The issue I have with this is that he likely has had that degree listed on his resume for a very long time. From the very beginning, when he first placed it there, he was using that lie to help him get to where he is today. While he currently does not need the degree to do his job adequately (unlike, say, a degree in engineering), there probably was a time in one of his prior jobs where that degree was required or highly useful for him to be considered for a position.
In other words, he used this lie to get to this point in his career. This is not a one-time thing.
And yet, despite your weariness, the phrase is true, and it often needs to be continually pointed out to idiots who believe that correlation is causation.
The problem with this is that the Bible has not traditionally been viewed as a "collection of books chronicling the relationship of God to his people".
Traditionally it has been viewed as the inerrant word of God. When Jesus said in Luke 19:27 in a parable to bring those who did not want him to rule over them before him and slay them, this was taken literally. The depictions of violence in the Bible were not considered metaphors; they were considered a guide as to how to treat those who do not believe like you.
Suddenly "modern" Christians come out and say, nonono, God didn't really mean "Happy shall he be, he who takes their little ones and dashes them against the stones."(Psalms 137:9) (even though "All scripture is inspired by God and fit for reproof and instruction" (2. Timothy 3:16))
God was only kidding, or the 2000 years before now they had it all wrong. The thing is, the interpretation of the Bible has continually changed, and will in the future. And until Christians come out and say "THE BIBLE IS WRONG when it says children should be dashed against the stones like it says in Psalms 137:9" rather than just "misinterpreted" we will continue to have problems!
I would disagree with this. I would say that the clear existence of massive amounts of evil and atrocities in the world today and in the past is evidence that a "good" God does not exist, or plays no role in our lives.
While I am an atheist, this statement makes no sense.
Christian dismisses all other possible gods because he believes the God he believes in is the one true god.
An atheist believes God does not exist. Therefore, by definition, he can't believe that the God he believes in is the only true God; he believes in no god in the first place.
There are plenty of good reasons to be an atheist, but this is not one of them.
The difference here, which people who say the Bible os more violent then the Quran always forget, is that the violence in the Bible is largely CONTEXTUAL.
That is to say, no one today believes that "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
or
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. (...) And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.".
No one believes these things, because Christians today recognize or believe that Gad was telling a certain people in a certain place and time how to behave. No one believes that you should slay all the Amelkits with the jawbone of an ass. Christians understand that these are descriptions of what occurred (even if they did not occur) and not God telling people how to act TODAY.
However, regardless of if you agree with their interpretations of the Koran or not, CLEARLY there are many people who DO believe that the instructions to commit beheadings are NOT contextual, and that in fact are entirely valid. And herein lies the crux of the problem.
They may know or believe that you are a good programmer. But they have no knowledge of who you know. You may have friends in the tech industry, and you may decide to tell a friend in space X that company Y is trying to develop product Z. This can cause all sorts of havoc.
The reality is, there are perfectly good reasons to want someone to sign an NDA. If you have a great idea for a product or a new iPhone app, for example, do don't want to lay out all of the details to a web developer who may want to be an entrepreneur of his own. If you happen to have a stunning idea for something that will make a lot of money and need to hire a programmer, there's nothing to stop the programmer from thinking, "Hey, I could have thought of that!" and then build the software or website himself. This happens all the time. You are a fool if you don't protect your good ideas in this way as you go about looking for someone to build out your magic application.
Except the legality of this is exactly what is in question. For all you know, he may have spoken to a lawyer before beginning this business, who probably told him there's be no problems.
I don't understand this. I can pick up a piece of asparagus.
However, when I buy broccoli, at no point is my broccoli a broccolus. When I remove the rubber band, slice it up to steam it, any piece I pick up is still broccoli. So what constitutes a broccolus? The little polypy things on the end? If i hold up one of those, is that a broccolus or just a small piece of broccoli?
You are all incorrect. The plural for virus using classical latin is "vira". To wit:
"The plural of virus is viruses in English -- at least at the moment. Virus is a neuter noun in Latin. That means its plural, if there were an attested ancient usage of virus in the plural, would have ended in an "-a," because neuter nouns in (ancient Greek and) Latin end in an "-a," in the plural nominative and accusative cases. The example of the plural of datum is a case in point. Since datum is a neuter singular, its plural is data.
Since virus is neuter, vira is a possibility for the nominative/accusative plural. It could not be viri."
Thus, if a Prius is a gender neutral noun in latin, the plural form would be "Pria"
You do realize that refusing to divulge your name when asked by a cop is grounds for being charged with obstruction of justice?
You do realize that when someone has stolen your car, you must contact the police if you want government assistance in finding your car?
These posts about never talking to the police are stupid; there are very good times when it is appropriate and indeed, mandatory, to respond when a police asks you a question.
Exactly what is wise for you to say is part of the discussion, but telling people to be silent at all times around cops is stupid and wrong.
They are not "merely" criminals, but they are at least that; the article link to shows how Hammonds and others actually used some of the CC# they stole; they took these cards and used them to "donate" to multiple "revolutionary organizations" and charities.
From the article:
"A document distributed after the Stratfor hack totted up the hack's damage.
"The sheer amount of destruction we wreaked on Stratfor's servers is the digital equivalent of a nuclear bomb," it said. "We rooted box after box on their intranet: dumping their mysql databases, stealing their private ssh keys, and copying hundred[s] of employee e-mail spools... We laid waste to their web server, their mail server, their development server, their clearspace and srm intranet portal and backup archives."
The document also claimed that more than $500,000 had been charged to credit cards and given to "charities and revolutionary organizations.""
This is thievery; thus they are thieves. My analogy stands.
I was trying to make my point through an analogy. Essentially, I do not subscribe to the idea that snitches are somehow worse ethically or morally than people who commit crimes. A snitch in a criminal group is presumably committing crimes along with other members; whatever dishonorable act he commits by betraying his companions is negated by the fact he has potentially done a good thing by bringing other members to justice by ratting them out to the cops. Hypothetically speaking of course.
And in a video game where I don't have to take any consequences for my actions, I'd kill em all. But that's just me. And a video game.
"But the raid had, in fact, already happened. CW-1 was "Sabu," a top Anon/LulzSec hacker who was in real life an unemployed 28-year old living in New York City public housing. His sixth-floor apartment had been visited by the FBI in June 2011, and Sabu had been arrested and "turned." For months, he had been an FBI informant, watched 24 hours a day by an agent and using a government issued laptop that logged everything he did."
Slashdot Mirror
Proof of a degree? What company do you work for? I have never applied for a job that required proof of my degree.
The issue I have with this is that he likely has had that degree listed on his resume for a very long time. From the very beginning, when he first placed it there, he was using that lie to help him get to where he is today. While he currently does not need the degree to do his job adequately (unlike, say, a degree in engineering), there probably was a time in one of his prior jobs where that degree was required or highly useful for him to be considered for a position.
In other words, he used this lie to get to this point in his career. This is not a one-time thing.
There is No threat from criminals who want to hijack planes, but plenty from people who want to blow themselves up and everyone on board.
Richard Reid is a REAL PERSON who is serving life in Colorado for attempting to do just that.
There really are people out there who would take advantage of lax security measures to get a bomb on board a plane. Really. For real.
And yet, despite your weariness, the phrase is true, and it often needs to be continually pointed out to idiots who believe that correlation is causation.
I'll have one of whatever this guy had.
Skyrim is better on a PC because of all the mods you can add to it.
The problem with this is that the Bible has not traditionally been viewed as a "collection of books chronicling the relationship of God to his people".
Traditionally it has been viewed as the inerrant word of God. When Jesus said in Luke 19:27 in a parable to bring those who did not want him to rule over them before him and slay them, this was taken literally. The depictions of violence in the Bible were not considered metaphors; they were considered a guide as to how to treat those who do not believe like you.
Suddenly "modern" Christians come out and say, nonono, God didn't really mean "Happy shall he be, he who takes their little ones and dashes them against the stones."(Psalms 137:9) (even though "All scripture is inspired by God and fit for reproof and instruction" (2. Timothy 3:16))
God was only kidding, or the 2000 years before now they had it all wrong.
The thing is, the interpretation of the Bible has continually changed, and will in the future. And until Christians come out and say "THE BIBLE IS WRONG when it says children should be dashed against the stones like it says in Psalms 137:9" rather than just "misinterpreted" we will continue to have problems!
I would disagree with this. I would say that the clear existence of massive amounts of evil and atrocities in the world today and in the past is evidence that a "good" God does not exist, or plays no role in our lives.
While I am an atheist, this statement makes no sense.
Christian dismisses all other possible gods because he believes the God he believes in is the one true god.
An atheist believes God does not exist. Therefore, by definition, he can't believe that the God he believes in is the only true God; he believes in no god in the first place.
There are plenty of good reasons to be an atheist, but this is not one of them.
But we are not all bad. There are numerous examples of perfect people in the Bible:
Genesis 6:9 reads.
These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
This contradicts Biblical verses that say all men have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God.
Since this is clearly a contradiction, the Bible is not to be trusted on matters of morality.
tl:dr
The difference here, which people who say the Bible os more violent then the Quran always forget, is that the violence in the Bible is largely CONTEXTUAL.
That is to say, no one today believes that "Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones."
or
"And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. (...) And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.".
No one believes these things, because Christians today recognize or believe that Gad was telling a certain people in a certain place and time how to behave. No one believes that you should slay all the Amelkits with the jawbone of an ass. Christians understand that these are descriptions of what occurred (even if they did not occur) and not God telling people how to act TODAY.
However, regardless of if you agree with their interpretations of the Koran or not, CLEARLY there are many people who DO believe that the instructions to commit beheadings are NOT contextual, and that in fact are entirely valid. And herein lies the crux of the problem.
They may know or believe that you are a good programmer. But they have no knowledge of who you know. You may have friends in the tech industry, and you may decide to tell a friend in space X that company Y is trying to develop product Z. This can cause all sorts of havoc.
The reality is, there are perfectly good reasons to want someone to sign an NDA. If you have a great idea for a product or a new iPhone app, for example, do don't want to lay out all of the details to a web developer who may want to be an entrepreneur of his own. If you happen to have a stunning idea for something that will make a lot of money and need to hire a programmer, there's nothing to stop the programmer from thinking, "Hey, I could have thought of that!" and then build the software or website himself. This happens all the time. You are a fool if you don't protect your good ideas in this way as you go about looking for someone to build out your magic application.
Except the legality of this is exactly what is in question. For all you know, he may have spoken to a lawyer before beginning this business, who probably told him there's be no problems.
Awesome! I love Happy Hardcore. I have literally hundreds of albums. Great stuff to dance to. I will have to check out cdbaby.
What the are you talking about?
I don't understand this. I can pick up a piece of asparagus.
However, when I buy broccoli, at no point is my broccoli a broccolus. When I remove the rubber band, slice it up to steam it, any piece I pick up is still broccoli. So what constitutes a broccolus? The little polypy things on the end? If i hold up one of those, is that a broccolus or just a small piece of broccoli?
I just don't understand.
You are all incorrect. The plural for virus using classical latin is "vira". To wit:
"The plural of virus is viruses in English -- at least at the moment. Virus is a neuter noun in Latin. That means its plural, if there were an attested ancient usage of virus in the plural, would have ended in an "-a," because neuter nouns in (ancient Greek and) Latin end in an "-a," in the plural nominative and accusative cases. The example of the plural of datum is a case in point. Since datum is a neuter singular, its plural is data.
Since virus is neuter, vira is a possibility for the nominative/accusative plural. It could not be viri."
Thus, if a Prius is a gender neutral noun in latin, the plural form would be "Pria"
I had my SCAPULA sued once.
You do realize that refusing to divulge your name when asked by a cop is grounds for being charged with obstruction of justice?
You do realize that when someone has stolen your car, you must contact the police if you want government assistance in finding your car?
These posts about never talking to the police are stupid; there are very good times when it is appropriate and indeed, mandatory, to respond when a police asks you a question.
Exactly what is wise for you to say is part of the discussion, but telling people to be silent at all times around cops is stupid and wrong.
In the same way that the gold bar I did not know was hiding under a mound of cash in the bag I took from the bank just "came along for the ride?"
They are not "merely" criminals, but they are at least that; the article link to shows how Hammonds and others actually used some of the CC# they stole; they took these cards and used them to "donate" to multiple "revolutionary organizations" and charities.
From the article:
"A document distributed after the Stratfor hack totted up the hack's damage.
"The sheer amount of destruction we wreaked on Stratfor's servers is the digital equivalent of a nuclear bomb," it said. "We rooted box after box on their intranet: dumping their mysql databases, stealing their private ssh keys, and copying hundred[s] of employee e-mail spools... We laid waste to their web server, their mail server, their development server, their clearspace and srm intranet portal and backup archives."
The document also claimed that more than $500,000 had been charged to credit cards and given to "charities and revolutionary organizations.""
This is thievery; thus they are thieves. My analogy stands.
I was trying to make my point through an analogy. Essentially, I do not subscribe to the idea that snitches are somehow worse ethically or morally than people who commit crimes. A snitch in a criminal group is presumably committing crimes along with other members; whatever dishonorable act he commits by betraying his companions is negated by the fact he has potentially done a good thing by bringing other members to justice by ratting them out to the cops. Hypothetically speaking of course.
And in a video game where I don't have to take any consequences for my actions, I'd kill em all. But that's just me. And a video game.
Just want to quote from the source article:
"But the raid had, in fact, already happened. CW-1 was "Sabu," a top Anon/LulzSec hacker who was in real life an unemployed 28-year old living in New York City public housing. His sixth-floor apartment had been visited by the FBI in June 2011, and Sabu had been arrested and "turned." For months, he had been an FBI informant, watched 24 hours a day by an agent and using a government issued laptop that logged everything he did."
24 hours a day.