And if I'm not given that responsibility, then I can't be held responsible. That's parenting 101. Currently that decision has been made for me by the federal government - via prohibition. So don't lecture about personal responsibility when that option has been removed.
For citizens to be truly responsible, prohibition has to be repealed.
Oh Whaaaa. Haven't you just invented justification for maintaining a sense of superiority? Business is hard. Life is hard. Get over it, or get out of business. Sounds like you are failing to hire people who believe it's their job to make your life easier. But that isn't their fault, that is yours. You're the boss, the owner. Buck stops with you. Blaming others and their perceived failings doesn't mean it's reality.
You have an opinion, and a world-view. Just like everyone else - including "these folks who think they are entitled to getting paid for not having to think and learn." Yours seems to be: You're entitled to have smart, talented, hardworking, motivated people without having to do what it takes to either hire efficiently or develop them.
Any possibility their perceived failings are a direct result of your failure as an employer? Do you pay to have people trained? Or just hope/pray you can hire someone willing to self-teach? Why can't you motivate to positively affect their behavior? Do you clearly reward and promote thinking and learning? Or just sit and bitch that "people are lazy".
If everyone quit eating fast food tomorrow, millions of people would instantly be out of work. These people have marginal if no other job skills, and in today's depressed economy, we wouldn't be able to absorb such a large number of unemployed workers in a single day. Therefore we would have massive unemployment leading to starvation and bloodshed. (most of them live paycheck to paycheck)
The days when a schoolyard altercation ended with a bloody nose and a bruised ego are long gone
No they aren't. Just because (sensationalised?) media reports make it seem like the world is hopelessly overwhelming without Government protection doesn't mean that is.
All of those things you mentioned (discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity or religion) are already addressed by current legislation. Do we need another law because a computer is involved? I don't think so.
Maybe it comes from a desire to have legislators leave the internet alone.
No, really. Look legislators, I know you mean well. But often when you get involved trying to help, you make matters worse.
Take school bullies. When I was growing up, you let the bully get away with it till you got fed up, you confronted it and the bully went looking for a less painful target. If I got in trouble, so be it. I was fed up. It was a critical event in my development. Today, with our "zero-tolerance" policies and the stupid mantra of "let the authorities handle it", we get things like this. All the while ignoring the possibility that we are at this point because we refuse to let kids learn how to deal with bullying. Unintended consequence
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; legislation is the only thing they have in their toolbox. Hysterical "news" reporting convinces them something must be done! So, because of a small number of jackasses, we now have a "law of the land" that affects many.
The reason I'm opposed is I don't believe it has much to do with trying to address a real problem. It has more to do with addressing a perceived problem, and it does so in a most ham-handed, inefficient, likely-to-fail manner. All so the legislators can be seen to be "doing something" - and get re-elected.
I think you miss the point. As a citizen, I shouldn't have my options limited without due process. The Governor of Pennsylvania was right when he said we've become a nation of wussies. Here's how I see it:
1. Bomb-in-underwear-guy failed.
2. No one except Bomb-in-underwear-guy was hurt.
3. People will always criticize and say "You aren't doing enough to make us safe!" That doesn't mean it's true.
4. Therefor; Stop catering to the pussies and hypocrites
This isn't about protecting lives. This is about controlling spin in a 24-hour news cycle. Americans can take care of themselves. The only people who claim differently are those who gain power by offering "protection". I should never have any rights impinged upon to make it convenient for some politico to avoid criticism.
... would they come to their senses and realize what an asinine system they have in place?
Doubtful. They already know, but don't care. There is enough insulation from accountability such that no one will be penalized.
Behavior doesn't change unless there is consequence. If someone were to lose their position because the current system is so flawed, then it could change. However, the layers of bureaucracy and the formality of the institution pretty much guarantees that no one will pay for this fiasco, except for the citizenry.
Before the next poster comes in shouting "This is your fault. You voted for the people that put it in place! Vote different if you want a change!"
1. No I didn't. I did not vote for the bureaucrat who crafted this solution. I wasn't even given the opportunity. The legislators who I was able to vote for and against are long-gone. Yet I'm still stuck, and they are treated as heroes mostly. They are also well insulated from those who would vilify them, and attempt to have them be accountable for their decisions.
2. Any legislative change requires political will from a majority of the American people. Unfortunately, this impacts a small enough number of people that generating the political will to affect a change in the current "security theater" method will be difficult. There is significant inertia to overcome
From the political/bureaucratic viewpoint, there is much greater risk in moving away from the airport security lines. They open themselves up to greater threats by doing that then they do by maintaining the status quo.
I don't think that word means what you think it means
In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.
Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time.
Oh how I wish I could be on the jury. Reading the article - this is just a divorce getting a bit nasty.
This isn't a great case about privacy, or hacking, or any of that. Just one divorce attorney seeing an opening and going for the kill. He already knows his client will be a less than sympathetic character, so he's doing what he can to balance the playing field.
The Free Press is reporting it because it's racy. Sex, computers, hacking - Just like an episode of Law and Order! Her attorney is smart by not letting her talk to the Freep. She comes across as the injured party, when she's not.
Slashdot Mirror
And if I'm not given that responsibility, then I can't be held responsible. That's parenting 101. Currently that decision has been made for me by the federal government - via prohibition. So don't lecture about personal responsibility when that option has been removed.
For citizens to be truly responsible, prohibition has to be repealed.
Oh Whaaaa. Haven't you just invented justification for maintaining a sense of superiority? Business is hard. Life is hard. Get over it, or get out of business. Sounds like you are failing to hire people who believe it's their job to make your life easier. But that isn't their fault, that is yours. You're the boss, the owner. Buck stops with you. Blaming others and their perceived failings doesn't mean it's reality.
You have an opinion, and a world-view. Just like everyone else - including "these folks who think they are entitled to getting paid for not having to think and learn." Yours seems to be: You're entitled to have smart, talented, hardworking, motivated people without having to do what it takes to either hire efficiently or develop them.
Any possibility their perceived failings are a direct result of your failure as an employer? Do you pay to have people trained? Or just hope/pray you can hire someone willing to self-teach? Why can't you motivate to positively affect their behavior? Do you clearly reward and promote thinking and learning? Or just sit and bitch that "people are lazy".
Pull your head out and focus on what you can do.
I just got a palm pixi and I am impressed. HP should be aggressive with marketing and product development. But they aren't. *sigh*
I'm reminded of "Cheap, fast, or right. Pick which 2 you want."
Most insightful thing I've read this year. :)
If everyone quit eating fast food tomorrow, millions of people would instantly be out of work. These people have marginal if no other job skills, and in today's depressed economy, we wouldn't be able to absorb such a large number of unemployed workers in a single day. Therefore we would have massive unemployment leading to starvation and bloodshed. (most of them live paycheck to paycheck)
Nah. I'm sure the TSA is hiring.
Humans are different from other animals because we are delusional and think we are civilized.
FTFY
The days when a schoolyard altercation ended with a bloody nose and a bruised ego are long gone
No they aren't. Just because (sensationalised?) media reports make it seem like the world is hopelessly overwhelming without Government protection doesn't mean that is.
All of those things you mentioned (discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicity or religion) are already addressed by current legislation. Do we need another law because a computer is involved? I don't think so.
Bad-example. If they believed as I do, other people would've had come to your aid - especially if you were out-numbered.
Maybe it comes from a desire to have legislators leave the internet alone.
No, really. Look legislators, I know you mean well. But often when you get involved trying to help, you make matters worse.
Take school bullies. When I was growing up, you let the bully get away with it till you got fed up, you confronted it and the bully went looking for a less painful target. If I got in trouble, so be it. I was fed up. It was a critical event in my development. Today, with our "zero-tolerance" policies and the stupid mantra of "let the authorities handle it", we get things like this. All the while ignoring the possibility that we are at this point because we refuse to let kids learn how to deal with bullying. Unintended consequence
If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; legislation is the only thing they have in their toolbox. Hysterical "news" reporting convinces them something must be done! So, because of a small number of jackasses, we now have a "law of the land" that affects many.
The reason I'm opposed is I don't believe it has much to do with trying to address a real problem. It has more to do with addressing a perceived problem, and it does so in a most ham-handed, inefficient, likely-to-fail manner. All so the legislators can be seen to be "doing something" - and get re-elected.
I think you miss the point. As a citizen, I shouldn't have my options limited without due process. The Governor of Pennsylvania was right when he said we've become a nation of wussies. Here's how I see it:
1. Bomb-in-underwear-guy failed.
2. No one except Bomb-in-underwear-guy was hurt.
3. People will always criticize and say "You aren't doing enough to make us safe!" That doesn't mean it's true.
4. Therefor; Stop catering to the pussies and hypocrites
This isn't about protecting lives. This is about controlling spin in a 24-hour news cycle. Americans can take care of themselves. The only people who claim differently are those who gain power by offering "protection". I should never have any rights impinged upon to make it convenient for some politico to avoid criticism.
... would they come to their senses and realize what an asinine system they have in place?
Doubtful. They already know, but don't care. There is enough insulation from accountability such that no one will be penalized.
Behavior doesn't change unless there is consequence. If someone were to lose their position because the current system is so flawed, then it could change. However, the layers of bureaucracy and the formality of the institution pretty much guarantees that no one will pay for this fiasco, except for the citizenry.
Before the next poster comes in shouting "This is your fault. You voted for the people that put it in place! Vote different if you want a change!"
1. No I didn't. I did not vote for the bureaucrat who crafted this solution. I wasn't even given the opportunity. The legislators who I was able to vote for and against are long-gone. Yet I'm still stuck, and they are treated as heroes mostly. They are also well insulated from those who would vilify them, and attempt to have them be accountable for their decisions.
2. Any legislative change requires political will from a majority of the American people. Unfortunately, this impacts a small enough number of people that generating the political will to affect a change in the current "security theater" method will be difficult. There is significant inertia to overcome
From the political/bureaucratic viewpoint, there is much greater risk in moving away from the airport security lines. They open themselves up to greater threats by doing that then they do by maintaining the status quo.
Sure that wasn't Tony?
While I agree with your point, I think a sufficient number of people are conditioned to not see it as invasive.
No, it isn't
Nope. I didn't miss a thing. I just happen to disagree with the statements made (and charges submitted by) by the prosecutor.
It is one of the cornerstones of your marriage. This guy's situation is a bit different, I bet. Count yourself fortunate
Better to keep quiet and have people think you are an idiot, rather than post and confirm our suspicions.
I don't think that word means what you think it means
In the preliminary exam, Clara Walker testified that although Leon Walker had purchased the laptop for her, it was hers alone and she kept the password a secret.
Leon Walker told the Free Press he routinely used the computer and that she kept all of her passwords in a small book next to the computer.
"It was a family computer," he said. "I did work on it all the time.
Oh how I wish I could be on the jury. Reading the article - this is just a divorce getting a bit nasty.
This isn't a great case about privacy, or hacking, or any of that. Just one divorce attorney seeing an opening and going for the kill. He already knows his client will be a less than sympathetic character, so he's doing what he can to balance the playing field.
The Free Press is reporting it because it's racy. Sex, computers, hacking - Just like an episode of Law and Order! Her attorney is smart by not letting her talk to the Freep. She comes across as the injured party, when she's not.
Don't forget to account for the increase in # of unwanted female enemies generated by being "young, attractive, and female". "She is such a slut!"
Seems to come with the territory.
Steve is apple. His image is the face of the company.
To the banks it doesn't matter if a device or procedure is secure it's what the perception is...
This behavior is not just limited to banks. Any institution behaves in a similar fashion.
Nope. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night...
LCD? I knew I was doing something wrong.
The people who support the TSA non-sense at the airports support it happening to other people
Reporter:"Mrs Clinton, do you support the enhanced searches in airport security lines?"
Secretary of State Clinton:"Yes"
Reporter:"Would you submit to such a search?"
Secretary of State Clinton:"Not if I could avoid it"