and it's the kind of thing that makes me think there's something genuinely evil behind it.
You'd be amazed at the amount of harm that can happen because of well-meaning people working with policies that were intended to help people out. That's why the policies need to be thrashed out well, and subject to more scrutiny than they usually get.
If, at 18, I'd had to lay out my future plans they would have been somewhere along the lines of "smoke a lot of dope. Get laid. Find money to pay for weed and women".
Some of us didn't have the social skills to pull that off at 18. Other than that, it has its attractions.
When I applied to college (back when Nixon was President), I got one acceptance letter conditional on my graduation from high school, and one without a condition (College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota). Of course, the U did know I'd been in high school.
I kinda stumbled from high school into a mathematics degree, and it seemed that the choices were actuary and programmer. I took programmer, and it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever drifted into.
If the process has serious problems (and I'm convinced it will), and they perform a bureaucratic and political miracle and fix them in a year, that's one year of students that get screwed. I'd expect more.
I'm also not convinced it will wind up being substantially better for the students. Most will want to do something after high school, like college or getting a job or something like that, so it seems to me more of an impediment than an incentive.
I assume that an acceptance conditional on getting the high school diploma would work to get the diploma issued. Where I live, you generally apply to colleges (if you're going to) in your senior year of high school, so you can start college in the same year you finish high school, and so colleges don't need your last semester's grades and will issue conditional acceptances. This isn't a problem here.
I don't know about Chicago apprenticeship programs, but I doubt all that many students go directly into one of those, and they may want the diploma first. Getting a job is going to be easier with a diploma. Getting a job when the employers think you're going to quit immediately after getting the diploma is going to be harder. I don't know what the Armed Forces are looking for nowadays, or what a "gap year" is.
It's still a stupid idea, just not quite as stupid as you said.
Good people can make bad decisions, particularly in some sort of bureaucracy or other organization. This looks like a bad idea to me, but there's at least a germ of a good idea in there.
So any denial of a travel visa by the USA is now related to Trump's travel ban?
If it's a visa for a Muslim, yes. It's not just the Executive Order, it's Trump's talk about a Muslim ban. Anything the President says will be scrutinized, and anything that looks like an anomaly regarding it will be reported. The White House is not a safe space, never has been, and never will be.
NEVER should a reporter expose their own personal bias on the story by choosing what facts they include, especially when the facts discussed are not DIRECTLY related to the story at hand. Anything less is a violation of traditional journalistic principles..
Reporters and editors have to choose which facts they include, and have to decide what's related. They also have biases. This is necessarily true, and it's always been this way. Moreover, news needs to attract eyeballs, and again it's always been this way. What mythic time was it when journalists did anything else?
The more visas we deny without good reason, the less welcoming the US seems. Every time someone is blocked from routine business in the US, it increases the chances that future events will be held outside the US. This is not good for us.
The fact that five Afghani girls are in a serious robotics competition is very newsworthy. Their gender is very relevant to what they accomplished (well, very relevant when considering their country of origin), and so it will be mentioned in anything related. You're paranoid.
Blame Trump. He talked a lot about a Muslim ban. His first attempt at the executive order was a Muslim ban applied to several countries (he wanted to let in religious minorities, in other words non-Muslims). He is head of the Executive Branch.
This means that, whenever Muslims are denied entry for unknown reasons, when there's reasons to expect them to be permitted in, there's going to be questions about whether this is because of their religion, whether Trump is getting the immigration officials to preferentially deny entry to Muslims.
If Trump doesn't want every unexpected refusal to let a Muslim in be scrutinized, he needs to make it clear that he's changed his policy.
If a sizable fraction of the Muslim population wanted people like me dead, there'd be a lot more killings. Give them a little credit for competence. Where I sit, Muslims are not dangerous. There are parts of the world where this is not true.
I dislike Muslim culture in may respects, and Islam is my least favorite major religion. That doesn't mean I don't want Muslims to get fair treatment. The Muslims I've known have been good people.
CNN reported that James Comey would testify he did NOT tell Trump that he wansn't under investigation. The next day Comey, under oath said that he told Trump he was not under investigation several times.
That's not fraud. That's failure to see the future. Almost certainly, CNN got a report about what Comey would say, and attributed the information either to the source or an unidentified source, and was truthful. Almost certainly, you're glossing over important detail here.
Having employees publish a false report isn't fraud, provided the network takes action against them and retracts the report.
I find the Constitution and amendments to be frequently unclear on details. What is "reasonable" search and/or seizure, for example? There are no unalienable rights in law. Someone who has committed a sufficiently serious crime may legally be deprived of liberty, even life, despite what the Declaration of Independence (a document without any legal force) says.
So, given that free speech and freedom of the press are to be defended, why shouldn't CNN publish the guy's name? Freedom of the press, you know.
Sigh. The guy published stuff that people found offensive. Is this justification for revealing his identity? If it is, then CNN is justified in revealing his identity if he does the same thing again. They don't have to show leniency twice.
The meaning is clear. CNN claims the right to identify people who post offensive content. Whether CNN has that right is the only question here. If CNN has the right to do it after someone posts offensive content, CNN certainly retains that right if the person posts additional offensive content. If you violate the law in a minor way, it's generally accepted that a police officer or judge may let you off with a promise that there will be no further such leniency. This is no different.
The non-governmental consequences we see are that the guy who posted offensive stuff might be identified. CNN told him that if he posted more offensive stuff they'll identify him publicly, which is no different from identifying him publicly for the earlier offensive stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be amazed at the amount of harm that can happen because of well-meaning people working with policies that were intended to help people out. That's why the policies need to be thrashed out well, and subject to more scrutiny than they usually get.
In other words, she wants to work 60 hours a week at the behest of an inarticulate immature erratic supervisor. It has its attractions.
Some of us didn't have the social skills to pull that off at 18. Other than that, it has its attractions.
When I applied to college (back when Nixon was President), I got one acceptance letter conditional on my graduation from high school, and one without a condition (College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota). Of course, the U did know I'd been in high school.
I kinda stumbled from high school into a mathematics degree, and it seemed that the choices were actuary and programmer. I took programmer, and it turned out to be one of the best decisions I ever drifted into.
If the process has serious problems (and I'm convinced it will), and they perform a bureaucratic and political miracle and fix them in a year, that's one year of students that get screwed. I'd expect more.
I'm also not convinced it will wind up being substantially better for the students. Most will want to do something after high school, like college or getting a job or something like that, so it seems to me more of an impediment than an incentive.
I assume that an acceptance conditional on getting the high school diploma would work to get the diploma issued. Where I live, you generally apply to colleges (if you're going to) in your senior year of high school, so you can start college in the same year you finish high school, and so colleges don't need your last semester's grades and will issue conditional acceptances. This isn't a problem here.
I don't know about Chicago apprenticeship programs, but I doubt all that many students go directly into one of those, and they may want the diploma first. Getting a job is going to be easier with a diploma. Getting a job when the employers think you're going to quit immediately after getting the diploma is going to be harder. I don't know what the Armed Forces are looking for nowadays, or what a "gap year" is.
It's still a stupid idea, just not quite as stupid as you said.
Good people can make bad decisions, particularly in some sort of bureaucracy or other organization. This looks like a bad idea to me, but there's at least a germ of a good idea in there.
If it's a visa for a Muslim, yes. It's not just the Executive Order, it's Trump's talk about a Muslim ban. Anything the President says will be scrutinized, and anything that looks like an anomaly regarding it will be reported. The White House is not a safe space, never has been, and never will be.
Reporters and editors have to choose which facts they include, and have to decide what's related. They also have biases. This is necessarily true, and it's always been this way. Moreover, news needs to attract eyeballs, and again it's always been this way. What mythic time was it when journalists did anything else?
The more visas we deny without good reason, the less welcoming the US seems. Every time someone is blocked from routine business in the US, it increases the chances that future events will be held outside the US. This is not good for us.
The fact that five Afghani girls are in a serious robotics competition is very newsworthy. Their gender is very relevant to what they accomplished (well, very relevant when considering their country of origin), and so it will be mentioned in anything related. You're paranoid.
Twenty thousand people is a large number. There can be many reasons not to let in so large a block. Five girls isn't a large number.
Trump supporters seem to be interested in following their Leader, and believing what he says, regardless of truth.
Blame Trump. He talked a lot about a Muslim ban. His first attempt at the executive order was a Muslim ban applied to several countries (he wanted to let in religious minorities, in other words non-Muslims). He is head of the Executive Branch.
This means that, whenever Muslims are denied entry for unknown reasons, when there's reasons to expect them to be permitted in, there's going to be questions about whether this is because of their religion, whether Trump is getting the immigration officials to preferentially deny entry to Muslims.
If Trump doesn't want every unexpected refusal to let a Muslim in be scrutinized, he needs to make it clear that he's changed his policy.
If a sizable fraction of the Muslim population wanted people like me dead, there'd be a lot more killings. Give them a little credit for competence. Where I sit, Muslims are not dangerous. There are parts of the world where this is not true.
I dislike Muslim culture in may respects, and Islam is my least favorite major religion. That doesn't mean I don't want Muslims to get fair treatment. The Muslims I've known have been good people.
Naturally, you're just spouting off because you don't have a concrete example.
That's not fraud. That's failure to see the future. Almost certainly, CNN got a report about what Comey would say, and attributed the information either to the source or an unidentified source, and was truthful. Almost certainly, you're glossing over important detail here.
Having employees publish a false report isn't fraud, provided the network takes action against them and retracts the report.
The second part says "We're giving you a pass on this one, but not the next."
Nope. CNN didn't ask for money or goods or services. CNN basically said, "We'll let you off easy this time, but not next time."
And now you want some sort of consequences for CNN's using freedom of the press to identify the guy?
I find the Constitution and amendments to be frequently unclear on details. What is "reasonable" search and/or seizure, for example? There are no unalienable rights in law. Someone who has committed a sufficiently serious crime may legally be deprived of liberty, even life, despite what the Declaration of Independence (a document without any legal force) says.
So, given that free speech and freedom of the press are to be defended, why shouldn't CNN publish the guy's name? Freedom of the press, you know.
Has CNN taken an anti-doxxing stand?
You seem captivated by that lame movie plot. Got any evidence?
Sigh. The guy published stuff that people found offensive. Is this justification for revealing his identity? If it is, then CNN is justified in revealing his identity if he does the same thing again. They don't have to show leniency twice.
The meaning is clear. CNN claims the right to identify people who post offensive content. Whether CNN has that right is the only question here. If CNN has the right to do it after someone posts offensive content, CNN certainly retains that right if the person posts additional offensive content. If you violate the law in a minor way, it's generally accepted that a police officer or judge may let you off with a promise that there will be no further such leniency. This is no different.
The non-governmental consequences we see are that the guy who posted offensive stuff might be identified. CNN told him that if he posted more offensive stuff they'll identify him publicly, which is no different from identifying him publicly for the earlier offensive stuff.