It's too bad the employee get screwed along the way. I don't feel as bad for shareholders, but I do have some sympathy for them. The investors akin to speculators. I know some of those investors are people in a mutual fund who don't know a stock from a bond, but they're there because some other knownothing told them to buy a mutual fund share. Plus, they can't read the minds of the megalomaniacs who are the execs that are running the company into the ground and still walking away rich as if they had BUILT an empire, instead of screwing a bunch of people over. The employees OTOH have put a lot more equity into the company than an investor. They get a dime for their efforts.
TomTom might not give your identity with the data, but I don't think it'd be hard to use cameras in the areas of the locations that Tomtom reveals to see who is there.
Saying the Constitution doesn't apply to someone, especially just because of a political boundary, seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not saying Hatta is the one responsible for saying that, I'm referring more to the lawyers and officials who came up with that. The principle of inherent human value found in the Constitution should have no boundaries. It should apply to people who come here from other countries and it should flow to other who move beyond this border. If the U.S. thinks it is within the realm of its governance to invade other countries, there is no reason the principles of the Constitution shouldn't follow U.S. action. Of course, it would be impossible to get that idea to float. The Constitution seems to have lost its influence even within the land it was authored in and intended for.
Siemens is a company, not a country. While state politics probably play a part in business decisions, really they're most interested in who is going to pay them for something they sell or service. Through the eyes of "capitalists", perceived commercial needs of potential customers will lead the company's decision in what it sells to who. I'm not trying to judge that process, just pointing out that Siemens might not be quick to let one country's (or group of countries') rival status be a deterrent to doing business with either set of countries.
back and forth. What's that gonna cost in gas? I realize libraries already move books around for interlibrary requests, but this would probably increase the volume of books moved, which would lead to more fuel consumed. Granted it might not change much, I don't know.
they'd find another "reason" to shut it down. I'd try to blame the Republicans, but Obama probably supports closing down such sites just as much. He's been following in Bush's shoes when it comes to accumulating power and using the cloak of "security" for justifying all sorts of b.s.
When the summary says incapacitated, is the intended meaning that you're temporarily blind, or like a tazed person, lying on the ground, unable to move? Is it possible that overloading the optic nerve that much would cause some to feel like they were tazed? Temporary blindness I can understand, but not loss of bodily control.
Right. This makes me wonder why this was imposed on Google but not other companies that do the same thing. Like the first post noted, Facebook does all sorts of shit with people's details. How come no one is throwing the book at Facebook? I'm no fanboy of Google, but they're not all evil. On my scorecard, they're far less evil than Facebook.
School is not supposed to be the nanny. School is for education, not upbringing. "Adapting" children, forming their moral character to be "productive", is the responsibility of the parent. When I worked with teachers, they were supposed to find the best way to deliver lessons about relevant information, like history. They weren't supposed to be learning parenting skills. Granted, some of them learn some of that on the job. But that's not their intended role.
The children should have already had the basics (like keep your hands to yourself) down. Motivation to do well in school? That should come from the 'rents, e.g. mom/dad work hard to support you/the family or dad explains why you shouldn't leave a mess in the kitchen.
Someone's gonna say, what about one parent families? What about them? Being a single parent doesn't excuse you from the job of parenting. There is no responsibility that is just a mom's or a dad's, so there is no reason a single parent family should be that much different.
Getting back to the bigger issue here. Seems the Dept of Ed has placed an onerous task on the schools. Part of this makes me wonder if Obama is taking a page from the conservatives' playbook to find a way to tear down public schools. Like another commenter noticed, who is gonna want to be principal with having to worry about what 200-2000 people are doing 24/7?
Also, if I was a parent, I'd be pissed as hell if I found out someone from the school was spying on my kid when they're off the campus. I'd likely be pissed if it was on campus too. This is another extension of big brother. And as usual, they're pushing this intrusive policy on a part of the population least capable of defending them self.
Obama's idea of change when it comes the government's stance on "national security", i.e. torture and government accountability? No change is good change, keep things the same as Bush's administration. By continuing the former admin's policies, it looks to me like he's looking out for the old guard as well. He supported TARP, did he not? I voted for the bastard, so I can complain.
I might be missing a sarcastic point here, but I'm assuming your inquiry was sincere. The OP was trying to make the point that state government has screwed up priorities by worrying about the political ramifications of curriculum instead of more worthwhile issues.
Truthout does this shit. I emailed to inquire about the lack of open commenting. This is what I got back:
From: "Truthout Technical Administrator" Add sender to Contacts To: mmnch@yahoo.com I am so sorry for your frustration. For security reasons we have our regular commenting system temporarily down. We will hopefully get it back up soon. Until then, thank you so much for your patience and for your readership.
I think I get your point. If the CEO's secretary gave the head accountant a message from the CEO about dropping GAAP procedures for updated GAAP procedures, but leaves off the second part, sounds like someone said to ignore GAAP. If the head accountant is a yes man and no one's using GAAP or some other reasonable protocol, there might be some problems. Is that the secretary's fault? I'd feel bad about blaming her. But in this off-the-cuff example, it'd seem to me that it'd be the head accountant's responsibility to see what message was actually supposed to be about. OTOH hand, maybe the secretary is inept. From the little bit I know about the law, that's not an excuse. But like I said, that's a pretty crappy way to go down. Still, for those that know better, the CEO and accountants, if they're messing up, they should be accountable.
Well, I did not say to apply RICO to corporations. I said "... use a similar idea for corporate..." In other words, the RICO model of going after distributed organizations that perform certain acts seems to work. In this case, focus on business-related issues.
RICO is good at nailing individuals in distributed organizations. I think it would possible to use a similar idea for corporate or corporate employee malfeasance.
I know there are plenty of stories of judges who don't understand technology, but I feel an urge to comment on this one. GPS is not that uncommon now. Your device communicates with a satellite and tells you where you are. How can a judge not understand that the device recorded locations over a length of time, thus calculating the speed of the device and vehicle? This isn't like trying to understand the mechanisms of identifying computers over networks by protocols, that might get a little complicated.
I have a hard time with this because the judges are treated like bloody gods in their courtrooms and that's just ridiculous. They're obviously not any better than anyone else.
Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't mean secure in relation to theft or crime, but I guess maybe reliable. If you can't be sure Paypal will deliver your money to someone, for capricious reasons, it's kind of the same as your check disappearing when you send it through the postal system.
Paypal is a private entity. Unfortunately, it's not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, as far as I can tell, by choosing not to do business with someone. What Paypal should do though is return the funds and those donors decide what to do with their own money, not choose for them.
As an aside, I've never and never will, use Paypal for anything. I can send a check to a PO BOX. That's not secure, but I don't think of Paypal as secure either. If I want to be anonymous, I can send a money order. Stop giving Paypal business is my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Dang. Meant to say:
They DON'T get a dime for their efforts.
It's too bad the employee get screwed along the way. I don't feel as bad for shareholders, but I do have some sympathy for them. The investors akin to speculators. I know some of those investors are people in a mutual fund who don't know a stock from a bond, but they're there because some other knownothing told them to buy a mutual fund share. Plus, they can't read the minds of the megalomaniacs who are the execs that are running the company into the ground and still walking away rich as if they had BUILT an empire, instead of screwing a bunch of people over.
The employees OTOH have put a lot more equity into the company than an investor. They get a dime for their efforts.
TomTom might not give your identity with the data, but I don't think it'd be hard to use cameras in the areas of the locations that Tomtom reveals to see who is there.
Saying the Constitution doesn't apply to someone, especially just because of a political boundary, seems pretty ridiculous to me. I'm not saying Hatta is the one responsible for saying that, I'm referring more to the lawyers and officials who came up with that. The principle of inherent human value found in the Constitution should have no boundaries. It should apply to people who come here from other countries and it should flow to other who move beyond this border. If the U.S. thinks it is within the realm of its governance to invade other countries, there is no reason the principles of the Constitution shouldn't follow U.S. action. Of course, it would be impossible to get that idea to float. The Constitution seems to have lost its influence even within the land it was authored in and intended for.
Siemens is a company, not a country. While state politics probably play a part in business decisions, really they're most interested in who is going to pay them for something they sell or service. Through the eyes of "capitalists", perceived commercial needs of potential customers will lead the company's decision in what it sells to who. I'm not trying to judge that process, just pointing out that Siemens might not be quick to let one country's (or group of countries') rival status be a deterrent to doing business with either set of countries.
" 'Issuing migrant workers e-ID cards in a globally verifiable format will also reduce corruption ... ' "
I guess INTERPOL is incorruptible? That's a relief to know.
back and forth. What's that gonna cost in gas? I realize libraries already move books around for interlibrary requests, but this would probably increase the volume of books moved, which would lead to more fuel consumed. Granted it might not change much, I don't know.
they'd find another "reason" to shut it down. I'd try to blame the Republicans, but Obama probably supports closing down such sites just as much. He's been following in Bush's shoes when it comes to accumulating power and using the cloak of "security" for justifying all sorts of b.s.
When the summary says incapacitated, is the intended meaning that you're temporarily blind, or like a tazed person, lying on the ground, unable to move? Is it possible that overloading the optic nerve that much would cause some to feel like they were tazed? Temporary blindness I can understand, but not loss of bodily control.
If you think this distribution will replace M$, go to page 21
If you think IBM will buy this group, go to page 34
Right. This makes me wonder why this was imposed on Google but not other companies that do the same thing. Like the first post noted, Facebook does all sorts of shit with people's details. How come no one is throwing the book at Facebook? I'm no fanboy of Google, but they're not all evil. On my scorecard, they're far less evil than Facebook.
That's why I want one of these.
Would they foil this? They're loud. But don't move at the speed of sound.
School is not supposed to be the nanny. School is for education, not upbringing. "Adapting" children, forming their moral character to be "productive", is the responsibility of the parent. When I worked with teachers, they were supposed to find the best way to deliver lessons about relevant information, like history. They weren't supposed to be learning parenting skills. Granted, some of them learn some of that on the job. But that's not their intended role.
The children should have already had the basics (like keep your hands to yourself) down. Motivation to do well in school? That should come from the 'rents, e.g. mom/dad work hard to support you/the family or dad explains why you shouldn't leave a mess in the kitchen.
Someone's gonna say, what about one parent families? What about them? Being a single parent doesn't excuse you from the job of parenting. There is no responsibility that is just a mom's or a dad's, so there is no reason a single parent family should be that much different.
Getting back to the bigger issue here. Seems the Dept of Ed has placed an onerous task on the schools. Part of this makes me wonder if Obama is taking a page from the conservatives' playbook to find a way to tear down public schools. Like another commenter noticed, who is gonna want to be principal with having to worry about what 200-2000 people are doing 24/7?
Also, if I was a parent, I'd be pissed as hell if I found out someone from the school was spying on my kid when they're off the campus. I'd likely be pissed if it was on campus too. This is another extension of big brother. And as usual, they're pushing this intrusive policy on a part of the population least capable of defending them self.
Are sharks space worthy?
Obama's idea of change when it comes the government's stance on "national security", i.e. torture and government accountability? No change is good change, keep things the same as Bush's administration. By continuing the former admin's policies, it looks to me like he's looking out for the old guard as well. He supported TARP, did he not? I voted for the bastard, so I can complain.
I might be missing a sarcastic point here, but I'm assuming your inquiry was sincere. The OP was trying to make the point that state government has screwed up priorities by worrying about the political ramifications of curriculum instead of more worthwhile issues.
Truthout does this shit. I emailed to inquire about the lack of open commenting. This is what I got back:
From:
"Truthout Technical Administrator"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
mmnch@yahoo.com
I am so sorry for your frustration. For security reasons we have our regular commenting system temporarily down. We will hopefully get it back up soon. Until then, thank you so much for your patience and for your readership.
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:52 PM, wrote:
Hello. This article:
http://www.truth-out.org/us-uncuts-anti-austerity-protests-start-small-strong-against-bank-america68108
has comments from facebook users. I don't see anywhere for other readers
to make comments.
--
Truthout List Administrator
===
Truthout isn't loading at the moment, but yesterday I couldn't find a way to comment. I don't use facebook either.
I think I get your point. If the CEO's secretary gave the head accountant a message from the CEO about dropping GAAP procedures for updated GAAP procedures, but leaves off the second part, sounds like someone said to ignore GAAP. If the head accountant is a yes man and no one's using GAAP or some other reasonable protocol, there might be some problems. Is that the secretary's fault? I'd feel bad about blaming her. But in this off-the-cuff example, it'd seem to me that it'd be the head accountant's responsibility to see what message was actually supposed to be about. OTOH hand, maybe the secretary is inept. From the little bit I know about the law, that's not an excuse. But like I said, that's a pretty crappy way to go down. Still, for those that know better, the CEO and accountants, if they're messing up, they should be accountable.
Well, I did not say to apply RICO to corporations. I said "... use a similar idea for corporate ..." In other words, the RICO model of going after distributed organizations that perform certain acts seems to work. In this case, focus on business-related issues.
RICO is good at nailing individuals in distributed organizations. I think it would possible to use a similar idea for corporate or corporate employee malfeasance.
I know there are plenty of stories of judges who don't understand technology, but I feel an urge to comment on this one. GPS is not that uncommon now. Your device communicates with a satellite and tells you where you are. How can a judge not understand that the device recorded locations over a length of time, thus calculating the speed of the device and vehicle? This isn't like trying to understand the mechanisms of identifying computers over networks by protocols, that might get a little complicated.
I have a hard time with this because the judges are treated like bloody gods in their courtrooms and that's just ridiculous. They're obviously not any better than anyone else.
Sorry, bad choice of words. I didn't mean secure in relation to theft or crime, but I guess maybe reliable. If you can't be sure Paypal will deliver your money to someone, for capricious reasons, it's kind of the same as your check disappearing when you send it through the postal system.
Is this a joke? It sounds to me like it belongs in under Idle, it so hard to believe.
Paypal is a private entity. Unfortunately, it's not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional, as far as I can tell, by choosing not to do business with someone. What Paypal should do though is return the funds and those donors decide what to do with their own money, not choose for them.
As an aside, I've never and never will, use Paypal for anything. I can send a check to a PO BOX. That's not secure, but I don't think of Paypal as secure either. If I want to be anonymous, I can send a money order. Stop giving Paypal business is my opinion.