Well, that, and the uneasy thought that some level of covert surveillance might actually be necessary, in some cases, to prevent things like 9/11.
I for one don't know exactly how much surveillance is enough to give the best tradeoff of (a) risk of mass murder by terrorist, vs. (b) risk of American becoming a full-blown dictatorship,
I suspect the NSA is over-reaching, and I definitely consider them to be violating the intent of the Constitution. But I don't know by how much, and most of my fellow citizens seem generally okay with the current balance, so what I believe doesn't apparently matter much anyway.
I certainly wouldn't take a job that would force me to flee to another country for asylum if my conscience makes me become a whistle blower.
I imagine you would if it was the only way to pay for your spouses' cancer treatments.
There are a lot of jobs we're rather not take. But sometimes we're forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. Being responsible for other people can be a heavy burden.
Strawman. I argued that the laws and their enforcement should be in sync. Repealing any laws we're not willing to enforce is an option as well, and far cheaper (and less draconian.)
As a former government software developer, I can honestly say that it's just not a worthwhile place to work, hiring caps or not.
Well, let me correct that. If you're willing to have that be the last place you work in your career, and you're willing to find job satisfaction outside of work, and you can handle both the intense frustration of being prevented from doing your job properly, with being badmouthed by politicians for not doing your job properly, then it can actually be an okay place to work.
A more interesting question is why many of the major beltway tech companies one would expect to find attached to a huge government tech project aren't present. My suspicion is that when they saw the specs (or maybe the lack or vagueness of them) and the due date, they declined to participate.
A more interesting question is, how does light manage to act like both a wave and a particle!
Having worked for the government in the past, I can only assume it's a combination of Ada, and a proprietary language written by an intern at IBM in the 1980's, and Welsh.
I really didn't feel like trying to work through the HHS org chart and telephone directory to find the name of the project manager and contracting officer in charge of the project. So I wrote, "Obama" as a symbol of the Executive branch, instead. But please, feel free to post someone more specific if you like.
Illegal == undocumented in the context of this discussion. No one engaged in this discussion is interested in deporting someone who lost his social security card.
A few points. First, I don't consider our right to control who enters our borders to be tyrannical. (I do agree that there are cases where enforcing the law is immoral, as with the examples you gave.)
I'd also be more accepting of having unenforced laws on the books if it was for very brief periods. But instead what we seem to end up with is a legal code that monotonically grows. I see that as incompatible with the doctrine that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Our legal code is so large now that we basically have ex post facto laws: the government can always find something to arrest anyone for, if they really care to. To me this is a great evil.
It's not a slur for me. I honestly couldn't care less what race/ethnicity someone in this country is. Here's what anger me about illegal immigration:
We have laws on the books, but the President won't enforce them. This is a basic breakdown in democracy. Either enforce a law, or repeal it. To have extensive laws on the books that are enforced at the whim of a government official is an invitation for tyranny.
Illegal immigrants jump ahead of all would-be legal immigrants who are waiting for visas. They basically screw over law-abiding people.
What do you say to an honest construction company owner, who loses jobs because someone who pays illegal immigrants under the table is able to under-bid him?
Is it just that the handful of victims of violent crimes by illegal immigrants were attacked? After all, those perpetrators weren't supposed to be here in the first place.
My state university now allows illegal immigrants to get in-state tuition, but legally present citizens from neighboring states cannot. Basically, following the law is for suckers, apparently. How is this just?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say the states which "federalized" the power were those that fought for the Union during the Civil War.
Say what you will about slavery, etc., but the Confederate states were the ones which fought overreaching Federal power.
Perhaps if you count the NSA's continual, ubiquitous surveillance to be just one wiretap.
Well, that, and the uneasy thought that some level of covert surveillance might actually be necessary, in some cases, to prevent things like 9/11.
I for one don't know exactly how much surveillance is enough to give the best tradeoff of (a) risk of mass murder by terrorist, vs. (b) risk of American becoming a full-blown dictatorship,
I suspect the NSA is over-reaching, and I definitely consider them to be violating the intent of the Constitution. But I don't know by how much, and most of my fellow citizens seem generally okay with the current balance, so what I believe doesn't apparently matter much anyway.
Activist citizens using Europe's consumer data protection laws attacking the NSA and Facebook in one fell swoop?
I just feel so giddy.
Hey, if I own anything in a thousand years, I'm doing alright!
I've found that having a wife and kids to support made it difficult to forgo the better-paying jobs. YMMV, obviously.
s/Cential/Centenial
You're thinking of "centenarian". A Cential would be someone born in the year 100. So, about 1,913 years old.
Way older than a Millenial!
I certainly wouldn't take a job that would force me to flee to another country for asylum if my conscience makes me become a whistle blower.
I imagine you would if it was the only way to pay for your spouses' cancer treatments.
There are a lot of jobs we're rather not take. But sometimes we're forced to chose between the lesser of two evils. Being responsible for other people can be a heavy burden.
Wow, best reverse-porn ever. How much would you pay to not see that?
Well, if you want to get to the heart of it, pissing off young male Muslims seems to cover your data points as well.
But us being involved in the Middle East seems to cover America's slice of that broader issue.
We sure pay a heavy price for our politicians' love of meddling in the Middle East.
Strawman. I argued that the laws and their enforcement should be in sync. Repealing any laws we're not willing to enforce is an option as well, and far cheaper (and less draconian.)
As a former government software developer, I can honestly say that it's just not a worthwhile place to work, hiring caps or not.
Well, let me correct that. If you're willing to have that be the last place you work in your career, and you're willing to find job satisfaction outside of work, and you can handle both the intense frustration of being prevented from doing your job properly, with being badmouthed by politicians for not doing your job properly, then it can actually be an okay place to work.
This statement may be an oversimplification, but "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later". The application in this case would be, why didn't they have enough workers on the project to begin with?
A more interesting question is why many of the major beltway tech companies one would expect to find attached to a huge government tech project aren't present. My suspicion is that when they saw the specs (or maybe the lack or vagueness of them) and the due date, they declined to participate.
A more interesting question is, how does light manage to act like both a wave and a particle!
Serious question here: So are they subject to DMCA takedown notices?
Which platform did they use to implement this ?
Having worked for the government in the past, I can only assume it's a combination of Ada, and a proprietary language written by an intern at IBM in the 1980's, and Welsh.
I really didn't feel like trying to work through the HHS org chart and telephone directory to find the name of the project manager and contracting officer in charge of the project. So I wrote, "Obama" as a symbol of the Executive branch, instead. But please, feel free to post someone more specific if you like.
Yes, I wept bitter tears after seeing that I'd posted that typo.
Part of me wants to send Obama a copy of, "The Mythical Man-Month". Another part of me wants to just sit back and watch.
Saying your $FOO doesn't mean you're really a $FOO as described by $FOO.SACRED_WRITINGS.
Actually, I'm sure there are some who are; I was using hyperbole when I said "No one". But I haven't come across anyone like that, personally.
Illegal == undocumented in the context of this discussion. No one engaged in this discussion is interested in deporting someone who lost his social security card.
A few points. First, I don't consider our right to control who enters our borders to be tyrannical. (I do agree that there are cases where enforcing the law is immoral, as with the examples you gave.)
I'd also be more accepting of having unenforced laws on the books if it was for very brief periods. But instead what we seem to end up with is a legal code that monotonically grows. I see that as incompatible with the doctrine that "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Our legal code is so large now that we basically have ex post facto laws: the government can always find something to arrest anyone for, if they really care to. To me this is a great evil.
It's not a slur for me. I honestly couldn't care less what race/ethnicity someone in this country is. Here's what anger me about illegal immigration: