I'm not talking about your job. I'm talking about the decisions you make. If you do something illegal, you're a criminal. There are various levels of "criminal", but you're a criminal nonetheless. Even deeper than that, if you do something you know to be unethical, then you are unethical. Is that how you want to describe yourself... if even only to yourself?
Here's what I would do: Install the software once and voice your concerns. If you get fired, you have a rock-solid case. If they ask "Why'd you install it in the first place?" you respond, "I was under duress and the first thing I think about is supporting my family. After further thought, I'd rather be a family man who refuses to compromise his ethics and morals even if it means I'd be let go than one who hasn't any worth standing up for."
I'm not saying it's easy to do, think about which person you'd rather be.
On a related topic, businesses really need to embrace freeware. Open Office, Thunderbird, 7-zip, and the like would save massive amounts of money on licensing. Of course, some IT depts are too swamped with work to become sufficiently adept with the new software so that they feel comfortable distributing it around the network. For example: my IT department will not allow Firefox to be installed because the last report they were able to create (around version 1.0) showed Firefox as being HIPAA non-compliant. It has, however, been HIPAA compliant since, like, 1.0001.
One department finally junked Eudora and is adopting Thunderbird as their default mail client instead of Outlook. That's expected to save quite a bit.
There's a reason the zombie apocalypse has made such a come back... people wouldn't mind a reboot. Honestly, every time people feel the world (or at least their world) has gone to the crapper (politically, socially, economically), some sort of apocalyptic mythos springs forward.
Zombies as the main current mythos has a lot to do with actual animosity people hold for those they feel only take from society. They fantasize about it... about finally being rid of the 8-5 daily work schedule, about the mundane life. People would welcome a reboot so long as they would have the opportunity to fend for themselves.
I understand your confusion, but the desire is to have government recognition, but not government control over the process or effects.
It already happens with people married in other countries. Those marriages are recognized but not controlled by the American government.
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
I'll take it a step further. I think the gov't should get out of the business altogether (like you) and that it should be an *option* to go through a religious organization. Personally, I would prefer a fully social option. Download the document, fill stuff in, have witnesses to the pledge sign, and submit the two of you as "socially bound to a faithful partnership". No fear of retribution of a god or governmental body should be necessary in a contract of devotion and love.
And I would *love* for the universalization of the term "partner". I'm 8 years on with my "girlfriend" and we're fully committed to each other... but when we go to rent an apartment and we have to introduce each other as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend", they assume it's a risky arrangement for the two of us to be on the lease. "Partners" would best describe us.
Funny you mention that. I've been with my significant other for 8 years in November. We don't plan to get married until there is a method of doing so that 100% does not involve the government, but would also be recognized as a legal marriage just the same.
People will say that marriage is a "contract", and I think it is to a small extent, but more realistically, it's just a promise to be faithful to a person. A government body involved in marriage is there to instill fear in a marriage-- to guarantee that bad things happen to the unfaithful because, presumably, they would be unfaithful without the threat of punishment.
We don't need threats of punishment to stay faithful. We don't feel the need to be blessed by a church or a legislative body.
Of course, if she were to be injured, I would have to identify myself at the hospital by the colloquial "boyfriend" and I would not be allowed to see her.
People are getting charged $150,000 for every song they allow to be uploaded. Well, this guys is being denied the opportunity to advertise his music... for months. And the involved parties know about it. He's even sent his version of a "cease and desist".
So what's the formula for damages? When does he get to collect.
Personally, I hold the mouse with my thumb and ring-finger on the sides with my index and middle fingers resting on the buttons. When I'm at home using my Microsoft Intellimouse Optical (not explorer), I use the same grip except that I use the top joint of my thumb to hold the mouse so I twitch the tip of my thumb to hit button 4. (http://www.actionforblindpeople.org.uk/data/images/width590/hand-on-mouse-514.jpg)
I move the mouse with a combination of movements including the use of my ring-finger (holding onto the mouse), my thumb (holding onto the mouse), and, to a lesser extent, my wrist which rests on a gel pad.
Why? Because my fingers are much more dexterous than my wrist and thus it's better for moving around multiple links, playing an FPS, or doing any kind of visual editing.
And yet... they seem to think I want a touchpad on a bump.
Wow! Where do you work? Almost any district I've been to would have a small group of "outraged" parents preventing the establishment of a curriculum that "forces" students to read fantasy (read: witchcraft and Satan-worship).
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money."
No no no... *some* customers find ways to pay as little money as possible. Since Windows rarely, if ever, goes "on sale" though, most people who follow the rules just pay full price or pay the Microsoft Tax when they buy a new computer. Factor in school deals, corporate deals, etc. and you have a crap-ton of licenses being sold for the Microsoft-price (the one they agree to).
THIS THIS THIS!
For three weeks, teach principles, then have them put sh*t together. (Half the fun will be deconstruction a bunch of unwanted appliances *for class*!)
Teachers are working all year... when they're allowed. The longer-tenured teachers often get first dibs on summer school, though. Take a look at applications at tutoring centers in the summer. You'll see a lot of teachers looking for $9/hr tutoring jobs during the summer to supplement income.
Moreover, teachers are expected to be at school early and leave significantly after class ends to prepare for the next class, converse with parents, and grade papers, exams, and homework. Teachers (good ones) don't just stand in front of class and talk for 5 or 6 hours out of the day. There's a lot of work that goes on, behind the scenes, that often eats into the teacher's own pocket book.
That really doesn't follow. You're saying that gifted students learn a lot outside the classroom. Great, then integrate that. Particularly in regards to computer sciences and the like, almost all useful education comes from outside the classroom. That's understood... by the teachers. The existing educational standards, though, to which the teachers must teach, force teachers to teach old stuff. Thus, the argument isn't "we gifted students shouldn't be in school because there's stuff outside of school to learn", but instead "we need to integrate more relevant information."
I know it will seem almost like a complete waste of time with this stance on slashdot because most of the people here had a major part of their education they resented due to being forced into boredom or irrelevant subject matter, but that's not the issue at hand. If there was a vote to be held on the topic, it wouldn't be held at slashdot because of the high average intellect of the people here.
This issue pertains to the non-brilliant. The average people. The ones that actually need more time in class to learn because their time with teachers have been slowly chipped away over the past 10 to 20 years. This is in regards to the lowest common denominator-- AKA the majority.
You see, middle/high school teachers get about ~40-55 minutes a day with students to teach, test, review, and discuss any one subject. Ask any teacher if they get enough time to make a difference and they will shrug their shoulders impotently. We need more time PER DAY PER CLASS. And that time needs to be immune from additional standardized testing.
Moreover, to you whiny little brats posting "Oh, no! Not more time! I'm already bored in school!", here's a reality check: Nobody cares about you. Seriously. You are foregone conclusions. If you're getting your work done and you have nothing better to do at school, then you're likely going to go to college, get a degree, and become a useful member of society.
When people talk about the "quality of education" in America, they're not talking about you. They're talking about everyone else. They're talking about the risky/at risk students. They're talking about the students that DON'T surf slashdot because they have no clue what it is.
When people talk about the quality of education, they're talking about the lowest common denominator of students which is, unfortunately, the students that get Cs in remedial courses. My students. The ones I need more time with because their grasp of English needs to be brought up to par in my Math class! We remediation teachers (basically all non-honors, non-AP) WORK for what gains we get and we would love more time in which to gain.
Re:Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain"
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 1
And if every suspect, when faced with an impending arrest, simply lied down on the street peacefully and raised their arms behind them for the handcuffs we wouldn't need tasers or guns.
But what does that have to do with my assertions?
I say that Tasers are used too frequently as short cuts to police work instead of alternatives to killing someone. If they were used properly, you would see nearly symmetrical inverse change in Taser usage versus gun usage. But you don't. Instead you see Taser usage growing increasingly frequent and higher and gun usage *sometimes changing* (going either up or down) depending on the city. That means that low-force situations are being escalated into debilitating-force situations by means of the Taser.
When you choose to use a Taser instead of a gun, it's non-lethal force and you're a hero.
When choose to use a Taser instead of patiently talking and rationalizing suspect to avoid pain and suffering, it's brutality and you're a dick that should be fired and disallowed from publicly-associated positions of power and/or authority.
Re:Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain"
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 1
But that comparison (1) a bit of an exageration in expectations and (2) implies that the use of Tasers would be on such criminals with Tec 9s. That's not really the case though, is it? In those situations when a cop suspects someone to be armed with any type of projectile weapon, the cop pulls out his gun and prepares for deadly force at a distance. That's understandable.
"The end result is of course that the police have no idea what they are going up against."
That's just wrong and it's the same excuse used over and over. "He could have had a knife." "He could have had a gun." Of course he could. We walk down the street every day with such "could have" dangers, but we do not react with force, do?
How would this go across in the court of law?:
"The cop *could have* to beat the crap out of me to vent some steam, and I plan on going home tonight, I pulled a pencil from my bag and stabbed him in the throat."
It doesn't work, does it? Ignorance of variables or fear of potential circumstances is not a viable excuse for the unarmored, unarmed, under-insured (who pays the medical bills when you've been stunned and break your head on the cement from the fall?), so why in the world would we accept such rationalizations from the few people allowed to walk around in body armor, weapons, and physical combat training.
No. It does not escalate from talking to threat to Taser to gun. That's not acceptable.
Why the focus on "Lethality"? What about "pain"?
on
A Tour of Taser HQ
·
· Score: 1
These conversations always boil down to: "It's non/less-lethal! Better than getting shot!" But what happened before Tasers? Cops were allowed to draw their weapons to evoke fear (and compliance through fear) and discharge in desperate circumstances. Guns aside, what options were there? Sticks/Clubs and fists. Let's focus on "fists".
Fists, like Tasers, can provide non-lethal or less-lethal forms of force that guarantee compliance. But we agreed that Cops shouldn't do that, right? At least, not unless it's amid a desperate circumstance. So how is it different? Well, to be honest, fists often leave visible marks and those visible marks can be used to show evidence of brutality. It's similar stopping force... it causes severe pain. So what else is different? Range.
A common police officer mentality (from my own experience working at a station) is, "I don't care what happens... I plan on coming home tonight." This philosophy exemplifies the concept that the officer wants to stay as far away from danger as possible to prevent harm to him/herself. So, they have no problem adopting a manner of compliance enforcement that is as effective as a fist, prevents visible evidence of brutality, and keeps the officer at a safe distance.
But it is *still invoking severe pain (torturous pain) to force compliance*. *It is still brutal*. And it should only be used as an alternative to *discharging* a firearm, not a short cut away from all self-risk, and especially as a short cut from expending time in any case. The pain of any individual is not out-valued by the time of an officer of the law.
I don't think "racism" or "racist" means what you think it means. Their comments have nothing to do with believing your "race" is inferior by simple existence. It's more likely that they are prejudice (with reason!) about a white man's capability to speak Japanese to their standards. They have to do with you not being a native and their tendencies toward over-consideration. In these situations, you just need to speak up... consistently.
These conflicts are typically 33% bad assumptions, 33% bad interpretation, and 33% lack of communication.
I concur! I spent a couple summers raising money for my school's grants via mail and telemarketing while an undergrad. By and large, those who gave most frequently were people with multiple children and/or were involved in education (teachers, low-level administrators, etc.). So many times they would summarize their rationale in such statements as, "I know the value of a good education and also know that costs are going up. I wish my $250 could be more."
Doctors, bankers, and businessmen on the other hand *rarely* made contributions and when they did, it was typically $50 or less.
Then there are the mega-corps and foundations that make major contributions... but the corporation just pass the cost of those donations on to the consumers (Thanks for the grants, everyone!) and the foundations do their own fund-raising as necessary.
It's not "wasted" energy until we refrain from harnessing it. It's not free since we paid for it (by using the product that creates heat as a by-product).
What this is like, is the "5-second rule". This is scooping up perfectly edible M&Ms off the floor before they rot or the dog gets to it. This heat that is a by-product of reaction is still energy, so it's great that we have a way to pick it up and use it before it dissipates.
In the end, since we still want to eat M&Ms, we can reduce the overall number of bags bought in the year by making sure we eat as many of the dropped M&Ms as possible before the house pooch comes by and snatches them.
Indeed. Whether a political philosophy or better understanding about our living society comes from someone who was voted into bureaucratical power or someone who "merely" has cultural influence bestowed by science fiction, that philosophy and that understanding is significant on its own. They were not applauding "Adama" nor were they applauding Olmos. They applauded a proper philosophy about the being of man in the halls of a building that has been trying to make such strong assertions for decades-- if ever so impotently.
The people that made this entire event happen understood that, beyond all things, old people want to stay in power but they do not change. Society changes. And the only way society changes is by the growth and further education of the youth that will replace our now-ignorant elders. They understood that we as adults have been so very flawed and that our kids need to know our mistakes and errors lest they be doomed to repeat them.
Most people don't know what "equality" is. And if they do, they normally don't want it. Equality as it pertains to people's preferences in a society more truthfully refers to the prevalence of opportunities offered and guaranteed given mitigating circumstances-- this is also known as "fair an appropriate".
For example: People want equality in education and we have that in the US. Everyone is guaranteed a seat in a public school. However, some students have special needs and thus require more attention from and special training for their teachers. Bare bones equality says everyone gets the same, however, what people want and expect is for the student to have a "fair and appropriate education pertaining to that student's needs."
In regards to the differing requirements of the sexes, those "in the struggle" want "fair and appropriate", but the term "fair and appropriate" still hasn't caught on. If we genuinely want to be equal, we have to allow for exceptions to be made for expected mitigating circumstances. Pregnancy and the raising of a family being one of them.
And it annoys me to no end that people scream "equality now!" and "equal treatment" for this very reason. It's the same with people screaming "racism" for something that's merely "offensive to some people because of a shared characteristic".
I was re-hired by that school, just a different department. She's very VERY well known for her issues, but no one's willing to push her out because of a few of her imperturbable qualities.
It's far from a moral duty, but it's an economic necessity of survival to consider how "cutting costs" can affect your own bottom line but one year from now.
Immediate case in point: How much money has been "saved" by various American megacorps with massive lay-offs? Supposedly, quite a lot. But who's going to buy the products these megacorps create when the consumers are out of work?
And this is where technology begins to have severely diminishing returns in a capitalist society. If cars and food and books and clothes were 100% made by machines, who would be able to afford any of them?
And regarding your Ford retort: the blacksmiths went on to work with metal, still. Just in a factory.
I voluntarily left a "back-up" position I was given as an apology for my boss eating my budget and thus having to eliminate my original position in the same-ish department . I was somewhat bitter entering the position, but I knew I could make great changes in my new position. Little did I know that the supervisor was angry, paranoid, irrational, and rather cruel to some people. When I quit, I left her with a long letter detailing each of her major leadership and tact-based mistakes she made in the paltry 3 months I was there. I then told her how disappointing it was that she did not have the necessary leadership skills after 15 years in that position... also noting that my position having gone through 13 people in 5 years should be a clue.
When I resigned that position, it was required to turn in a copy of my resignation letter to HR. So I gave them a copy. "Somehow" others saw it, too. Those others liked it and expressed their condolences... specifically since the person under whom I was employed is an "untouchable" in our industry. She will always be there because of who she is.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about your job. I'm talking about the decisions you make. If you do something illegal, you're a criminal. There are various levels of "criminal", but you're a criminal nonetheless. Even deeper than that, if you do something you know to be unethical, then you are unethical. Is that how you want to describe yourself... if even only to yourself?
Here's what I would do: Install the software once and voice your concerns. If you get fired, you have a rock-solid case. If they ask "Why'd you install it in the first place?" you respond, "I was under duress and the first thing I think about is supporting my family. After further thought, I'd rather be a family man who refuses to compromise his ethics and morals even if it means I'd be let go than one who hasn't any worth standing up for."
I'm not saying it's easy to do, think about which person you'd rather be.
On a related topic, businesses really need to embrace freeware. Open Office, Thunderbird, 7-zip, and the like would save massive amounts of money on licensing. Of course, some IT depts are too swamped with work to become sufficiently adept with the new software so that they feel comfortable distributing it around the network. For example: my IT department will not allow Firefox to be installed because the last report they were able to create (around version 1.0) showed Firefox as being HIPAA non-compliant. It has, however, been HIPAA compliant since, like, 1.0001.
One department finally junked Eudora and is adopting Thunderbird as their default mail client instead of Outlook. That's expected to save quite a bit.
There's a reason the zombie apocalypse has made such a come back... people wouldn't mind a reboot. Honestly, every time people feel the world (or at least their world) has gone to the crapper (politically, socially, economically), some sort of apocalyptic mythos springs forward. Zombies as the main current mythos has a lot to do with actual animosity people hold for those they feel only take from society. They fantasize about it... about finally being rid of the 8-5 daily work schedule, about the mundane life. People would welcome a reboot so long as they would have the opportunity to fend for themselves.
I understand your confusion, but the desire is to have government recognition, but not government control over the process or effects. It already happens with people married in other countries. Those marriages are recognized but not controlled by the American government.
From my point of view, the state/government should get out of the "marriage" business all together. It should be a religious state. Just have civil contracts to define "partners" rights.
I'll take it a step further. I think the gov't should get out of the business altogether (like you) and that it should be an *option* to go through a religious organization. Personally, I would prefer a fully social option. Download the document, fill stuff in, have witnesses to the pledge sign, and submit the two of you as "socially bound to a faithful partnership". No fear of retribution of a god or governmental body should be necessary in a contract of devotion and love.
And I would *love* for the universalization of the term "partner". I'm 8 years on with my "girlfriend" and we're fully committed to each other... but when we go to rent an apartment and we have to introduce each other as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend", they assume it's a risky arrangement for the two of us to be on the lease. "Partners" would best describe us.
Funny you mention that. I've been with my significant other for 8 years in November. We don't plan to get married until there is a method of doing so that 100% does not involve the government, but would also be recognized as a legal marriage just the same.
People will say that marriage is a "contract", and I think it is to a small extent, but more realistically, it's just a promise to be faithful to a person. A government body involved in marriage is there to instill fear in a marriage-- to guarantee that bad things happen to the unfaithful because, presumably, they would be unfaithful without the threat of punishment.
We don't need threats of punishment to stay faithful. We don't feel the need to be blessed by a church or a legislative body.
Of course, if she were to be injured, I would have to identify myself at the hospital by the colloquial "boyfriend" and I would not be allowed to see her.
How'd ya guess? =P
People are getting charged $150,000 for every song they allow to be uploaded. Well, this guys is being denied the opportunity to advertise his music... for months. And the involved parties know about it. He's even sent his version of a "cease and desist". So what's the formula for damages? When does he get to collect.
Personally, I hold the mouse with my thumb and ring-finger on the sides with my index and middle fingers resting on the buttons. When I'm at home using my Microsoft Intellimouse Optical (not explorer), I use the same grip except that I use the top joint of my thumb to hold the mouse so I twitch the tip of my thumb to hit button 4. (http://www.actionforblindpeople.org.uk/data/images/width590/hand-on-mouse-514.jpg)
I move the mouse with a combination of movements including the use of my ring-finger (holding onto the mouse), my thumb (holding onto the mouse), and, to a lesser extent, my wrist which rests on a gel pad.
Why? Because my fingers are much more dexterous than my wrist and thus it's better for moving around multiple links, playing an FPS, or doing any kind of visual editing.
And yet... they seem to think I want a touchpad on a bump.
Wow! Where do you work? Almost any district I've been to would have a small group of "outraged" parents preventing the establishment of a curriculum that "forces" students to read fantasy (read: witchcraft and Satan-worship).
"Customers always find an approach which pays us less money."
No no no... *some* customers find ways to pay as little money as possible. Since Windows rarely, if ever, goes "on sale" though, most people who follow the rules just pay full price or pay the Microsoft Tax when they buy a new computer. Factor in school deals, corporate deals, etc. and you have a crap-ton of licenses being sold for the Microsoft-price (the one they agree to).
THIS THIS THIS! For three weeks, teach principles, then have them put sh*t together. (Half the fun will be deconstruction a bunch of unwanted appliances *for class*!)
Teachers are working all year... when they're allowed. The longer-tenured teachers often get first dibs on summer school, though. Take a look at applications at tutoring centers in the summer. You'll see a lot of teachers looking for $9/hr tutoring jobs during the summer to supplement income. Moreover, teachers are expected to be at school early and leave significantly after class ends to prepare for the next class, converse with parents, and grade papers, exams, and homework. Teachers (good ones) don't just stand in front of class and talk for 5 or 6 hours out of the day. There's a lot of work that goes on, behind the scenes, that often eats into the teacher's own pocket book.
That really doesn't follow. You're saying that gifted students learn a lot outside the classroom. Great, then integrate that. Particularly in regards to computer sciences and the like, almost all useful education comes from outside the classroom. That's understood... by the teachers. The existing educational standards, though, to which the teachers must teach, force teachers to teach old stuff. Thus, the argument isn't "we gifted students shouldn't be in school because there's stuff outside of school to learn", but instead "we need to integrate more relevant information."
I know it will seem almost like a complete waste of time with this stance on slashdot because most of the people here had a major part of their education they resented due to being forced into boredom or irrelevant subject matter, but that's not the issue at hand. If there was a vote to be held on the topic, it wouldn't be held at slashdot because of the high average intellect of the people here.
This issue pertains to the non-brilliant. The average people. The ones that actually need more time in class to learn because their time with teachers have been slowly chipped away over the past 10 to 20 years. This is in regards to the lowest common denominator-- AKA the majority.
The brilliant are already catered to.
I say, "YES! More time!"
You see, middle/high school teachers get about ~40-55 minutes a day with students to teach, test, review, and discuss any one subject. Ask any teacher if they get enough time to make a difference and they will shrug their shoulders impotently. We need more time PER DAY PER CLASS. And that time needs to be immune from additional standardized testing.
Moreover, to you whiny little brats posting "Oh, no! Not more time! I'm already bored in school!", here's a reality check: Nobody cares about you. Seriously. You are foregone conclusions. If you're getting your work done and you have nothing better to do at school, then you're likely going to go to college, get a degree, and become a useful member of society.
When people talk about the "quality of education" in America, they're not talking about you. They're talking about everyone else. They're talking about the risky/at risk students. They're talking about the students that DON'T surf slashdot because they have no clue what it is.
When people talk about the quality of education, they're talking about the lowest common denominator of students which is, unfortunately, the students that get Cs in remedial courses. My students. The ones I need more time with because their grasp of English needs to be brought up to par in my Math class! We remediation teachers (basically all non-honors, non-AP) WORK for what gains we get and we would love more time in which to gain.
And if every suspect, when faced with an impending arrest, simply lied down on the street peacefully and raised their arms behind them for the handcuffs we wouldn't need tasers or guns.
But what does that have to do with my assertions?
I say that Tasers are used too frequently as short cuts to police work instead of alternatives to killing someone. If they were used properly, you would see nearly symmetrical inverse change in Taser usage versus gun usage. But you don't. Instead you see Taser usage growing increasingly frequent and higher and gun usage *sometimes changing* (going either up or down) depending on the city. That means that low-force situations are being escalated into debilitating-force situations by means of the Taser.
When you choose to use a Taser instead of a gun, it's non-lethal force and you're a hero.
When choose to use a Taser instead of patiently talking and rationalizing suspect to avoid pain and suffering, it's brutality and you're a dick that should be fired and disallowed from publicly-associated positions of power and/or authority.
But that comparison (1) a bit of an exageration in expectations and (2) implies that the use of Tasers would be on such criminals with Tec 9s. That's not really the case though, is it? In those situations when a cop suspects someone to be armed with any type of projectile weapon, the cop pulls out his gun and prepares for deadly force at a distance. That's understandable.
"The end result is of course that the police have no idea what they are going up against."
That's just wrong and it's the same excuse used over and over. "He could have had a knife." "He could have had a gun." Of course he could. We walk down the street every day with such "could have" dangers, but we do not react with force, do?
How would this go across in the court of law?: "The cop *could have* to beat the crap out of me to vent some steam, and I plan on going home tonight, I pulled a pencil from my bag and stabbed him in the throat."
It doesn't work, does it? Ignorance of variables or fear of potential circumstances is not a viable excuse for the unarmored, unarmed, under-insured (who pays the medical bills when you've been stunned and break your head on the cement from the fall?), so why in the world would we accept such rationalizations from the few people allowed to walk around in body armor, weapons, and physical combat training.
No. It does not escalate from talking to threat to Taser to gun. That's not acceptable.
These conversations always boil down to: "It's non/less-lethal! Better than getting shot!" But what happened before Tasers? Cops were allowed to draw their weapons to evoke fear (and compliance through fear) and discharge in desperate circumstances. Guns aside, what options were there? Sticks/Clubs and fists. Let's focus on "fists".
Fists, like Tasers, can provide non-lethal or less-lethal forms of force that guarantee compliance. But we agreed that Cops shouldn't do that, right? At least, not unless it's amid a desperate circumstance. So how is it different? Well, to be honest, fists often leave visible marks and those visible marks can be used to show evidence of brutality. It's similar stopping force... it causes severe pain. So what else is different? Range.
A common police officer mentality (from my own experience working at a station) is, "I don't care what happens... I plan on coming home tonight." This philosophy exemplifies the concept that the officer wants to stay as far away from danger as possible to prevent harm to him/herself. So, they have no problem adopting a manner of compliance enforcement that is as effective as a fist, prevents visible evidence of brutality, and keeps the officer at a safe distance.
But it is *still invoking severe pain (torturous pain) to force compliance*. *It is still brutal*. And it should only be used as an alternative to *discharging* a firearm, not a short cut away from all self-risk, and especially as a short cut from expending time in any case. The pain of any individual is not out-valued by the time of an officer of the law.
I don't think "racism" or "racist" means what you think it means. Their comments have nothing to do with believing your "race" is inferior by simple existence. It's more likely that they are prejudice (with reason!) about a white man's capability to speak Japanese to their standards. They have to do with you not being a native and their tendencies toward over-consideration. In these situations, you just need to speak up... consistently.
These conflicts are typically 33% bad assumptions, 33% bad interpretation, and 33% lack of communication.
I concur! I spent a couple summers raising money for my school's grants via mail and telemarketing while an undergrad. By and large, those who gave most frequently were people with multiple children and/or were involved in education (teachers, low-level administrators, etc.). So many times they would summarize their rationale in such statements as, "I know the value of a good education and also know that costs are going up. I wish my $250 could be more."
Doctors, bankers, and businessmen on the other hand *rarely* made contributions and when they did, it was typically $50 or less.
Then there are the mega-corps and foundations that make major contributions... but the corporation just pass the cost of those donations on to the consumers (Thanks for the grants, everyone!) and the foundations do their own fund-raising as necessary.
It's not "wasted" energy until we refrain from harnessing it. It's not free since we paid for it (by using the product that creates heat as a by-product).
What this is like, is the "5-second rule". This is scooping up perfectly edible M&Ms off the floor before they rot or the dog gets to it. This heat that is a by-product of reaction is still energy, so it's great that we have a way to pick it up and use it before it dissipates.
In the end, since we still want to eat M&Ms, we can reduce the overall number of bags bought in the year by making sure we eat as many of the dropped M&Ms as possible before the house pooch comes by and snatches them.
Indeed. Whether a political philosophy or better understanding about our living society comes from someone who was voted into bureaucratical power or someone who "merely" has cultural influence bestowed by science fiction, that philosophy and that understanding is significant on its own. They were not applauding "Adama" nor were they applauding Olmos. They applauded a proper philosophy about the being of man in the halls of a building that has been trying to make such strong assertions for decades-- if ever so impotently.
The people that made this entire event happen understood that, beyond all things, old people want to stay in power but they do not change. Society changes. And the only way society changes is by the growth and further education of the youth that will replace our now-ignorant elders. They understood that we as adults have been so very flawed and that our kids need to know our mistakes and errors lest they be doomed to repeat them.
Most people don't know what "equality" is. And if they do, they normally don't want it. Equality as it pertains to people's preferences in a society more truthfully refers to the prevalence of opportunities offered and guaranteed given mitigating circumstances-- this is also known as "fair an appropriate".
For example: People want equality in education and we have that in the US. Everyone is guaranteed a seat in a public school. However, some students have special needs and thus require more attention from and special training for their teachers. Bare bones equality says everyone gets the same, however, what people want and expect is for the student to have a "fair and appropriate education pertaining to that student's needs."
In regards to the differing requirements of the sexes, those "in the struggle" want "fair and appropriate", but the term "fair and appropriate" still hasn't caught on. If we genuinely want to be equal, we have to allow for exceptions to be made for expected mitigating circumstances. Pregnancy and the raising of a family being one of them.
And it annoys me to no end that people scream "equality now!" and "equal treatment" for this very reason. It's the same with people screaming "racism" for something that's merely "offensive to some people because of a shared characteristic".
bleh.
I was re-hired by that school, just a different department. She's very VERY well known for her issues, but no one's willing to push her out because of a few of her imperturbable qualities.
It's far from a moral duty, but it's an economic necessity of survival to consider how "cutting costs" can affect your own bottom line but one year from now.
Immediate case in point: How much money has been "saved" by various American megacorps with massive lay-offs? Supposedly, quite a lot. But who's going to buy the products these megacorps create when the consumers are out of work?
And this is where technology begins to have severely diminishing returns in a capitalist society. If cars and food and books and clothes were 100% made by machines, who would be able to afford any of them?
And regarding your Ford retort: the blacksmiths went on to work with metal, still. Just in a factory.
I voluntarily left a "back-up" position I was given as an apology for my boss eating my budget and thus having to eliminate my original position in the same-ish department . I was somewhat bitter entering the position, but I knew I could make great changes in my new position. Little did I know that the supervisor was angry, paranoid, irrational, and rather cruel to some people. When I quit, I left her with a long letter detailing each of her major leadership and tact-based mistakes she made in the paltry 3 months I was there. I then told her how disappointing it was that she did not have the necessary leadership skills after 15 years in that position ... also noting that my position having gone through 13 people in 5 years should be a clue.
When I resigned that position, it was required to turn in a copy of my resignation letter to HR. So I gave them a copy. "Somehow" others saw it, too. Those others liked it and expressed their condolences... specifically since the person under whom I was employed is an "untouchable" in our industry. She will always be there because of who she is.