Here's the thing - they are employed as part of a civil contract, accountable for their actions - TO The people they are contracted with!
They work for us, not the other way around.
As citizens we've gotten complacent, and allowed the thinking to shift, such that we now consider "Government" as our leaders/bosses/Masters. I, for one, object to such a world view. Anytime I hear of a Government office trying to pull a stunt like this, I'm not surprised, but I'm also not apathetic, or passive.
1. Fill out form, including password. 2. Send it in 3. Change password
Sheesh.
Or you could stop shaving your pussy, tell them "None of your goddamn business", and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request. If the people in power don't get opposed, then they will just continue to ask for more.
You would think Americans, from a country borne of revolution, would be less inclined to just say "YES" to everything an elected official (or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat) dreams up.
If there have been no applications since the request went into effect, well... Remember, this is the City Attorney speaking here. What ever statement to the press he makes is designed to limit or deflect liability (or the appearance of impropriety). I don't assume he intends to communicate accurately, truthfully and completely, unless that would best serve the interests of himself or his employer. After all, he's not under oath.
No Shit. So here's the quandary. The Real ID proponents tell me it is. They tell me Real ID will prevent attacks, as well as whiten my teeth and freshen my breath. So, who am I to believe? I think I'll oppose it, since it never had anything to do with planes flown into buildings (or the prevention of) in the first place.
The prediction is tied to the question (unprovable by logic) wether or not the judge will apply certain standards. It is not tied not to the fact statement you linked to.
1 - Are you asking for a proof that MediaSentry doesn't meet the standards on page 13-14? If so, do your own goddamn research. If you object, or opine differently, then bring a good argument to the table, backed up by the same level of effort (proof) you demand of others.
or
2 - Are you requesting proof that the judge will/will not apply said standards? Again, not provable via logic, and was never asserted to be factual.
Perhaps a course in effective communications is in order? On top of that logic course...
This is about money. It's not enough that news be reported accurately from reliable sources, vetted and checked for accuracy. These days it is paramount that the news outlet must show a profit to the parent company that owns the news outlet.
Trying to make this into "I'm now open minded" or "I've rethought my position" isn't the full story.
The business is "show a profit". Not "reporting news" or journalism.
Part of voicing a position on/. is that someone else may say you're full of it.
I certainly don't grudge you the right to express a view. I will challenge the accuracy of that view and the method by which it was reached. In your zeal to defend, you have moved from voicing a suspicion to acting as if you know the truth. Probably not your intention, but that is how it comes across.
Fortunately, you have had a response from the man himself.
Since we are discussing things like ethics and motives, I'll encourage you to engage the same honest introspection you requested from the lawyer. He provided an answer. Now the test. Is it really a suspicion or theory to you - able to be kept or discarded in the light of evidence presented? Or is it personal now, to be defended at all costs?
It's not mine theory to disprove - it's yours to prove. You offer no proof to support your position, and using the word suspicion in this case is dishonest. If you weren't convinced, then you wouldn't be spending so much time posting this opinion and defending your position.
Rather than just say "I suspect" - be honest and tell it like it is. You've already convicted him. Don't try and pretend otherwise.
Your analysis of the man's character may be flawed. Just because you're the kind of jerk that "Displays the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed..." doesn't automatically mean that everyone is guilty of such deception.
Doctors are threatened - not surprising.
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1
There is no "Alternative" medicine. It's just medicine.
Using "science" to support the position you've already decided upon isn't science. It's a clever approach to get people to agree with you.
OK, so what constitutes abuse? Hmm, things just got even more complicated...:)
The problem I see in this has nothing to do with technology (way off topic of the original submission, but oh well). The problem here is people want other people to do things their way, without having the courage to demand their way. It's better to just stew in resentment of how unfair things are... Someone bugs you with their cellphone in a movie? Confront them, or demand a manager do so. Is that inconvenient? Welcome to life.
Don't want to do that? Then quit your complaining. Wanting someone else to stand up for you is dishonest and cowardly.
9/11 may have been the excuse, but your government (and mine) has been looking for the justification to do all of these things. If 9/11 didn't occur, they would've waited for another justification.
Bureaucrats LOVE IDs, they LOVE surveillance. The TSA is a Bureaucrat's wet dream. They don't provide Security (or Safety). No true responsibility, but plenty of funding and influence
The tragic part in this is it's not some sinister plot to gain control. There may be some of that, (actually it's certain. Some folks really do crave power). But the even more likely (to me), I believe it's nothing more than simple desire to cover one's ass.
In the event something does happen, they can use all these new powers and rules as "proof" they did all they could, and shouldn't get fired because they failed to protect.
Me too. Now, I'm more of a "bloom" guy, than a "thorn" guy, but my needs are simple.
I disagree with the author's premise. Apple's customers seem to have no problem with Apple keeping control of the platform. The author's opinion is it's "questionable", but they're making money and seem to be able to attract and keep customers. What about that strategy is questionable, exactly, given the results? And what part can't be changed if the market changes? This is one of those cases where so called criticism is used in an effort to come across as insightful.
Of course, my view is subjective and biased, but I enjoy the fact that my software/hw "just works"(TM). Enough so that I've gotten rid of PC at home.
There are enough people like me (for now) that Apple can continue it's "questionable" strategies.
Slashdot Mirror
You make a good point. However, I find that pad thai is tastier than bricks :)
Too sissy. STAND UP TO JERKS/BULLIES!
1. I not want to give that information as a condition of employment.
2. I don't want them to even think it's ok to ask for such things.
Here's the thing - they are employed as part of a civil contract, accountable for their actions - TO The people they are contracted with!
They work for us, not the other way around.
As citizens we've gotten complacent, and allowed the thinking to shift, such that we now consider "Government" as our leaders/bosses/Masters. I, for one, object to such a world view. Anytime I hear of a Government office trying to pull a stunt like this, I'm not surprised, but I'm also not apathetic, or passive.
None of us should be.
1. Fill out form, including password.
2. Send it in
3. Change password
Sheesh.
Or you could stop shaving your pussy, tell them "None of your goddamn business", and use all means at your disposal to refuse and oppose such a request. If the people in power don't get opposed, then they will just continue to ask for more.
You would think Americans, from a country borne of revolution, would be less inclined to just say "YES" to everything an elected official (or worse a non-elected career bureaucrat) dreams up.
If there have been no applications since the request went into effect, well...
Remember, this is the City Attorney speaking here. What ever statement to the press he makes is designed to limit or deflect liability (or the appearance of impropriety). I don't assume he intends to communicate accurately, truthfully and completely, unless that would best serve the interests of himself or his employer. After all, he's not under oath.
It 's as much tradition as anything else. This country was formed by the uncooperative, the rebellious.
That, and we don't trust our Government bureaucrats.
No Shit. So here's the quandary. The Real ID proponents tell me it is. They tell me Real ID will prevent attacks, as well as whiten my teeth and freshen my breath. So, who am I to believe? I think I'll oppose it, since it never had anything to do with planes flown into buildings (or the prevention of) in the first place.
The prediction is tied to the question (unprovable by logic) wether or not the judge will apply certain standards. It is not tied not to the fact statement you linked to.
1 - Are you asking for a proof that MediaSentry doesn't meet the standards on page 13-14? If so, do your own goddamn research. If you object, or opine differently, then bring a good argument to the table, backed up by the same level of effort (proof) you demand of others.
or
2 - Are you requesting proof that the judge will/will not apply said standards? Again, not provable via logic, and was never asserted to be factual.
Perhaps a course in effective communications is in order? On top of that logic course...
Answering a question with a question? :)
The problem is that they are open to manipulation by people who have the willingness and the knowhow to game the system.
That applies to ANY system, including the traditional legal ones.
This is about money. It's not enough that news be reported accurately from reliable sources, vetted and checked for accuracy. These days it is paramount that the news outlet must show a profit to the parent company that owns the news outlet.
Trying to make this into "I'm now open minded" or "I've rethought my position" isn't the full story.
The business is "show a profit". Not "reporting news" or journalism.
If we used LESS power, wouldn't the approaching crisis be lessened, perhaps averted?
Just sayin'...
This mindset, where we can (and must) always consume, and always consume MORE. It just might kill us.
Perhaps they had to do SOMETHING - just to keep up appearances...
Whaah. If you would use the term properly, no one would object.
What has been taken? Perhaps property rights have been infringed upon, but nothing has been taken.
There is a difference
Part of voicing a position on /. is that someone else may say you're full of it.
I certainly don't grudge you the right to express a view. I will challenge the accuracy of that view and the method by which it was reached. In your zeal to defend, you have moved from voicing a suspicion to acting as if you know the truth. Probably not your intention, but that is how it comes across.
Fortunately, you have had a response from the man himself.
Since we are discussing things like ethics and motives, I'll encourage you to engage the same honest introspection you requested from the lawyer. He provided an answer. Now the test. Is it really a suspicion or theory to you - able to be kept or discarded in the light of evidence presented? Or is it personal now, to be defended at all costs?
It's not mine theory to disprove - it's yours to prove. You offer no proof to support your position, and using the word suspicion in this case is dishonest. If you weren't convinced, then you wouldn't be spending so much time posting this opinion and defending your position.
Rather than just say "I suspect" - be honest and tell it like it is. You've already convicted him. Don't try and pretend otherwise.
Your analysis of the man's character may be flawed. Just because you're the kind of jerk that "Displays the appearance of ethics to mask ambition and greed..." doesn't automatically mean that everyone is guilty of such deception.
There is no "Alternative" medicine. It's just medicine.
Using "science" to support the position you've already decided upon isn't science. It's a clever approach to get people to agree with you.
Whoosh!
OK, so what constitutes abuse? Hmm, things just got even more complicated...:)
The problem I see in this has nothing to do with technology (way off topic of the original submission, but oh well). The problem here is people want other people to do things their way, without having the courage to demand their way. It's better to just stew in resentment of how unfair things are... Someone bugs you with their cellphone in a movie? Confront them, or demand a manager do so. Is that inconvenient? Welcome to life.
Don't want to do that? Then quit your complaining. Wanting someone else to stand up for you is dishonest and cowardly.
Why is it a solution to punish all for a few individuals' actions?
http://download.mozilla.org/?product=firefox-11.0&os=mac&lang=eng-US/ This one goes to eleven
9/11 may have been the excuse, but your government (and mine) has been looking for the justification to do all of these things. If 9/11 didn't occur, they would've waited for another justification.
Bureaucrats LOVE IDs, they LOVE surveillance. The TSA is a Bureaucrat's wet dream. They don't provide Security (or Safety). No true responsibility, but plenty of funding and influence
The tragic part in this is it's not some sinister plot to gain control. There may be some of that, (actually it's certain. Some folks really do crave power). But the even more likely (to me), I believe it's nothing more than simple desire to cover one's ass.
In the event something does happen, they can use all these new powers and rules as "proof" they did all they could, and shouldn't get fired because they failed to protect.
"Oddly, I still use a PowerBook G4..."
Me too. Now, I'm more of a "bloom" guy, than a "thorn" guy, but my needs are simple.
I disagree with the author's premise. Apple's customers seem to have no problem with Apple keeping control of the platform. The author's opinion is it's "questionable", but they're making money and seem to be able to attract and keep customers. What about that strategy is questionable, exactly, given the results? And what part can't be changed if the market changes? This is one of those cases where so called criticism is used in an effort to come across as insightful.
Of course, my view is subjective and biased, but I enjoy the fact that my software/hw "just works"(TM). Enough so that I've gotten rid of PC at home.
There are enough people like me (for now) that Apple can continue it's "questionable" strategies.
You mean this cat?