Is it such a stretch to see that Jong Il wasn't a l33t manipulator and that someone who is and lulls people into a false sense of something-or-other could get away with being worse than Jong Il? We kinda have that problem in the United States: we can't clearly SEE the Bad People and so we don't/can't plot their overthrow. It's all them damn carrots they're feeding us!
My snarky point was that if your leadership ethics or skills are otherwise dubious then allowing free speech simply hastens your demise. You might counter that only an all-round good leader would allow free speech, but I'll wager there's been a few historical examples of ones that thought they could use the free speech carrot to "spin" their leadership as better than it really was... probably with the aforementioned unfortunate consequences.
The router doesn't HAVE TO do the updating. What are you, new here? Pick a different free service like afraid.org, run an associated updating service or background app on a PC connected to the router, and shut your whiny yapper.
Bullshit. The router doesn't HAVE TO do the updating. What are you, new here? Pick a different free service like afraid.org, run the updating service or background app on a PC connected to the router, and shut your whiny yapper.
... what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?
Is that really enough? Does a mere prohibition of fraud and misdirection go far enough in promoting the transactional ideal of equal exchanges of value? What about omissions of fact? As I said to someone else in another unrelated discussion just last night:
Just because you harbor a desire to conceal facts that have probative value and are unquestionably relevant to determining the value of a contract does not mean that the other party therefore lacks the right to know those facts. If a particular fact is relevant to determining the value of a contract and you are entering into that contract willingly, then you no longer have any claim to conceal the fact as private. Can you get away with it if the other party is unaware or ignorant? Probably, but that doesn't mean you had a right to do it. The ideal transaction is one in which an equal exchange of value takes place. That is only possible if both parties are able to assess all relevant facts that affect the value of the contract. Business law and code recognizes this and seeks to prohibit unrestrained concealment and deception. If your reasoning became the official law of the land, then no contracts would ever be an equal exchange of value... one or both parties would always be denied some bit of information crucial to deciding the worth of the contract. I don't dispute this already takes place and always has, but at least the current system frowns upon and prohibits as much of it as reasonably possible.
Shouldn't we be demanding full disclosure as a matter of business code or law? What I was taught in business law courses - that transactional ideal - certainly implies it; we certainly expect it of each other ethically when we're a party in transactions, and are often shocked when we discover we were given less than candor. Shouldn't we codify this expectation once and for all?
Just because you harbor a desire to conceal facts that have probative value and are unquestionably relevant to determining the value of a contract does not mean that the other party therefore lacks the right to know those facts. If a particular fact is relevant to determining the value of a contract and you are entering into that contract willingly, then you no longer have any claim to conceal the fact as private. Can you get away with it if the other party is unaware or ignorant? Probably, but that doesn't mean you had a right to do it. WTF backwater business law curriculum did you drop out of? The ideal transaction is one in which an equal exchange of value takes place. That is only possible if both parties are able to assess all relevant facts that affect the value of the contract. Business law and code recognizes this and seeks to prohibit unrestrained concealment and deception. If your twisted reasoning became the official law of the land, then no contracts would ever be an equal exchange of value... one or both parties would always be denied some bit of information crucial to deciding the worth of the contract. I don't dispute this already takes place and always has, but at least the current system frowns upon and prohibits as much of it as reasonably possible. You seem to advocate opening the floodgates of omission.
Self-sufficiency is not the same thing as sustainability. Yes, it increases self-sufficiency, but no, it doesn't improve sustainability as defined in the environmental context.
The point here isn't improvement in sustainability; it's a foregone conclusion that the ISS and fledgling extraterrestrial colonies aren't sustainable.
This is about JIT manufacturing and resupply. If something breaks, they likely need the replacement part NOW, not whenever the next Soyuz can happen to float past.
I hate to say it, because I don't like saying anything that further legitimizes generally unethical behavior (insurance scams), but in this instance there's nothing wrong with using social media as another fact-checking resource. If the goal is management of the risk accrued by your behavior in exchange for money, then those who will manage that risk have a legitimate right to ASSESS the degree of it by whatever means is available. If a person's behavior in the context of Internet social media identifies a degree of risk in the person's behavior and motives not made obvious in other contexts, then denying access to that information amounts to creation of a fraudulent contract.
Copyright infringement isn't "theft"; it isn't "stealing". Nothing of material - as opposed to speculative - value has been denied the titular "owner". It's not piracy.
What is it? The closest historical analog might be squatting. Squatters don't pirate the land they occupy; they don't steal it. They don't displace the owner. The land is exactly where it's always been. All a squatter does is use or appropriate the land in a manner unacceptable to its owner, possibly - but not always - interfering with the owner's use of it. Ultimately it's more about ego, greed, and control than anything else. Intellectual property owners are the new land barons of the twenty-first century.
It's time we take back control of this dialog and call these behaviors what they really are. It's the land barons versus the squatters all over again.
The only time I've noticed this attitude is when people accuse others in absentia of behaving that way. It's impossible to disprove and the people being accused aren't there to dispute it.
I don't disagree with your assessment. Read my replies to others; it finally dawned on me that you probably weren't talking about people who had official roles in both/all parties but rather puppeteers that didn't. I don't disagree those people exist.
I rooted for Kucinich when he pushed for impeachment; I rooted for him again when he tried to preserve single-payer health care. I was mad when he caved and voted for the final bill, but I knew he was up against people who can bribe their marionettes with things far more tangible than a clear conscience and a good night's sleep.
More like Death Row in Texas, since they get "broken down" later. That broken down part might inform our Death Row approach, though: maybe instead of chemical poisoning we can digest them with enzymes in a giant Venus fly trap?
That wasn't the context of what I replied to, at least not the part that I replied to. I can't form an opinion about the pensions because I don't have enough background in that kind of finance.
I won't argue there are puppeteers involved who are common to both. I wasn't widening the view in my comment to include them, but perhaps they are who the GP was referring. I can't decide who's worse, them or the people willing to do their bidding with full knowledge of the ramifications.
They're not slashing the jobs of incompetent workers, they're slashing the jobs of better-paid less incompetent workers... because that has been the corporate short-term tactic for decades to make the balance sheet look good even though a big chunk of its potential productivity has just been summarily jettisoned out the airlock. If the corporation even survives that short-sighted stupidity, it will be forced to rehire those people or others like them later... though of course they always seek to do it in cut-rate fashion.
I've witnessed this behavior first- and second-hand. Now here's the postal service doing it. And the carrier I mentioned is very real; my neighborhood has endured this failure for at least the five years that I've lived here. No amount of photographs and other proof has been sufficient to get him replaced.
Not that this incompetence is unique to USPS. You hear a lot said by delivery services about how the package is sacred, right? It's not, not for all of them; USPS is just one that takes liberties with that commitment. Are you familiar with OnTrac? It's driver(s) have dropped packages six feet over a gate onto concrete several times, breaking one and leaving another exposed to get soaked by rain, and another one left in full view of the public to get stolen, which it did. I'm not playing favorites here, I'm calling the bad actors as I observe them.
Oh, and that OnTrac driver? He's still on the job, too. I'm sure you'll look up the corporate report for OnTrac and tell me they've been busy downsizing, too... but they're downsizing the people whose paychecks represent the biggest HR expense, not the ones with the worst performance. This is a game corporations both large and small have been playing for a long time.
USPS is forced to do this because it refuses to excise the wasteful incompetent personnel it employs, even when the incompetence is documented in detail. They even get Congress to pass Federal laws that allow them to further shirk liability and responsibilities. In my postal zone, the only way even a lowly mail carrier can get fired is if he's caught on video killing someone's dog. If he's responsible for the theft, damage, or loss of packages, even when it's documented, he'll be back the next day and every day after that, for so long as he shall live. If you thought the SCOTUS judges had it made with their continued employment prospects, they ain't got nothin' on mail carriers.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it such a stretch to see that Jong Il wasn't a l33t manipulator and that someone who is and lulls people into a false sense of something-or-other could get away with being worse than Jong Il? We kinda have that problem in the United States: we can't clearly SEE the Bad People and so we don't/can't plot their overthrow. It's all them damn carrots they're feeding us!
My snarky point was that if your leadership ethics or skills are otherwise dubious then allowing free speech simply hastens your demise. You might counter that only an all-round good leader would allow free speech, but I'll wager there's been a few historical examples of ones that thought they could use the free speech carrot to "spin" their leadership as better than it really was... probably with the aforementioned unfortunate consequences.
That alone would make me a better leader.
And a short-lived one, most likely.
Didn't your momma ever teach you never to speak il of the dead?
The router doesn't HAVE TO do the updating. What are you, new here? Pick a different free service like afraid.org, run an associated updating service or background app on a PC connected to the router, and shut your whiny yapper.
Stupid sky-is-falling nihilists.
Bullshit. The router doesn't HAVE TO do the updating. What are you, new here? Pick a different free service like afraid.org, run the updating service or background app on a PC connected to the router, and shut your whiny yapper.
Stupid sky-is-falling nihilists.
Heh, you jest, but Disney will steal your plot kernel and make a G-rated fortune from it!
Not if Wolowitz crashes the party... ain't enough WINE nor WoW that can counter that. Damn, but Penny needs to stop spilling to Bernadette....
... what if the ban leaks over to product photography (I'm looking at you, Burger King), video gameplay demos, or a photographer's own works?
Is that really enough? Does a mere prohibition of fraud and misdirection go far enough in promoting the transactional ideal of equal exchanges of value? What about omissions of fact? As I said to someone else in another unrelated discussion just last night:
Just because you harbor a desire to conceal facts that have probative value and are unquestionably relevant to determining the value of a contract does not mean that the other party therefore lacks the right to know those facts. If a particular fact is relevant to determining the value of a contract and you are entering into that contract willingly, then you no longer have any claim to conceal the fact as private. Can you get away with it if the other party is unaware or ignorant? Probably, but that doesn't mean you had a right to do it. The ideal transaction is one in which an equal exchange of value takes place. That is only possible if both parties are able to assess all relevant facts that affect the value of the contract. Business law and code recognizes this and seeks to prohibit unrestrained concealment and deception. If your reasoning became the official law of the land, then no contracts would ever be an equal exchange of value... one or both parties would always be denied some bit of information crucial to deciding the worth of the contract. I don't dispute this already takes place and always has, but at least the current system frowns upon and prohibits as much of it as reasonably possible.
Shouldn't we be demanding full disclosure as a matter of business code or law? What I was taught in business law courses - that transactional ideal - certainly implies it; we certainly expect it of each other ethically when we're a party in transactions, and are often shocked when we discover we were given less than candor. Shouldn't we codify this expectation once and for all?
Just because you harbor a desire to conceal facts that have probative value and are unquestionably relevant to determining the value of a contract does not mean that the other party therefore lacks the right to know those facts. If a particular fact is relevant to determining the value of a contract and you are entering into that contract willingly, then you no longer have any claim to conceal the fact as private. Can you get away with it if the other party is unaware or ignorant? Probably, but that doesn't mean you had a right to do it. WTF backwater business law curriculum did you drop out of? The ideal transaction is one in which an equal exchange of value takes place. That is only possible if both parties are able to assess all relevant facts that affect the value of the contract. Business law and code recognizes this and seeks to prohibit unrestrained concealment and deception. If your twisted reasoning became the official law of the land, then no contracts would ever be an equal exchange of value... one or both parties would always be denied some bit of information crucial to deciding the worth of the contract. I don't dispute this already takes place and always has, but at least the current system frowns upon and prohibits as much of it as reasonably possible. You seem to advocate opening the floodgates of omission.
Self-sufficiency is not the same thing as sustainability. Yes, it increases self-sufficiency, but no, it doesn't improve sustainability as defined in the environmental context.
The point here isn't improvement in sustainability; it's a foregone conclusion that the ISS and fledgling extraterrestrial colonies aren't sustainable.
This is about JIT manufacturing and resupply. If something breaks, they likely need the replacement part NOW, not whenever the next Soyuz can happen to float past.
I hate to say it, because I don't like saying anything that further legitimizes generally unethical behavior (insurance scams), but in this instance there's nothing wrong with using social media as another fact-checking resource. If the goal is management of the risk accrued by your behavior in exchange for money, then those who will manage that risk have a legitimate right to ASSESS the degree of it by whatever means is available. If a person's behavior in the context of Internet social media identifies a degree of risk in the person's behavior and motives not made obvious in other contexts, then denying access to that information amounts to creation of a fraudulent contract.
Copyright infringement isn't "theft"; it isn't "stealing". Nothing of material - as opposed to speculative - value has been denied the titular "owner". It's not piracy.
What is it? The closest historical analog might be squatting. Squatters don't pirate the land they occupy; they don't steal it. They don't displace the owner. The land is exactly where it's always been. All a squatter does is use or appropriate the land in a manner unacceptable to its owner, possibly - but not always - interfering with the owner's use of it. Ultimately it's more about ego, greed, and control than anything else. Intellectual property owners are the new land barons of the twenty-first century.
It's time we take back control of this dialog and call these behaviors what they really are. It's the land barons versus the squatters all over again.
The only time I've noticed this attitude is when people accuse others in absentia of behaving that way. It's impossible to disprove and the people being accused aren't there to dispute it.
Outsourcing FTW....
And money DOES grow on trees, because that's where the cellulose to make the paper bills comes from.
Ummm... if they clone an American drone, won't it still answer to our siren call? Cool, that would make Iran a subcontractor for the U.S. military!
I don't disagree with your assessment. Read my replies to others; it finally dawned on me that you probably weren't talking about people who had official roles in both/all parties but rather puppeteers that didn't. I don't disagree those people exist.
I rooted for Kucinich when he pushed for impeachment; I rooted for him again when he tried to preserve single-payer health care. I was mad when he caved and voted for the final bill, but I knew he was up against people who can bribe their marionettes with things far more tangible than a clear conscience and a good night's sleep.
More like Death Row in Texas, since they get "broken down" later. That broken down part might inform our Death Row approach, though: maybe instead of chemical poisoning we can digest them with enzymes in a giant Venus fly trap?
That wasn't the context of what I replied to, at least not the part that I replied to. I can't form an opinion about the pensions because I don't have enough background in that kind of finance.
Read my reply to the AC who made the same observation.
I won't argue there are puppeteers involved who are common to both. I wasn't widening the view in my comment to include them, but perhaps they are who the GP was referring. I can't decide who's worse, them or the people willing to do their bidding with full knowledge of the ramifications.
They're not slashing the jobs of incompetent workers, they're slashing the jobs of better-paid less incompetent workers... because that has been the corporate short-term tactic for decades to make the balance sheet look good even though a big chunk of its potential productivity has just been summarily jettisoned out the airlock. If the corporation even survives that short-sighted stupidity, it will be forced to rehire those people or others like them later... though of course they always seek to do it in cut-rate fashion.
I've witnessed this behavior first- and second-hand. Now here's the postal service doing it. And the carrier I mentioned is very real; my neighborhood has endured this failure for at least the five years that I've lived here. No amount of photographs and other proof has been sufficient to get him replaced.
Not that this incompetence is unique to USPS. You hear a lot said by delivery services about how the package is sacred, right? It's not, not for all of them; USPS is just one that takes liberties with that commitment. Are you familiar with OnTrac? It's driver(s) have dropped packages six feet over a gate onto concrete several times, breaking one and leaving another exposed to get soaked by rain, and another one left in full view of the public to get stolen, which it did. I'm not playing favorites here, I'm calling the bad actors as I observe them.
Oh, and that OnTrac driver? He's still on the job, too. I'm sure you'll look up the corporate report for OnTrac and tell me they've been busy downsizing, too... but they're downsizing the people whose paychecks represent the biggest HR expense, not the ones with the worst performance. This is a game corporations both large and small have been playing for a long time.
USPS is forced to do this because it refuses to excise the wasteful incompetent personnel it employs, even when the incompetence is documented in detail. They even get Congress to pass Federal laws that allow them to further shirk liability and responsibilities. In my postal zone, the only way even a lowly mail carrier can get fired is if he's caught on video killing someone's dog. If he's responsible for the theft, damage, or loss of packages, even when it's documented, he'll be back the next day and every day after that, for so long as he shall live. If you thought the SCOTUS judges had it made with their continued employment prospects, they ain't got nothin' on mail carriers.