similar to care labels on clothing, nutrition facts on food and warnings on hazardous materials."
This is EXACTLY what we need...I envision a big label across the Windows Vista CD: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: VISTA MAY CAUSE LUNG CANCER, EMPHYSEMA, AND BIRTH DEFECTS."
FC4 on your Dell? I just installed the Gentoo 2006.0 liveCD on my new Dell laptop and it runs like a dream. You should check it out. I have never had a better time setting up linux on a laptop in my life.
You're wrong...and no I am not married....however I am getting married this Saturday to a woman with a Chemistry PhD...she's not a computer geek! IT and marriage do mix.
I can't really say I find it stimulating to watch other people play video games...I'd much rather be doing the playing. Not sure why I feel so different about watching a sport (I'm a big hockey fan) but somehow I just do.
In the case of Live the first result was a photo studio run by Galen and Barbara Powell. For Google the first result was much more relevant: a link to the University of Virgina Health System which talked about the medical practice from the past of which Galen is listed in the links.
This example explains why people need to be as specific as possible when entering search terms. Maybe if you entered Galen Institute or Galen Medical you would have a better time. Galen Rowell (not Powell, I assume a misspelling on your part) is (was, he's dead now) a very important and relevant figure in nature photography. Most of his work has to do with mountain scenes and mountaineering. As an avid nature photographer, if I simply typed in Galen, I would expect his name to show up in the top 5, maybe even the #1 link, while scratching my head about this medical nonsense.
Think of how many words there are that can refer to a plethora of completely different subjects. One name or word will be significant to me for one reason, while it may be significant to you for another reason. The computer can not and will not ever figure out which significance you are concerned with on its own. You have to tell it why it is significant to you - "Galen Institute" vs "Galen photography".
"Machine will never conquer man because machine is dumb."
I'd say you have a pretty good self defense case (it looked like he was carrying a gun).
Interesting you say this, because "it looked like a gun" was the subject of much debate regarding police opening fire on a suspect (I think it was in NYC) a few years ago where police said they thought the suspect was going to pull a gun...turns out it wasn't a gun, but lots of people wanted the cops heads for opening fire and killing the man. Can't remember if anything happened to the cops afterwards or not, but Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about it. Should that defense work for police officers as well as your average citizen?
There is much debate, especially in recent years, concerning so called "activist judges" and legislating from the bench, or how two judges can have widely different interpretations of the law. Which judge is really correct in any particular case? Some completely throw out all sentencing guidelines and will lay down what most people might consider too little punishment.
You are right, not every law applies in all situations...which is why there have been exceptions written into law for certain things, that's also why we have the "reasonable person" standard and such. The problem is, how do you define "good sense" as you put it? Anyone can argue their version of what good sense means. Juries do not have as much leeway as we might think, alot of times they are given "jury instructions" that are used to tell the jury exactly what evidence they are allowed to consider, remind them what testimony was allowed or disallowed during a trial, and exactly what they are deciding when they say guilty or not guilty. Take the Clinton case...most Americans still think Clinton was impeached for cheating, when the reality is he was impeached for lying under oath. Michael Jackson got off not because he really isn't a child molestor, rather when faced with the allowed evidence and testimony at his trial, the jury did not have enough reason to convict. Several members of that jury have come out and said they thought he was guilty but could not vote that way. Their jury instructions were 96 pages long. Good sense might say that he is a child molestor and should be in jail right now. Juries are very constrained with regards to how they decide, and are often given a much more tightly worded question to decide on rather than 'is oj guilty of murder or not'?
What side you are on at any given time has a tremendous effect on your perspective of how a law should be interpreted.
...that whistleblowers can use other than running to the media with a bunch of documents. As important as it is to bring things like this to light, whistleblowers have a responsibility to exhaust other means of exposing the information they have. Almost every industry and government organization has anonymous methods in place for people to report things like this. He could have gone to a state or federal agency such as the FBI or state police and negotiated immunity from self incrimination in exchange for the information. I'm not saying he was wrong for uncovering such a violation of public trust, however there are much more responsible ways of doing so. However it is possible that he will get let off by a sympathetic jury or an extremely light sentence with early relase for good behavior.
If you commit a crime to prevent a much bigger and reprehensible crime...the law should help you there....isn't that logical ?!
In other cases there is no consideration for things like this....for example if someone breaks into your house and becomes injured going up the stairs, you are liable for his injuries because you neglected to fix that broken bannister he was using. Or if you set something up to trap burglars in your basement while you were on vacation and is forced to eat outdated food in your refrigerator and gets sick on it, you are liable for his illness. Just because one party breaks the law does not make the other party immune from it unless you have some kind of immunity negotiation with law enforcement like when a suspect gives up information about others that incriminates himself. I think the only other exception to this is using lethal force against someone who you believe is going to kill you. In that case you are permitted to kill in self defense as long as there is an obvious, immediate life-ending threat.
The whistleblower in this case may be right from a "helping my fellow man" point of view by disclosing his information, but that does not make him right in the eyes of the law. Besides, there are defined processes that one should go through before going to the media as a whistleblower which are legally acceptable and defensible.
...for them to buy it off now than continue to fight it. Maybe they believe the cost of correcting the broad patent problem outweighs the benefit they would get from just rolling over and shelling out a few hundred grand each. Also remember, it is not the responsibility of these companies to correct patent infringement laws for their competitors. The defendants would be giving their competitors a very nice gift by fighting and winning.
One possible explanation for the consumer ratings is that JVC is simply giving consumers exactly what they think they want.
This statement hits the nail on the head...JVC knew what they were doing when they made a technically crappy screen, just like Microsoft cares more about how much users like clippy the office assistant than they do about a buffer overflow. They know what they need to do to sell their product, most other things are irrelevant. Why should JVC give a flying rat's if 100,000 geeks see artifacts when 1,000,000 non-geeks see "sharpness and texture"? They'll probably make more off the geeks by selling them some model they deem "higher-end" than the consumer version for 20% extra, because the geeks will percieve it as being so much better than the "inferior consumer" model. Someone at JVC really knows how to play the consumer perception card real well, and I bet this particular example comes at a manufacturing cost savings as well.
The issue is not that desensitizing people will make them violent, it's more about people seeing the video game (or movie, or rap song, etc) as a model for how they conduct themselves in our society. You may think it is ridiculous when you consider how you and your peers would react to violent images, and I personally agree, but there are people (especially little kids) who will imitate everything they see...no matter if it's Barney or Rambo. These people do not have a strong grasp on their responsibilities and the mores of the culture in which they live (again, little kids fall into this category) and until they repeatedly receive strong influence from others in society who wish to ingrain them with these ideas, there is a risk that they will imitate examples of violence to which they are exposed. Without even stronger guidance to counteract these actions they may continue to interact with society in this manner. Ever swear in front of a three year old and all of a sudden they keep saying the word? When left unchallenged the behavior will not cease. Very simple example of the concept I am explaining. Unfortunately many parents don't parent so for the welfare of us normal people there has to be a way of further reducing the risk of this happening.
The issue with anti-violent gaming activists is they take it so far as to prevent those who will not be influenced by the material to have access to it if they wish. This is a common tactic in lobbying or any other form of negotiation...always push for more than you want to accomplish and then compromise down to what your goals really are. Sometimes you wind up exceeding your goals, which in this example may mean more restrictions on the rest of us but when you win more than you anticipated you do not give up the ground you gained.
Um, this sounds very similar to a variety of Windows vulnerabilities...why aren't people jumping down Apple's throat about their insecurity as well? Or should OSX be held to a different standard than Windows?
Windows malicious graphic flaw comes out: OH NOES MICRO$OFT IS TEH EVIL SUKK0RS!!!!111!one
MAC OSX malicious graphic flaw comes out: "You cannot simply "catch" the virus. Even if someone does send you the "latestpics.tgz" file, you cannot be infected unless you unarchive the file, and then open it."
BTW I am not trying to attack the parent, just using his words as an example of how many people perceive security issues based on what OS is affected. Based on the parent's analysis of the vulnerability I believe he would apply the same logic and risk assessment if this was a Windows flaw.
You seem to have missed my point, the people are not "praying to idols". They are not praying to the object. In the Old Testament the people were praying to a golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments, this is not the same thing. The people placed their faith in the object which they created. Catholics do not do this. And you are also quoting me out of context about "I think God understands"...I would not expect God to like people worshipping idols. This is not idol worship. I think He understands the difference between the use of imagery and artwork in the Church as opposed to what you misinterpret as idol worship. If I understand the difference, then He certainly must as well. To say otherwise would imply that He does not exist in an omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing state.
...is furthering the views that many people already hold: that Muslisms are freedom hating terrorists. How many people do you think are looking at this situation now and saying to themselves "Maybe the cartoonist's depicted opinion of Islam isn't that far off reom reality?" I'm not saying it is, but these violent protests do nothing except strengthen these beliefs.
...remember, if they bundle it with the OS for free, they will be "abusing their monopoly position" to gain a large share of another market...damned if they sell it, damned if they give it away. Of course, they could try making windows code better so less viruses can be written that affect windows, but where's the profit in that? Most of the civilized world buys Windows regardless...
Um, I am Catholic and no not pay money for forgiveness, that has been free at least since Vatican II, maybe even before that.
Yes we have physical representations of religious figures, artwork and such, but no Catholic I know believes a statue of Mary has some sort of power, any reverence expressed towards an "idol" - as you call it - is not directed towards the physical item...simply a means of outward expression of one's feeling of devotion, faith, respect, etc. Many people simply consider this kind of expression a beautiful action, not worshipping a statue.
Mary is definately not God and no Catholic claims her to be otherwise. However some people find personal strength in reflecting on Mary or the saints, angels, and the like...they say "well Mary helped me through this" or "St Francis helped me through that" or "My guardian angel protected me from those other things" what really happens is that they have found strength and guidance in their reflection on these people, through prayer or otherwise. Prayer is not always a worship thing but can be more of a meditation on the subject or content of the prayer as usually one can clear their mind and focus on the content and meaning of the prayer. People call it "praying to some saint or for some thing" but when you get down to it I don't really think people understand what is really happening when they do...but that is ok because I think God understands that even if these people think and say they pray "to" a saint, etc that they really are not doing that.
About marriage and priests/nuns, the bible does say something about that: (from 1 Corinthians 7):
"An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. "
I think the official Catholic translation uses God instead of Lord, but the quote is pretty much the same - this is one of the ideas behind the reason for unmarried priests/nuns. The Catholic church does follow what the Bible says, the issue is how different denominations of Christianity interpret what the Bible actually means.
If a priest or nun is having issues maintaining their celibacy, or even worse - finding a very improper outlet in parish children, then they should find help or leave/be ejected from religious line of work. There is nothing wrong with the concept of unmarried priests/nuns, however most Catholics do agree that what is going on with priests now is not a good thing and would like to see a more heavy handed response....so do not make so many assumptions about what mainstream Catholics believe, cause just like anything, the extremists and fundies in any walk of life will always make the most noise and draw the most attention and appear to be the majority when in fact they are not, and most priests do not represent what people outside the Catholic faith perceieve them to represent. You know the Pope supports Evolution? Maybe not in the Godless, secular view that an atheist would take, but he does take a pro-evolution position. My personal view is that the Bible and science are both correct concerning how everything was created. They do not conflict with each other. And you know what? No one I know understands how I came to that conclusion even when I explain it to them.
..if this is true or not. Remember our misinformation campaign during the Cold War that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union? Additionally, how would we know if the US missile shield can't hit these new missles? I could imagine that the technology has advanced from the failures reported in the media since the start of the project. Just because we haven't said we can do something does not automatically mean we can't do that thing. It just means the public doesn't know...that you and I are not privy to such information, and for good reason.
I would like to think he could. Yes a lame ass proxy with bad filtering may be considered due diligence. That will not stop someone from filing a lawsuit, which incurs expenses and bad publicity for the company regardless if it makes it to trial or not. The goal is you do not want to go to court at all. It is usually more cost effective to tighten up on the web access and security than it is to pay the legal defense and/or settlement costs. That and the whole issue has the potential to create a not-so-friendly work environment for the group or department in which the offense occured - which may impact productivity. I am not an untrusting person, but managers and executives have a responsibility to their business or corporation to mitigate the risks of these occurences. All it takes is one suit to incur millions of dollars in legal costs, and let's face it - it is impossible to be a perfect judge of character, no one can claim that they 100% know for sure that every person they hire is a perfect angel and would never violate company policy or look for ways to make money off of a suit against their employer.
Slashdot Mirror
similar to care labels on clothing, nutrition facts on food and warnings on hazardous materials."
This is EXACTLY what we need...I envision a big label across the Windows Vista CD: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: VISTA MAY CAUSE LUNG CANCER, EMPHYSEMA, AND BIRTH DEFECTS."
FC4 on your Dell? I just installed the Gentoo 2006.0 liveCD on my new Dell laptop and it runs like a dream. You should check it out. I have never had a better time setting up linux on a laptop in my life.
You're wrong...and no I am not married....however I am getting married this Saturday to a woman with a Chemistry PhD...she's not a computer geek! IT and marriage do mix.
I can't really say I find it stimulating to watch other people play video games...I'd much rather be doing the playing. Not sure why I feel so different about watching a sport (I'm a big hockey fan) but somehow I just do.
Good point! But that would probably require some sort of login or cookie, and well then there are privacy concerns to deal with...
Don't just classify it, provide a recipe too!
I, for one, welcome our styrafoam-eating-bacteria overlords.
In the case of Live the first result was a photo studio run by Galen and Barbara Powell. For Google the first result was much more relevant: a link to the University of Virgina Health System which talked about the medical practice from the past of which Galen is listed in the links.
This example explains why people need to be as specific as possible when entering search terms. Maybe if you entered Galen Institute or Galen Medical you would have a better time. Galen Rowell (not Powell, I assume a misspelling on your part) is (was, he's dead now) a very important and relevant figure in nature photography. Most of his work has to do with mountain scenes and mountaineering. As an avid nature photographer, if I simply typed in Galen, I would expect his name to show up in the top 5, maybe even the #1 link, while scratching my head about this medical nonsense.
Think of how many words there are that can refer to a plethora of completely different subjects. One name or word will be significant to me for one reason, while it may be significant to you for another reason. The computer can not and will not ever figure out which significance you are concerned with on its own. You have to tell it why it is significant to you - "Galen Institute" vs "Galen photography".
"Machine will never conquer man because machine is dumb."
AltaVista is much harder to type and Yahoo and Google only need 3 letters to type vs 6.
Um, last time I checked, Y, A, H, O were four letters. Same thing goes for G,O, L, E.
I'd say you have a pretty good self defense case (it looked like he was carrying a gun).
Interesting you say this, because "it looked like a gun" was the subject of much debate regarding police opening fire on a suspect (I think it was in NYC) a few years ago where police said they thought the suspect was going to pull a gun...turns out it wasn't a gun, but lots of people wanted the cops heads for opening fire and killing the man. Can't remember if anything happened to the cops afterwards or not, but Bruce Springsteen wrote a song about it. Should that defense work for police officers as well as your average citizen?
There is much debate, especially in recent years, concerning so called "activist judges" and legislating from the bench, or how two judges can have widely different interpretations of the law. Which judge is really correct in any particular case? Some completely throw out all sentencing guidelines and will lay down what most people might consider too little punishment.
You are right, not every law applies in all situations...which is why there have been exceptions written into law for certain things, that's also why we have the "reasonable person" standard and such. The problem is, how do you define "good sense" as you put it? Anyone can argue their version of what good sense means. Juries do not have as much leeway as we might think, alot of times they are given "jury instructions" that are used to tell the jury exactly what evidence they are allowed to consider, remind them what testimony was allowed or disallowed during a trial, and exactly what they are deciding when they say guilty or not guilty. Take the Clinton case...most Americans still think Clinton was impeached for cheating, when the reality is he was impeached for lying under oath. Michael Jackson got off not because he really isn't a child molestor, rather when faced with the allowed evidence and testimony at his trial, the jury did not have enough reason to convict. Several members of that jury have come out and said they thought he was guilty but could not vote that way. Their jury instructions were 96 pages long. Good sense might say that he is a child molestor and should be in jail right now. Juries are very constrained with regards to how they decide, and are often given a much more tightly worded question to decide on rather than 'is oj guilty of murder or not'?
What side you are on at any given time has a tremendous effect on your perspective of how a law should be interpreted.
...that whistleblowers can use other than running to the media with a bunch of documents. As important as it is to bring things like this to light, whistleblowers have a responsibility to exhaust other means of exposing the information they have. Almost every industry and government organization has anonymous methods in place for people to report things like this. He could have gone to a state or federal agency such as the FBI or state police and negotiated immunity from self incrimination in exchange for the information. I'm not saying he was wrong for uncovering such a violation of public trust, however there are much more responsible ways of doing so. However it is possible that he will get let off by a sympathetic jury or an extremely light sentence with early relase for good behavior.
If you commit a crime to prevent a much bigger and reprehensible crime...the law should help you there....isn't that logical ?!
In other cases there is no consideration for things like this....for example if someone breaks into your house and becomes injured going up the stairs, you are liable for his injuries because you neglected to fix that broken bannister he was using. Or if you set something up to trap burglars in your basement while you were on vacation and is forced to eat outdated food in your refrigerator and gets sick on it, you are liable for his illness. Just because one party breaks the law does not make the other party immune from it unless you have some kind of immunity negotiation with law enforcement like when a suspect gives up information about others that incriminates himself. I think the only other exception to this is using lethal force against someone who you believe is going to kill you. In that case you are permitted to kill in self defense as long as there is an obvious, immediate life-ending threat.
The whistleblower in this case may be right from a "helping my fellow man" point of view by disclosing his information, but that does not make him right in the eyes of the law. Besides, there are defined processes that one should go through before going to the media as a whistleblower which are legally acceptable and defensible.
...for them to buy it off now than continue to fight it. Maybe they believe the cost of correcting the broad patent problem outweighs the benefit they would get from just rolling over and shelling out a few hundred grand each. Also remember, it is not the responsibility of these companies to correct patent infringement laws for their competitors. The defendants would be giving their competitors a very nice gift by fighting and winning.
a beowulf cluster of these!
damn I just ran out of mod points too...parent makes an excellent point, please mod up!
One possible explanation for the consumer ratings is that JVC is simply giving consumers exactly what they think they want.
This statement hits the nail on the head...JVC knew what they were doing when they made a technically crappy screen, just like Microsoft cares more about how much users like clippy the office assistant than they do about a buffer overflow. They know what they need to do to sell their product, most other things are irrelevant. Why should JVC give a flying rat's if 100,000 geeks see artifacts when 1,000,000 non-geeks see "sharpness and texture"? They'll probably make more off the geeks by selling them some model they deem "higher-end" than the consumer version for 20% extra, because the geeks will percieve it as being so much better than the "inferior consumer" model. Someone at JVC really knows how to play the consumer perception card real well, and I bet this particular example comes at a manufacturing cost savings as well.
The issue is not that desensitizing people will make them violent, it's more about people seeing the video game (or movie, or rap song, etc) as a model for how they conduct themselves in our society. You may think it is ridiculous when you consider how you and your peers would react to violent images, and I personally agree, but there are people (especially little kids) who will imitate everything they see...no matter if it's Barney or Rambo. These people do not have a strong grasp on their responsibilities and the mores of the culture in which they live (again, little kids fall into this category) and until they repeatedly receive strong influence from others in society who wish to ingrain them with these ideas, there is a risk that they will imitate examples of violence to which they are exposed. Without even stronger guidance to counteract these actions they may continue to interact with society in this manner. Ever swear in front of a three year old and all of a sudden they keep saying the word? When left unchallenged the behavior will not cease. Very simple example of the concept I am explaining. Unfortunately many parents don't parent so for the welfare of us normal people there has to be a way of further reducing the risk of this happening.
The issue with anti-violent gaming activists is they take it so far as to prevent those who will not be influenced by the material to have access to it if they wish. This is a common tactic in lobbying or any other form of negotiation...always push for more than you want to accomplish and then compromise down to what your goals really are. Sometimes you wind up exceeding your goals, which in this example may mean more restrictions on the rest of us but when you win more than you anticipated you do not give up the ground you gained.
Um, this sounds very similar to a variety of Windows vulnerabilities...why aren't people jumping down Apple's throat about their insecurity as well? Or should OSX be held to a different standard than Windows?
Windows malicious graphic flaw comes out: OH NOES MICRO$OFT IS TEH EVIL SUKK0RS!!!!111!one
MAC OSX malicious graphic flaw comes out: "You cannot simply "catch" the virus. Even if someone does send you the "latestpics.tgz" file, you cannot be infected unless you unarchive the file, and then open it."
BTW I am not trying to attack the parent, just using his words as an example of how many people perceive security issues based on what OS is affected. Based on the parent's analysis of the vulnerability I believe he would apply the same logic and risk assessment if this was a Windows flaw.
You seem to have missed my point, the people are not "praying to idols". They are not praying to the object. In the Old Testament the people were praying to a golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments, this is not the same thing. The people placed their faith in the object which they created. Catholics do not do this. And you are also quoting me out of context about "I think God understands"...I would not expect God to like people worshipping idols. This is not idol worship. I think He understands the difference between the use of imagery and artwork in the Church as opposed to what you misinterpret as idol worship. If I understand the difference, then He certainly must as well. To say otherwise would imply that He does not exist in an omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing state.
...is furthering the views that many people already hold: that Muslisms are freedom hating terrorists. How many people do you think are looking at this situation now and saying to themselves "Maybe the cartoonist's depicted opinion of Islam isn't that far off reom reality?" I'm not saying it is, but these violent protests do nothing except strengthen these beliefs.
...remember, if they bundle it with the OS for free, they will be "abusing their monopoly position" to gain a large share of another market...damned if they sell it, damned if they give it away. Of course, they could try making windows code better so less viruses can be written that affect windows, but where's the profit in that? Most of the civilized world buys Windows regardless...
Um, I am Catholic and no not pay money for forgiveness, that has been free at least since Vatican II, maybe even before that.
Yes we have physical representations of religious figures, artwork and such, but no Catholic I know believes a statue of Mary has some sort of power, any reverence expressed towards an "idol" - as you call it - is not directed towards the physical item...simply a means of outward expression of one's feeling of devotion, faith, respect, etc. Many people simply consider this kind of expression a beautiful action, not worshipping a statue.
Mary is definately not God and no Catholic claims her to be otherwise. However some people find personal strength in reflecting on Mary or the saints, angels, and the like...they say "well Mary helped me through this" or "St Francis helped me through that" or "My guardian angel protected me from those other things" what really happens is that they have found strength and guidance in their reflection on these people, through prayer or otherwise. Prayer is not always a worship thing but can be more of a meditation on the subject or content of the prayer as usually one can clear their mind and focus on the content and meaning of the prayer. People call it "praying to some saint or for some thing" but when you get down to it I don't really think people understand what is really happening when they do...but that is ok because I think God understands that even if these people think and say they pray "to" a saint, etc that they really are not doing that.
About marriage and priests/nuns, the bible does say something about that: (from 1 Corinthians 7):
"An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs--how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife-- and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. "
I think the official Catholic translation uses God instead of Lord, but the quote is pretty much the same - this is one of the ideas behind the reason for unmarried priests/nuns. The Catholic church does follow what the Bible says, the issue is how different denominations of Christianity interpret what the Bible actually means.
If a priest or nun is having issues maintaining their celibacy, or even worse - finding a very improper outlet in parish children, then they should find help or leave/be ejected from religious line of work. There is nothing wrong with the concept of unmarried priests/nuns, however most Catholics do agree that what is going on with priests now is not a good thing and would like to see a more heavy handed response....so do not make so many assumptions about what mainstream Catholics believe, cause just like anything, the extremists and fundies in any walk of life will always make the most noise and draw the most attention and appear to be the majority when in fact they are not, and most priests do not represent what people outside the Catholic faith perceieve them to represent. You know the Pope supports Evolution? Maybe not in the Godless, secular view that an atheist would take, but he does take a pro-evolution position. My personal view is that the Bible and science are both correct concerning how everything was created. They do not conflict with each other. And you know what? No one I know understands how I came to that conclusion even when I explain it to them.
..if this is true or not. Remember our misinformation campaign during the Cold War that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union? Additionally, how would we know if the US missile shield can't hit these new missles? I could imagine that the technology has advanced from the failures reported in the media since the start of the project. Just because we haven't said we can do something does not automatically mean we can't do that thing. It just means the public doesn't know...that you and I are not privy to such information, and for good reason.
I would like to think he could. Yes a lame ass proxy with bad filtering may be considered due diligence. That will not stop someone from filing a lawsuit, which incurs expenses and bad publicity for the company regardless if it makes it to trial or not. The goal is you do not want to go to court at all. It is usually more cost effective to tighten up on the web access and security than it is to pay the legal defense and/or settlement costs. That and the whole issue has the potential to create a not-so-friendly work environment for the group or department in which the offense occured - which may impact productivity. I am not an untrusting person, but managers and executives have a responsibility to their business or corporation to mitigate the risks of these occurences. All it takes is one suit to incur millions of dollars in legal costs, and let's face it - it is impossible to be a perfect judge of character, no one can claim that they 100% know for sure that every person they hire is a perfect angel and would never violate company policy or look for ways to make money off of a suit against their employer.