You don't get the bill for other people's heath care. The bill is for your own.
There is nothing to indicate you would be charged less is everyone suddenly adopted a healthy lifestyle - whatever that means.
I expect heath care costs and taxation to continue along the path of "all the traffic will bear". With some good spin-doctoring like you spouted to keep people docile.
IT needs to figure it out how to put power into the hands of the user or they will find their jobs disappearing into the cloud, - literally.
And you just hit on the point that all of my little Asperger's suffering brothers and sisters are missing. If not into the cloud, something else will come along and upset the apple cart. Change is a constant
That would've required humility on the part of a Professor in dealing with other employees of the university. If noticed that occasionally, professors lack humility.
If you go to the trouble to fund and staff a "Threat Assessment Team", then they have to find threats. Even if none really exist, something will be labeled Threat. Bureaucracy will take it from there.
They were given more than "opportunity". The FBI committed the crime and said "Hey, want to come along?" Using a criminal informant to create a crime, but then turning around and selling it as "protecting us from the terrorists" doesn't impress me.
If you are a citizen, you should be concerned about that.
That's only part of the FBI's job. The FBI is also on the hook to uphold the people's trust. After 9/11, our trust was shaken. And, in truth, anyone involved (FBI, CIA, etc) was shaken and ashamed.
There are powerful incentives inside and outside of the FBI to Make Sure That Never Happens Again going forward.
Here's an example of what I'm concerned about.:
The Newburgh Four involved an informant who trolled the mosques in the Newburgh area for nearly a year until he ran into a man named James Cromitie, who was a stocker at Wal-Mart and had a history of mental problems. Over the course of nearly a year, the informant helped Cromitie get involved in a plot with three others to bomb synagogues in the Bronx. But, in fact, the informant in that case provided all of the transportation, all of the money necessary, in fact, even the bombs and the Stinger missile that they were going to later use to bomb airplanes taking off from Stewart International Airport. That’s a specific case of—and the questions raised in that case were whether these men could have committed the crime, were it not for the FBI informant offering them the specific opportunity and means to do so.
Unfortunately, there is chance that that method of investigating happened in this case as well. We will see as the trial unfolds.
1 - You misunderstand the term "Security Theater".
2 - I claimed exaggeration, rather than entrapment. Entrapment is ultimately a call for the courts, but it is a possibility. Like it or not, there is a good chance this guy was just a wind-bag (as opposed to a Terrorist) until the FBI got involved. There is growing body evidence to back up my position
You actually help me make my point: I agree 100% with statement that this guy is a dumb criminal. However, that isn't what the article was about. Instead (according to the people who have much to gain from folks like us buying into the story) they stopped a "TERRORIST!"
This is just another example of security theater;"Look, we found this terrorist, but don't worry, we had everything under control the whole time".
And drop the whole "this is like stopping a pedo before it's too late!" bullshit. Different things. You are just looking for a justification for fear. The whole "Terrorists are everywhere" myth is just that. Don't be terrorized.
No shit. That doesn't automatically mean this guy would've ever found them, or then gone on to actually harm someone. As I've said, the actual danger is exaggerated.
Enlighten me. Where would one find the terrorist you allude to - in Massachusetts - that this guy was liable to run into? My position is that it is so unlikely/improbable that the whole exercise is a waste.
It's especially wasteful when we consider that the money being spent to support the hunt is being borrowed.
Well, if it ain't entrapment it for sure is exaggeration. Without the FBI getting involved, this guy wasn't a threat. Now they can keep pretending "the terrorists are out to get us!"
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get the bill for other people's heath care. The bill is for your own.
There is nothing to indicate you would be charged less is everyone suddenly adopted a healthy lifestyle - whatever that means. I expect heath care costs and taxation to continue along the path of "all the traffic will bear". With some good spin-doctoring like you spouted to keep people docile.
Is this something you actually have to live with? Or are you in another country?
you insensitive clod!
That is the most reasonable response posted yet.
...but once you help them they will keep coming back to you whenever there is an issue...
Awwwww - you have to deal with other human beings? Welcome to life. If it really is such a terrible burden, you could go hermit I suppose.
Or you could just suck it up and accept having end users. Part of those "other duties as assigned"
It's just another skill set to be developed.
IT needs to figure it out how to put power into the hands of the user or they will find their jobs disappearing into the cloud, - literally.
And you just hit on the point that all of my little Asperger's suffering brothers and sisters are missing. If not into the cloud, something else will come along and upset the apple cart. Change is a constant
Not everything that can be done should be done
Thank you, Team America!
That would've required humility on the part of a Professor in dealing with other employees of the university. If noticed that occasionally, professors lack humility.
You mean a drama queen overreacted?!?!
There is no "Sliping into lawlessness". We've always been here.
But there's no real evidence of any sort of high-level conspiracy. This is just low-level bureaucratic infighting at its finest.
Doesn't that make it even more tragic?
We really screwed up. We panicked and essentially said "Bureaucracy is inefficient - lets add more!"
If you go to the trouble to fund and staff a "Threat Assessment Team", then they have to find threats. Even if none really exist, something will be labeled Threat. Bureaucracy will take it from there.
If you are a citizen, you should be concerned about that.
And yes, you are supposed to feel sorry for crazy people.
We don't have the money to waste on snipe hunts. America is supposed to be better than this.
There are powerful incentives inside and outside of the FBI to Make Sure That Never Happens Again going forward.
Here's an example of what I'm concerned about.:
The Newburgh Four involved an informant who trolled the mosques in the Newburgh area for nearly a year until he ran into a man named James Cromitie, who was a stocker at Wal-Mart and had a history of mental problems. Over the course of nearly a year, the informant helped Cromitie get involved in a plot with three others to bomb synagogues in the Bronx. But, in fact, the informant in that case provided all of the transportation, all of the money necessary, in fact, even the bombs and the Stinger missile that they were going to later use to bomb airplanes taking off from Stewart International Airport. That’s a specific case of—and the questions raised in that case were whether these men could have committed the crime, were it not for the FBI informant offering them the specific opportunity and means to do so.
Unfortunately, there is chance that that method of investigating happened in this case as well. We will see as the trial unfolds.
1 - You misunderstand the term "Security Theater".
2 - I claimed exaggeration, rather than entrapment. Entrapment is ultimately a call for the courts, but it is a possibility. Like it or not, there is a good chance this guy was just a wind-bag (as opposed to a Terrorist) until the FBI got involved. There is growing body evidence to back up my position
You actually help me make my point: I agree 100% with statement that this guy is a dumb criminal. However, that isn't what the article was about. Instead (according to the people who have much to gain from folks like us buying into the story) they stopped a "TERRORIST!"
This is just another example of security theater;"Look, we found this terrorist, but don't worry, we had everything under control the whole time".
And drop the whole "this is like stopping a pedo before it's too late!" bullshit. Different things. You are just looking for a justification for fear. The whole "Terrorists are everywhere" myth is just that. Don't be terrorized.
No shit. That doesn't automatically mean this guy would've ever found them, or then gone on to actually harm someone. As I've said, the actual danger is exaggerated.
You're the reason the economy won't recover. /sarcasm
Awww, c'mon AC. Tell me where these Massachusetts "terrorists" are that I'm supposed to fear?
Enlighten me. Where would one find the terrorist you allude to - in Massachusetts - that this guy was liable to run into? My position is that it is so unlikely/improbable that the whole exercise is a waste.
It's especially wasteful when we consider that the money being spent to support the hunt is being borrowed.
Those "actual terrorists" you mention don't exist. Just like the money being spent on efforts to protect us from them.
Well, if it ain't entrapment it for sure is exaggeration. Without the FBI getting involved, this guy wasn't a threat. Now they can keep pretending "the terrorists are out to get us!"