My basic thoughts on this: 1. Characteristics that are necessary to become rich (if you aren't born into it) include discipline, education, a work ethic, and luck. 2. The majority of people with education, discipline, and a work ethic are not millionaires. 3. Ergo, no matter how disciplined and educated and hard-working you are, you should not plan on being rich.
That's not saying being frugal and smart about your spending is a bad thing, but just be realistic about your prospects. Also be aware that you could easily be screwed by, say, one or both of you being in a car crash and ending up disabled. You've given yourself a shot at being rich, but by no means do you have a guarantee.
Or would they have affirmed the right of witches to be left alone in the sky without interference? Would they have seen that as the prohibited establishment of a state-supported religion?
The witches would have been seen as the free exercise of religion, unless they were receiving a government contract or endorsement of their flying-around-advancing-behavior.
Because the ocean isn't perfectly even. Tidal forces, wind and waves, currents, plate activity, volcanoes, it's constantly flowing every which way. I'd be surprised if the sea level rose exactly the same amount in Oahu and Cardiff.
Umm, yeah, not going to happen. The powers that be in the US have pretty much decided they don't care about global warming, because it would cut into the profits of major industries like coal and oil and be expensive and unpleasant for everyone else.
Not just him, especially if you throw in the FBI since they are sort of part of the "intelligence community" even though they're DoJ instead of DoD. Some of the members of that wall of shame include: J Edgar Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, Robert McNamara, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Leon Panetta, Condaleeza Rice, and yes, Richard Clapper.
The problem is finding people with skill sets and costs aligned to what the business needs.
If you can't find that, though, the solution is: 1. Be willing to take on a higher cost for the person with the right skill set. For example, you might have to pay a higher salary than you would have liked, or pay to relocate someone to your area. 2. Take someone who has close-to but not exactly the right skill set and train them. This is obviously a bit risky, but can also be highly rewarding if you find the right person.
And of course, once you found them and hired them, you have to keep them. Some good ways of doing that include: raises, a clear promotion path, reasonable hour expectations, a nice office, profit sharing or stock option programs, flextime, option to work from home instead of in the office, and nice long vacations.
Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
Actually, they've arguably been unaccountable since about 1935 or so during the run-up to that little problem in Europe and the Pacific. Dwight Eisenhower was warning the country about it back when he was president. There have been numerous documented cases of the DoD and intelligence agencies flat-out lying to presidents and legislators when it suited their interests, and never being called to account for that.
The appropriate thing to do would be to make it a felony for federal agents to attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws in your state at the same time you legalize marijuana, with the stipulation that they have to pay for all legal defenses out of their own pockets.
That doesn't work. Here's why:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
That makes any state attempting to nullify a federal law completely pointless, even if they keep on trying to do so (the latest being Missouri).
The recourse you're supposed to have is this: Demand from your federal elected officials that they change / repeal the federal law about it. Obama says he's changing federal law enforcement practice (who knows if it will actually change), but the only legitimate legal option here is to get Congress to change it.
If a lawsuit is really frivolous, the plaintiff may have to pay the cost of defending. That's a decision a judge can make, specifically to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
How badly do you think it set back any diplomatic efforts?
The most notable diplomatic result of the leaks was that it was one of the major factors that convinced the Tunisians and Egyptians to revolt against their dictators. Now, one could argue that turned into a serious diplomatic problem for the US, but that was probably because the US was supporting the dictators.
If I leak details about your private life to a potential employer...
They'd discover, let's see: 1. That I have some ex's. 2. I occasionally enjoy a drink or two. 3. That I've pissed off a couple of people because I refused to make exceptions to institutional rules that they had agreed to follow just because they yelled at me.
It's really hard to blackmail someone if they don't actually have anything to hide.
Manning stole and leaked operational information that potentially put lives at risk by exposing agents in the field and/or operational plans in the field.
Except that in the Manning leak, the military or intelligence agencies have yet to point to a single agent or operation in the field that was stopped due to the leak. They've just repeatedly asserted this point without proof, and that means significant numbers of Americans believe them.
You think unions actually care about the employees, or even care about fairness?
It depends on the union, just like it depends on the company you work for. There are unions that are great to be a part of, and unions that are lousy to be a part of.
I would much rather trust the CEO of a company who only cares about their company than the union boss who only cares about his union.
So let me get this straight: You'd rather trust the CEO of your company, who has a financial incentive to screw you over with poor pay, benefits, etc, than a union boss who has to answer to you in the next election?
Ok, so let's say this is some plot by traditional cab and limo companies. So what? If Uber is able to offer cheaper prices than the established cab and limo industry because it is stealing from its employees, that's about as fair competition as a legitimate used car business competing with a car theft ring. If the complaint is true, that means a traditional limo company pays drivers $8 per hour plus tips plus half the FICA tax, and Uber is out there paying people at what amounts to $4 per hour as an "independent contractor" plus no tips and none of the taxes. And those "independent contractors" are in fact the victims of that policy and should be the plaintiffs in the suit.
That's why we have court systems with class-action lawsuits and discovery and public records and a judge and possibly a jury to sort this thing out.
Basically, the problem can be almost entirely blamed on FirstEnergy of Ohio. They had, in a matter of hours: - A software bug in the monitoring tool. - No backup monitoring, so when the first one wasn't started properly there was no way of knowing there was a problem. - A plant shutdown due to poor maintenance. - Multiple power lines failures due to not cutting back trees as they were supposed to. - Alarm systems breaking, that were simply ignored. - Utterly failing to notify nearby states that there was a problem so they could prevent it from spreading.
You'll notice that almost all of these problems would not have happened had they not cut corners wherever they thought they could get away with it. And if the US electric grid is in trouble, I'd have every reason to expect that it was other electric companies doing the same sort of thing.
A man is in his home in an area that is under a flood warning. His neighbor comes up to him and says "Hey, buddy, hop in my Jeep and we'll get out of here!" The man replies "I believe in the Lord, he will save me. Go on and take care of yourself." When the water is getting up a couple of feet, somebody comes by padding a canoe, and says "Hey there, let's paddle out of here." "I believe in the Lord, he will save me." Well, a few hours later, the water is up to the second floor, but a motorboat comes by. "Hey man, get out of there! Can't you see what's happening?" "I believe in the Lord, he will save me." Finally, the man is standing on his roof, with water all around him. A helicopter starts flying overhead. "Sir, one of your neighbors told us you were here. Please let us take you with us." "I believe in the Lord, he will save me. You go on and help someone else."
The man drowns in the flood, and ends up in Heaven. He says "God, why didn't you save me?" "What are you talking about? I sent a Jeep, a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter!"
Seriously though, corporations are made up of people, and you can divide the people in that organization into about 6 sometimes overlapping categories: 1. The people who came up with the idea of committing the crime. These should be prosecuted under RICO. 2. The people who decided to commit the crime and put resources into doing so. These should be prosecuted fully for whatever crime the organization committed. 3. The people who carried out the effort to commit the crime. These should be turned into witnesses if possible. If they refuse to become witnesses, then they should be prosecuted and their sentence reflect any coercion as a mitigating factor if their jobs were threatened. 4. The people who knew about the crime but did nothing to stop it. Depending on the crime, these may be in trouble too. If so, they should be getting something like probation or community service. 5. The people who knew about the crime and tried to stop it. These are obviously your star witnesses. 6. The people who didn't know about the crime. These are people that should be left out of the investigation.
Sure, when it's a really really big crime it's sometimes hard to sort this all out, but that's preferably to saying that really big crime is perfectly OK by just fining the company 5% of the take and sending them on their way.
Of course he never said "I practically invented the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which in a political sense was completely true.
Sure, he wasn't writing code for the TCP/IP stack, nor does he have a single RFC to his name, but the people who were doing that work have always been very clear that Al Gore was the first and for a while only politician to really understand the value of what they were doing. After the legislation you just mentioned (called the "Gore Bill") was passed, and Gore became VP, he continued to push the Clinton administration to make the Internet more ubiquitous. He also remains the only VP with a photo-op of him putting Cat-5 cabling into a school.
It's also about laying the ground work for an non-falsifiable claim that Snowden wasn't a young man with a conscience about massive illegal activities but instead a Russian spy.
I'm not all that anxious to use wearable, stickable electronic devices (most likely communications devices).
So have you thrown out your cell phone? I mean, if you're worried about tracking devices and surveillance, you should notice how many people carry one voluntarily!
Slashdot Mirror
My basic thoughts on this:
1. Characteristics that are necessary to become rich (if you aren't born into it) include discipline, education, a work ethic, and luck.
2. The majority of people with education, discipline, and a work ethic are not millionaires.
3. Ergo, no matter how disciplined and educated and hard-working you are, you should not plan on being rich.
That's not saying being frugal and smart about your spending is a bad thing, but just be realistic about your prospects. Also be aware that you could easily be screwed by, say, one or both of you being in a car crash and ending up disabled. You've given yourself a shot at being rich, but by no means do you have a guarantee.
We can also still torture them, and spy on them without having to deal with that pesky "probable cause" business.
Or would they have affirmed the right of witches to be left alone in the sky without interference? Would they have seen that as the prohibited establishment of a state-supported religion?
The witches would have been seen as the free exercise of religion, unless they were receiving a government contract or endorsement of their flying-around-advancing-behavior.
What about the important work on the reanimation of corpses done by Dr Frederick Frankenstein in Transylvania?
Why is it more pronounced in some areas?
Because the ocean isn't perfectly even. Tidal forces, wind and waves, currents, plate activity, volcanoes, it's constantly flowing every which way. I'd be surprised if the sea level rose exactly the same amount in Oahu and Cardiff.
Umm, yeah, not going to happen. The powers that be in the US have pretty much decided they don't care about global warming, because it would cut into the profits of major industries like coal and oil and be expensive and unpleasant for everyone else.
Not just him, especially if you throw in the FBI since they are sort of part of the "intelligence community" even though they're DoJ instead of DoD. Some of the members of that wall of shame include: J Edgar Hoover, Douglas MacArthur, Robert McNamara, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Leon Panetta, Condaleeza Rice, and yes, Richard Clapper.
And what if it's going the wrong way across a bridge?
The problem is finding people with skill sets and costs aligned to what the business needs.
If you can't find that, though, the solution is:
1. Be willing to take on a higher cost for the person with the right skill set. For example, you might have to pay a higher salary than you would have liked, or pay to relocate someone to your area.
2. Take someone who has close-to but not exactly the right skill set and train them. This is obviously a bit risky, but can also be highly rewarding if you find the right person.
And of course, once you found them and hired them, you have to keep them. Some good ways of doing that include: raises, a clear promotion path, reasonable hour expectations, a nice office, profit sharing or stock option programs, flextime, option to work from home instead of in the office, and nice long vacations.
Further digging indicates that the DoD has effectively been unaccountable even since before 2001.
Actually, they've arguably been unaccountable since about 1935 or so during the run-up to that little problem in Europe and the Pacific. Dwight Eisenhower was warning the country about it back when he was president. There have been numerous documented cases of the DoD and intelligence agencies flat-out lying to presidents and legislators when it suited their interests, and never being called to account for that.
The appropriate thing to do would be to make it a felony for federal agents to attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws in your state at the same time you legalize marijuana, with the stipulation that they have to pay for all legal defenses out of their own pockets.
That doesn't work. Here's why:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
That makes any state attempting to nullify a federal law completely pointless, even if they keep on trying to do so (the latest being Missouri).
The recourse you're supposed to have is this: Demand from your federal elected officials that they change / repeal the federal law about it. Obama says he's changing federal law enforcement practice (who knows if it will actually change), but the only legitimate legal option here is to get Congress to change it.
If a lawsuit is really frivolous, the plaintiff may have to pay the cost of defending. That's a decision a judge can make, specifically to prevent frivolous lawsuits.
How badly do you think it set back any diplomatic efforts?
The most notable diplomatic result of the leaks was that it was one of the major factors that convinced the Tunisians and Egyptians to revolt against their dictators. Now, one could argue that turned into a serious diplomatic problem for the US, but that was probably because the US was supporting the dictators.
If I leak details about your private life to a potential employer ...
They'd discover, let's see:
1. That I have some ex's.
2. I occasionally enjoy a drink or two.
3. That I've pissed off a couple of people because I refused to make exceptions to institutional rules that they had agreed to follow just because they yelled at me.
It's really hard to blackmail someone if they don't actually have anything to hide.
Manning stole and leaked operational information that potentially put lives at risk by exposing agents in the field and/or operational plans in the field.
Except that in the Manning leak, the military or intelligence agencies have yet to point to a single agent or operation in the field that was stopped due to the leak. They've just repeatedly asserted this point without proof, and that means significant numbers of Americans believe them.
You think unions actually care about the employees, or even care about fairness?
It depends on the union, just like it depends on the company you work for. There are unions that are great to be a part of, and unions that are lousy to be a part of.
I would much rather trust the CEO of a company who only cares about their company than the union boss who only cares about his union.
So let me get this straight: You'd rather trust the CEO of your company, who has a financial incentive to screw you over with poor pay, benefits, etc, than a union boss who has to answer to you in the next election?
Ok, so let's say this is some plot by traditional cab and limo companies. So what? If Uber is able to offer cheaper prices than the established cab and limo industry because it is stealing from its employees, that's about as fair competition as a legitimate used car business competing with a car theft ring. If the complaint is true, that means a traditional limo company pays drivers $8 per hour plus tips plus half the FICA tax, and Uber is out there paying people at what amounts to $4 per hour as an "independent contractor" plus no tips and none of the taxes. And those "independent contractors" are in fact the victims of that policy and should be the plaintiffs in the suit.
That's why we have court systems with class-action lawsuits and discovery and public records and a judge and possibly a jury to sort this thing out.
Actually, they got it from someone named Abby Normal.
Nothing quite like having a futuristic wristlojackimator. And it saves a bunch of hassle in reaching into a pocket to pull out a cell phone.
Of course, it makes it quite a bit more awkward to film everything in sight, but that's not something I do anyways.
Basically, the problem can be almost entirely blamed on FirstEnergy of Ohio. They had, in a matter of hours:
- A software bug in the monitoring tool.
- No backup monitoring, so when the first one wasn't started properly there was no way of knowing there was a problem.
- A plant shutdown due to poor maintenance.
- Multiple power lines failures due to not cutting back trees as they were supposed to.
- Alarm systems breaking, that were simply ignored.
- Utterly failing to notify nearby states that there was a problem so they could prevent it from spreading.
You'll notice that almost all of these problems would not have happened had they not cut corners wherever they thought they could get away with it. And if the US electric grid is in trouble, I'd have every reason to expect that it was other electric companies doing the same sort of thing.
Can we get Morgan Freeman on the case?
Reminds me of a classic joke:
A man is in his home in an area that is under a flood warning. His neighbor comes up to him and says "Hey, buddy, hop in my Jeep and we'll get out of here!" The man replies "I believe in the Lord, he will save me. Go on and take care of yourself." When the water is getting up a couple of feet, somebody comes by padding a canoe, and says "Hey there, let's paddle out of here." "I believe in the Lord, he will save me." Well, a few hours later, the water is up to the second floor, but a motorboat comes by. "Hey man, get out of there! Can't you see what's happening?" "I believe in the Lord, he will save me." Finally, the man is standing on his roof, with water all around him. A helicopter starts flying overhead. "Sir, one of your neighbors told us you were here. Please let us take you with us." "I believe in the Lord, he will save me. You go on and help someone else."
The man drowns in the flood, and ends up in Heaven. He says "God, why didn't you save me?" "What are you talking about? I sent a Jeep, a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter!"
Wait, the entire megachurch membership fit into a single Accord? That's a clown car if I've ever seen one.
But corporations are people, my friend!
Seriously though, corporations are made up of people, and you can divide the people in that organization into about 6 sometimes overlapping categories:
1. The people who came up with the idea of committing the crime. These should be prosecuted under RICO.
2. The people who decided to commit the crime and put resources into doing so. These should be prosecuted fully for whatever crime the organization committed.
3. The people who carried out the effort to commit the crime. These should be turned into witnesses if possible. If they refuse to become witnesses, then they should be prosecuted and their sentence reflect any coercion as a mitigating factor if their jobs were threatened.
4. The people who knew about the crime but did nothing to stop it. Depending on the crime, these may be in trouble too. If so, they should be getting something like probation or community service.
5. The people who knew about the crime and tried to stop it. These are obviously your star witnesses.
6. The people who didn't know about the crime. These are people that should be left out of the investigation.
Sure, when it's a really really big crime it's sometimes hard to sort this all out, but that's preferably to saying that really big crime is perfectly OK by just fining the company 5% of the take and sending them on their way.
Of course he never said "I practically invented the internet". He said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet", which in a political sense was completely true.
Sure, he wasn't writing code for the TCP/IP stack, nor does he have a single RFC to his name, but the people who were doing that work have always been very clear that Al Gore was the first and for a while only politician to really understand the value of what they were doing. After the legislation you just mentioned (called the "Gore Bill") was passed, and Gore became VP, he continued to push the Clinton administration to make the Internet more ubiquitous. He also remains the only VP with a photo-op of him putting Cat-5 cabling into a school.
So yeah, he totally did that.
It's also about laying the ground work for an non-falsifiable claim that Snowden wasn't a young man with a conscience about massive illegal activities but instead a Russian spy.
I'm not all that anxious to use wearable, stickable electronic devices (most likely communications devices).
So have you thrown out your cell phone? I mean, if you're worried about tracking devices and surveillance, you should notice how many people carry one voluntarily!