what they deserve, and the rest of us are getting something abominable.
Slashdot Mirror
most people can see that both parties are functionally dead and it's all one big scam
Most people are ignorant and unintelligent, so I doubt they have even figured out this much. Of course, even if they did, all they're doing is continually voting for evil.
Should a user have to be a computer expert in order to actually use a computer?
They don't need to be experts; they just need to not be absolutely retarded. You learn to drive (maybe) before you get your license. Learning a few basic facts before you go off and do a bunch of stupid shit with a computer is something everyone should be able to do, though I don't think there should be a license.
Especially when it's a torrent of a movie you want to watch while simultaneously arguing that it's not worth your hard-earned money to pay for a ticket.
Is that supposed to be contradictory?
but that's mostly to cover up our own insecurity
Or, rather than playing the 'jealousy card', maybe it's because they're legitimately stupid?
Because in a civilized society you shouldn't have to protect yourself from criminal acts.
We live in the real world. Time to wake up.
The origins of the term are in rape awareness campaigns where it was used to combat the "she was asking for it look how she dressed" argument.
Boring.
In many cases, telling someone off for suggesting things people can do to protect themselves will just result in more victims suffering in ignorance.
If there is a reasonable and effective method that women can use to protect themselves from getting raped, why would they not use it? Sadly, there is no such reasonable or effective method. Becoming a shut-in is not reasonable, and unlikely to be effective. Rapists don't rape because of someone's choice of clothes, so telling them to not wear certain clothing is just idiotic.
Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad. In fact, just think about what you're saying; you're essentially saying that people shouldn't mention to other people that there are ways to protect themselves from bad things. It's just absurd.
It all depends on how the advice is given. If you're blaming a victim for someone else's actions (say, someone breaking into their home), then I could see that as "victim blaming." However, if you merely fault them for not taking reasonable and effective steps to mitigate the chances that they will be harmed, that is entirely different than blaming them for the actions of another. This "victim blaming" nonsense needs to be put to rest.
The fact that fictional characters routinely get 10% or the vote should be a message.
Fictional characters usually don't stand for much of anything, and it's probably not a single fictional character getting the votes, either.
Whether they're noticeably lower or not is irrelevant. You have to pay for colleges and universities (or taxpayers do), whereas it is trivial to find information on the Internet and trivial to verify it. Once you're giving away your own money, it's already too late.
I did answer your question. That you can't figure out that I answered it suggests that you're the one who's dim.
What is the "best interest of society"? That's vague, and it sounds like another form of mob-rule, only without as much input from the mob. Individual liberties will be sacrificed left and right for the "greater good," and that's exactly what we're seeing here: Government thugs infringing upon people's fundamental liberties under the guise of safety. That cannot be allowed.
Now he suggests he saw the violations only when he was working at the contractor..
He was promoted to a position where he could obtain those documents.
the man willingly signed a NDA-contract knowing he wouldn't abide it anyway
Such petty contracts mean nothing in comparison to the constitution (which the US government is supposed to be bound by) and freedom.
Personally I really don't believe Snowden even tried the proper channels
The "proper channels" aren't actually proper, though. The only proper channel is leaking the unconstitutional and evil activities of the government to the American people.
However, it remains the case in my experience, that people who lack the theoretical fundamentals can, on occasion, do things in horribly contrived or inefficient ways (even when relying on libraries).
It remains the case in my experience that people can do that no matter how much theory they know or don't know. And they often do.
One of the key differences is that taking a formal course on it forces you to study the boring and hard parts as well as the fun bits
If you don't have enough willpower or intelligence to study such things, chances are you don't have the aptitude for it anyway. Just give up, if that's the case. Too many losers going to colleges.
Otherwise the employers won't know you from some random jerk walking in off the street claiming something which isn't true.
Then maybe employers should get off their lazy asses and actually evaluate people. That's what my employer did, and I actually have a good job and work in a good environment. You don't want to work for any employer who hires HR drones.
Granted, not ALL of it is bullshit, but a lot of it.
The same is true of colleges, universities, and even classes in the 'better' universities.
We have hundreds of thousands of code monkeys who write crappy code but very few who write good code. There is no CS class I've taken that has turned out to be pointless; and I took every one of them except databases and VLSI (and those two are useful also).
Anyone worth their salt will be able to figure out the how & why just by doing things and doing a bit of thinking. These code monkeys who write crappy code would be just as incompetent if they 'learned' (they'd just memorize facts, because they're unintelligent) the theory, because they're not intelligent enough to understand it or apply it.
There's a big problem with this vocational approach you advocate. History of the Roman Empire may not seem to be of any immediate use, but it is.
And it's also something you can do on your own time. Quit wasting everyone's time by forcing them to go to filler classes. I can rationalize forcing literally any subject down people's throat, no matter how mundane or useless it is. It's quite easy to do, and especially so when you say vague things like you do throughout your comment, without providing any real evidence of anything.
We have our 'broad' (and yet it still manages to be about nothing), force-fed education right now; it isn't working.
I know about computer science because I have three degrees in the field, namely BS, MS, and PhD from top-20 US universities.
You might be knowledgeable, but the fact that you have degrees (pieces of paper) isn't proof of that. Lots of losers and cretins have degrees, and yes, some even have PhDs.
Congratulations, you people are whiny and no better than the 'for the children' crowd. Toughen up, morons.
But that's because you're assuming that everyone will always be good, and never be evil
No, I don't.
And you still haven't mentioned why, if checks and balances are so useful, a country with precisely zero checks or balances (the Brits) is actually freer then us in a lot of ways.
And less free in many ways. They do many of the same things that the American government does, even if not to the same degree. The problem I see is that the US doesn't have enough checks and balances.
So you recommend voting for the greater evil? Or not voting (and getting chewed out for being 'lazy')?
*sigh* Really? While you were listing all the things I could possibly recommend, you seem to have neglected the possibility of voting for third parties, as 'useless' as people think that is. Still, it's more worthwhile than voting for known evils, it's more rational (if you want to increase the probability that things will change), it's more principled, and it sends a message to the two major evils if enough people do it.
That would carry a lot more weight if he hadn't lied on his applications, by his own admission, specifically to gain access to protected information, the contents of which he could not have known, only to immediately sell that information to America's frenemies.
Why sell it when it's being released to the public? Furthermore, anyone with a brain has known that the NSA has been doing this evil shit for years. Snowden just provided further evidence. That you think he couldn't have known the NSA would have such documents (even after working for it a while) makes you an idiot.
But it's not a problem, anyway. Government thugs should have their evil activities leaked.
Basically he says that he told his supervisors that, in his opinion, a spy agency shouldn't be spying.
A spy agency, which is part of the government, shouldn't be violating people's fundamental rights, nor should it be violating the very constitution that it's supposed to be bound to. A mere straw man.
But hey, I guess we shouldn't tell murderers not to murder, or act outraged when they do. Because that's what it's all about, right?
If someone would have a problem with the fact that he might have just leaked the information without consulting the 'proper' sources, then they're idiots. The People deserve to know when the government is abusing its powers in horrendous ways such as this, and I say he should not have gone through the 'proper' channels first if he did, as he risked being taken out of a position where he could leak the information to the people.
Perhaps the criticsm of the NSA should focus on the very poor use of resources.
No. We must focus on the fact that they're infringing upon our freedoms. As soon as you make it about efficacy, you start to seem as if you're saying it would be okay if the programs were effective, and that is simply not true. The US is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, so freedom should reign above all.
What a bunch of victim blaming bullshit.
The real victims here are those like me who don't vote for republicans or democrats. Want to know who's not a victim? People who vote for evil. They're getting exactly what they deserve, and the rest of us are getting something abominable.