No matter what the case, do you think it's just that the government is allowed to put a company between a rock and a hard place like that? Why should a company have to play conscious for a government? Why should a company have to be punished for following the law after being demanded to do something illegal by the government?
It seems like a fundamental concept of leadership; Don't give orders that oppose each other. If you're in a position to send people with guns in to enforce your orders, make sure that you're not asking those subject to your leadership to choose between the spies with guns and the policemen with guns.
"Virgin Mobile: This girl is a slut we caught getting nailed by one of the teachers so she wouldn't fail History. Don't be a slut. Free text virgin to virgin (This girl need not apply)"
If I was your buddy and I did you a favour, then you turned around and sued me, I don't care if I fucked up or not, you can be damned sure I wouldn't be your buddy much longer. In fact, I can't promise that your house wouldn't remain not burned to the ground much longer.
The program was specifically designed to circumvent the need for a warrant. The President himself enacted it.
Basically, if you've got a government telling you to do illegal things on one hand, and a government punishing you for breaking the law on the other, you've got what appears to me as entrapment; It's an unethical situation where the same entity which demanded you do something is now punishing you for doing it.
That's why I'm saying we should harshly punish the people in government who created this situation, rather than punish the subjects of this government for simply doing as the president ordered.
Individual soldiers weren't massacred en-masse at Nuremberg, only the people in charge who were accountable. I'd say in this case, the government officials who ordered the illegal program and ordered the telephone companies were the people to blame.
We're a country of laws. When the government starts demanding companies or people start breaking those laws, the same government that writes the laws, I figure it's the government who should face the greatest consequences.
If the plant manager sends an order through the chain of command for me to do something that'll get me fired. It is he who should be fired, for abusing his power, not I for simply following directions from a source that SHOULD have been trustworthy and ethical.
If the president orders something illegal, it's still the president's order.
If the government official says says "This is secret. Divulge this to the public, and you'll be prosecuted. The president has authorised wiretapping on the following people. Don't comply and you'll be prosecuted."
If the government tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, then why is it suddenly your responsibility and not theirs? I consider it entrapment.
Seriously, if you've got to hire lawyers just to make sure the government is asking you to do things that are legal, maybe it's time to start harshly punishing government officials for making requests that are illegal?
Do you realise that you're talking to a nerd about social norms?
Getting into Engineering isn't a very socially accepted profession. It's much more accepted to become a businessman or a lawyer or a doctor -- or a drug dealer. Don't even get me started on skilled trades. If you say to someone "You could be an instrument mechanic", you're going to get smacked if that person thinks they've got a shot at being a lawyer, even though that instrument mechanic will be making six figures within 4 years of starting their career -- yet men will choose to do these jobs, and overwhelmingly, women will refuse to.
These are trains we're ALL told we shouldn't be getting on. If individual women aren't to blame, perhaps we just live in a nihilistic society where nobody is to blame for any decision they make.
You know, I really really REALLY hate to say this...
But these guys were just following cues from the NSA. They should be given immunity, and the people in charge who allowed the NSA to solicit these companies into doing illegal wiretapping should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- and if it's not very illegal, the law should be changed and they should be prosecuted above and beyond the full extent of the current law.
Women don't work as much to keep other women down as they keep themselves down.
A woman either says "Women don't do engineering" or "There are lots of men in engineering. Men are pigs(Let me tell you about all the stereotypes I've got that prove it), I'm not going to get into engineering". Millions of women do this. The profession becomes dominated by men. Men assume that there's some reason women don't get into engineering, so when they see one who finally decided to do it, it's "What's wrong with her?".
Sometimes the truth in plain sight, but burns like Tsar Bomba. Everyone's ticket to the future is blank, unless you refuse to get on the train.
So maybe we should have someone who actually knows something about bombs watching for bombs? You'd end up with far far fewer people looking, but at least the people doing the looking might have a snowballs chance in hell of noticing something that could be a bomb?
Every women I've ever met is incredibly sexist. They'll tell you all the terrible stereotypes they hold about men in a heartbeat. In fact, it's THEIR terrible sexist stereotypes that are to blame for the lack of women in trades and engineering.
So common sense is thinking that a terrorist would try to nonchalantly walk onto a plane with a bomb plainly exposed to his or her shirt, with plastique in his or her hand?
I consider myself a conservative, so let's look at what's happened in the past. Has any hijacker or terrorist in the history of the world done anything like that?
You know, violence in video games has become this thing thanks to this nearly disbarred lawyer, but I've got a problem with that.
See, for me, for most of the people I know, we grew up playing video games. I remember playing Wolfenstein 3d on my Father's 386 for the first time (We all gathered around, in fact, because it was amazing looking for the time). I was probably in Grade 2. This means that for most of my life, video games have been there.
I don't think I'm alone. I think a majority of the people on this site can honestly say the same.
When someone comes along saying that video games make people dysfunctional, it's like telling our parents that going out camping, or riding bicycles, or playing with dolls makes people dysfunctional. You're attacking a pillar of our childhood. We know full well it doesn't cause these things, because we and everyone we know did it.
Let's say you make the best strawberry jam in the world. In one city, the government is run by assholes, and so everyone has to mix in a bit of mud.
Even with the mud, you've still got the best strawberry jam in the world. It's the best the people of that city can get because of the assholes in government.
If you believe preference utilitarianism, where you want to make the most people happy, then it's obvious which choice is more moral; The people of China are going to be persecuted by unjust laws whether they've got a Chinese version of Google or not. Google is still the best product available, and I'm sure people are made happier through the fact that they can use it.
Now, you could say that Google could be propping up an immoral regime that oppresses it's own people, but it's unlikely that refusing to open Google.cn would suddenly make the communists see the error of their ways.
Simple win. Happy Chinese people vs. shallow meaningless victory
Well, the answer to that is... DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP! It fills me with a cacophony of sorrow and hatred and rage! I wanted to kill myself....the only thing stopping me from killing myself was DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP! It fills me with a cacophony of sorrow and hatred and rage! I wanted to kill myself....the only thing stopping me from killing myself was DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP!
I'd love to argue against that, I mean, I'm on Slashdot to argue, but I can't. You hit the nail on the head, and I didn't have any inkling. I can't think of any adult who would actually shop at a Gamespot.
I mean, I know a LOT of adult gamers, but none of them would go to a place like Gamespot for their games. Walmart? Sure. The local computer store? Absolutely. Gamespot? Quit smoking crack. It ruins your mind.
Slashdot Mirror
Why hire a lawyer if you can already understand what's written?
No matter what the case, do you think it's just that the government is allowed to put a company between a rock and a hard place like that? Why should a company have to play conscious for a government? Why should a company have to be punished for following the law after being demanded to do something illegal by the government?
It seems like a fundamental concept of leadership; Don't give orders that oppose each other. If you're in a position to send people with guns in to enforce your orders, make sure that you're not asking those subject to your leadership to choose between the spies with guns and the policemen with guns.
"free text virgin to virgin" is derogatory?
"Virgin Mobile: This girl is a slut we caught getting nailed by one of the teachers so she wouldn't fail History. Don't be a slut. Free text virgin to virgin (This girl need not apply)"
If I was your buddy and I did you a favour, then you turned around and sued me, I don't care if I fucked up or not, you can be damned sure I wouldn't be your buddy much longer. In fact, I can't promise that your house wouldn't remain not burned to the ground much longer.
Just saying. Rules of polite society and all.
The program was specifically designed to circumvent the need for a warrant. The President himself enacted it.
Basically, if you've got a government telling you to do illegal things on one hand, and a government punishing you for breaking the law on the other, you've got what appears to me as entrapment; It's an unethical situation where the same entity which demanded you do something is now punishing you for doing it.
That's why I'm saying we should harshly punish the people in government who created this situation, rather than punish the subjects of this government for simply doing as the president ordered.
Why not? When soldiers refuse to kill, they're shot as traitors.
Individual soldiers weren't massacred en-masse at Nuremberg, only the people in charge who were accountable. I'd say in this case, the government officials who ordered the illegal program and ordered the telephone companies were the people to blame.
If it's a brand new, secret, undocumented program, how is a lawyer going to help?
We're a country of laws. When the government starts demanding companies or people start breaking those laws, the same government that writes the laws, I figure it's the government who should face the greatest consequences.
If the plant manager sends an order through the chain of command for me to do something that'll get me fired. It is he who should be fired, for abusing his power, not I for simply following directions from a source that SHOULD have been trustworthy and ethical.
If the president orders something illegal, it's still the president's order.
If the government official says says "This is secret. Divulge this to the public, and you'll be prosecuted. The president has authorised wiretapping on the following people. Don't comply and you'll be prosecuted."
That seems like entrapment to me.
If the government tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, then why is it suddenly your responsibility and not theirs? I consider it entrapment.
Seriously, if you've got to hire lawyers just to make sure the government is asking you to do things that are legal, maybe it's time to start harshly punishing government officials for making requests that are illegal?
This "someone" is the government. As far as I'm concerned, if the government tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, it's entrapment.
Do you realise that you're talking to a nerd about social norms?
Getting into Engineering isn't a very socially accepted profession. It's much more accepted to become a businessman or a lawyer or a doctor -- or a drug dealer. Don't even get me started on skilled trades. If you say to someone "You could be an instrument mechanic", you're going to get smacked if that person thinks they've got a shot at being a lawyer, even though that instrument mechanic will be making six figures within 4 years of starting their career -- yet men will choose to do these jobs, and overwhelmingly, women will refuse to.
These are trains we're ALL told we shouldn't be getting on. If individual women aren't to blame, perhaps we just live in a nihilistic society where nobody is to blame for any decision they make.
You know, I really really REALLY hate to say this...
But these guys were just following cues from the NSA. They should be given immunity, and the people in charge who allowed the NSA to solicit these companies into doing illegal wiretapping should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- and if it's not very illegal, the law should be changed and they should be prosecuted above and beyond the full extent of the current law.
Women don't work as much to keep other women down as they keep themselves down.
A woman either says "Women don't do engineering" or "There are lots of men in engineering. Men are pigs(Let me tell you about all the stereotypes I've got that prove it), I'm not going to get into engineering". Millions of women do this. The profession becomes dominated by men. Men assume that there's some reason women don't get into engineering, so when they see one who finally decided to do it, it's "What's wrong with her?".
Sometimes the truth in plain sight, but burns like Tsar Bomba. Everyone's ticket to the future is blank, unless you refuse to get on the train.
So maybe we should have someone who actually knows something about bombs watching for bombs? You'd end up with far far fewer people looking, but at least the people doing the looking might have a snowballs chance in hell of noticing something that could be a bomb?
Every women I've ever met is incredibly sexist. They'll tell you all the terrible stereotypes they hold about men in a heartbeat. In fact, it's THEIR terrible sexist stereotypes that are to blame for the lack of women in trades and engineering.
So....
Do I leave my shoes at home?
So common sense is thinking that a terrorist would try to nonchalantly walk onto a plane with a bomb plainly exposed to his or her shirt, with plastique in his or her hand?
I consider myself a conservative, so let's look at what's happened in the past. Has any hijacker or terrorist in the history of the world done anything like that?
No. Use your common sense, for christ's sake.
We're THIS afraid.
The terroists have already won.
7-11s pay as you go plan keeps your time for 360 days.
You know, violence in video games has become this thing thanks to this nearly disbarred lawyer, but I've got a problem with that.
See, for me, for most of the people I know, we grew up playing video games. I remember playing Wolfenstein 3d on my Father's 386 for the first time (We all gathered around, in fact, because it was amazing looking for the time). I was probably in Grade 2. This means that for most of my life, video games have been there.
I don't think I'm alone. I think a majority of the people on this site can honestly say the same.
When someone comes along saying that video games make people dysfunctional, it's like telling our parents that going out camping, or riding bicycles, or playing with dolls makes people dysfunctional. You're attacking a pillar of our childhood. We know full well it doesn't cause these things, because we and everyone we know did it.
Thought experiment time!
Let's say you make the best strawberry jam in the world. In one city, the government is run by assholes, and so everyone has to mix in a bit of mud.
Even with the mud, you've still got the best strawberry jam in the world. It's the best the people of that city can get because of the assholes in government.
If you believe preference utilitarianism, where you want to make the most people happy, then it's obvious which choice is more moral; The people of China are going to be persecuted by unjust laws whether they've got a Chinese version of Google or not. Google is still the best product available, and I'm sure people are made happier through the fact that they can use it.
Now, you could say that Google could be propping up an immoral regime that oppresses it's own people, but it's unlikely that refusing to open Google.cn would suddenly make the communists see the error of their ways.
Simple win. Happy Chinese people vs. shallow meaningless victory
Well, the answer to that is... DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP! It fills me with a cacophony of sorrow and hatred and rage! I wanted to kill myself....the only thing stopping me from killing myself was DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP! It fills me with a cacophony of sorrow and hatred and rage! I wanted to kill myself....the only thing stopping me from killing myself was DELICIOUS MAPLE SYRUP!
I'd love to argue against that, I mean, I'm on Slashdot to argue, but I can't. You hit the nail on the head, and I didn't have any inkling. I can't think of any adult who would actually shop at a Gamespot.
I mean, I know a LOT of adult gamers, but none of them would go to a place like Gamespot for their games. Walmart? Sure. The local computer store? Absolutely. Gamespot? Quit smoking crack. It ruins your mind.