US$5/US$50 (from the corner) has a single digit missing...and memorizing dead presidents heads doesn't sound like a fun task!
Most people in America probably couldn't tell you whose faces are on which bills, yet they have no problem distinguishing a "5" from a "50". I've seen all these comments about how American money is so confusing, and European money is so much better because you don't have to have basic number skills to use it, and yet most of the time all I hear on slashdot is how Americans are stupid. Apparently we are able to distinguish "5" from "50", and most Europeans aren't. Hmm, stupid Americans can tell "2" from "20" and "5" from "50" while Europeans have to have the "5" and "50" denomination bills be totally different sizes and eye-wrenching colors in order to be able to recognize the difference. Wow.
Doesn't having all green bills contribute to small scale fraud though? Like duping barmen with little slight of hand tricks? I know it sounds like something insignificant, but i'm sure it all adds up. Here in England things like this are impossible as all the notes are different colours.
Yes, I'm sure there are no scammers/confidence men in all of merry old England. Here's a free lesson in human nature: Make the money look like whatever you want, and people will still scam other people out of it, one way or the other. Were I a barman, I'd scrutinize the bills I got to whatever level satisfied me personally. Then, if I were to get taken by a scammer, I'd have no one to blame but myself. Somehow, in this land of all green money, I've managed to live and have several customer service jobs without ever once being scammed. Many others I know have similar experiences. I realize that anecdotal evidence is suspect, but unless someone wants to fund a research project, that's all I am going to give. If you are dumb enough to accept counterfeit money, you deserve to deal with the consequences. If the government can print money, so can someone else, no matter how sophisticated they make it. If humans can produce it, humans can reproduce it. The onus to prove the money real or counterfeit is on the person accepting it.
The much-stronger-than-the-US-dollar Sterling wishes to disagree.
Unfortunately, since it's inanimate, it can't. Also, it doesn't look cool. It may be stronger than Hulk Hogan; I don't know and I don't care. It still looks like an old lady with a large stick jammed somewhere unpleasant. Looks != performance.
I have to say, nothing says 'World Power' like having a guy named 'Banjo' on your money. Plus, all the portraits that appear on your bills have a common flaw. The subjects all appear to be suffering from extreme constipation. I guess the colors and stuff are okay...however, it must be hard on the slang users. It just sounds wussy saying "Yeah, I'm really clockin' that pink and purple slangin' them keys, boy" I have to say, I'd rather see green/black than tie-dyed any day. That's just me though, and my observations are based solely upon asthetics. I suppose it's cool to get not just money out of your wallet, but an explosion of riotous color, as well. It makes mundane things like buying nutella bright and cheery.
Slashdot makes a lot of revenue from Microsoft advertising. If you were Taco, would you ban posters critcal of Microsoft?
No. Nor is that comparable to what @stake did. Posters are not employees and Geer was not posting to an internet bulletin board. Ad revenue is not the same as 'largest customer of your product or service'. I would, as an employer, fire any employee who went on record insulting my biggest source of revenue. If I did not, I would expect my revenue to dry up, my business to go away, and *all* of my employees to be unemployed. Perhaps that wouldn't happen, and definitely it shouldn't, but as an employer I wouldn't take the chance. Fair? No. If you expect life to be fair, however, you've a disappointment coming.
Of course, you'll go on to say that all of the things that drove the firing didn't have anything to do with it.
No, I wouldn't. I'd explain to my employee that vilifying our biggest revenue source has caused him to become fired. I don't bullshit.
Hey, if certain other companies knew the real reasons they might not choose to do business with you in the future, right?
Which do you think is more likely: a large corporation would like my company if my employees were on record saying negative things about my customers
a large corporation would like my company if employees who published papers disparaging my customers were fired
If you're a bend-over bitch for a company like Microsoft, there are companies who might want a more impartial vendor and/or researcher who may not use you if they know you're going to vet everything through a billg-filter.
Yeah, right. I'm sure companies would much rather give money to companies that insult them. That's a good one! You're funny. I'm sure there are companies out there like that, but I guarantee you none of them have the resources of Microsoft.
Yes, I realize that the world would be a better place if anyone could insult anyone else with no repercussions. The world would also be a better place if ambrosia flowed like water and I never had to talk about my feelings to get laid, but that doesn't change the real world.
I agree with all of what you you said, but I have to point out that the analogy you chose was a bad one.
The winner of the World Poker Championship at Binion's Casino in Las Vegas for this year was a first time entrant named Chris Moneymaker. He credits his time spent on internet based gambling sites as the reason he won.
One person out of how many internet poker players? The OP insinuated that AA is training legions of killer kids. However, that isn't the case. My analogy is fine, because you've only pointed to one person, not a legion of poker champs. Also, just because internet poker apparently helped one person does not mean that it would help me.:)
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was communicating with one of those special people who are differently abled when it comes to making contextual inferences. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
I guess wanting words to have meanings which don't change every 2 seconds *is* different, here on slashdot. However, no matter how you wish to slice it up, no matter how much you insult me, no matter how you twist what I said, 'all' and 'a subset of all' are not, and will never be, the same thing. Sorry. About hurting my feelings: only people that have some sort of worth to me can hurt my feelings, and you've no need to ever worry about that. Just to state it again, you shouldn't use the word 'all' if you aren't referring to...wait for it...all of something.
by the fact that your tax dollars (if you live in the US) are going to create a game which simulates basic training? it's one thing if a private company wants to do it, but don't do it with my money! the basic training exercises were specifically designed to desensitize soldiers' human instinct not to kill people after studies post-WWII found that many soldiers never fired their weapons. it's one thing if a private company wants to do it, but i don't want to pay to train kids to kill. how long before we have another columbine-type scenario where the kids have learned team combat tactics from playing these kinds of games and are far more successful?
First of all: You're an idiot. Now that that is out of the way, allow me to explain why. This game cost less to develop than 1 super bowl commercial costs *to air*. Ever seen recruitment posters, recruitment ads, etc? Those cost far more than this game did. Basic training is designed to mold an individual into part of a unit, and to follow orders instantly and without question. If you don't want to pay to train kids to kill, stop supporting your local police department, because they DAMN sure get trained to kill. Don't expect to have an army to protect your country, because armies are trained to kill (although not desensitized to it, as you claim). Taking a tactical army game and attempting to state that it will train coordinated squads of killers is retarded. 'The Art of War' could teach them far more effective strategy. It's not very likely that any group of high schoolers is going to have access to the equipment that soldiers use, and which is used in the game. Lastly, paintball clubs are many, many times more effective for teaching tactical combat, since you're...actually fighting. Sitting behind a desk using a mouse is NOT going to turn nerds into Rambo. By your logic, playing poker on pogo.com should enable me to beat the casinos in vegas, right? I for one would much rather see the Army putting out games than moronic webcasts of idiot basic trainees...which ain't free either, bud.
That's not a point. That's pedantic hair-splitting. The poster was clearly (to everyone but you) referring to for-profit corporate entities. And as far as the personification of "the legal entity which is a corporation" goes, the Supreme Court is about 117 years ahead of you. See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
I suppose you'd call it 'pedantic hair-splitting' if he had said 'all women are blonde' and I said 'some women are blonde'. If the poster meant 'for profit corporate entities', then that's what should have been said. Words mean things, and 'all' means 'all'. The phrase 'all corporations' has NO business meaning 'only for-profit corporations'. Sorry, it's not hair-splitting, it's knowing the difference between 'some' and 'all'.
There's a difference between 'a group of people join together to form a legally recognized entity' and 'the entity itself possesses human traits and emotions'. Again, you may call it hair-splitting but to me it's a vast difference. Calling all corporations unethical (but not the people which make them up) is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous to say 'all people who make up corporations are unethical', yet remove the 'all people who make up' part and I'm supposed to accept it? Why? That makes no sense.
Perhaps. I think he's pointing out that it doesn't, though. Hard to argue with him, eh?
From his post, I believe it was unconscious bias showing. He saw being 'reduced to a common schoolteacher' as a negative, and stated it that way not to intentionally take a shot at schoolteachers, but because he really believes that a schoolteacher has less value than a 'professor' who does research and doesn't teach.
Could be the heat making blood and other chemicals fire quicker. However, I'm reminded of the short story `Flowers for Algernon`...
It's either funny or sad, but the first thing that came to my mind was the crayon removal episode of the simpsons. Yes, yes, I realize it paralleled Flowers for Algernon, yes I read FfA long before the simpsons ever started....but for better or worse, that show stuck out in my mind more than the beautifully written and heart-wrenching source material. Sorry for the OT post.
So what you're really saying is If Geer worked for me, and my biggest customer was IBM, and he told the truth, I'd fire him.
Nice.
I realize how someone of limited intelligence might come to that conclusion, however that was not at all what I was 'really saying'. Any employee of mine should feel free to speak only truth. I'd fire someone I caught lying. However, publishing a paper bashing your biggest source of revenue is NOT SMART. It wasn't the veracity of his comments that got him fired, it was at whom they were aimed. Should an employee of mine cause my customers to stop giving me revenue, with what would you propose I pay the rest of my employees? Righteous anger? Become self-employed if you don't wish to consider the consequences of your actions, or else you risk becoming unemployed.
Of course, in practice, these rules are bent, non-profit corporations exist, ethical considerations are considered essential to maximizing return, etc. But, I believe the poster is correct in stating that the LCD of corporations is making money. No other ethic can be universally applied.
No ethic can be universally applied. That was my point. If all corporations exist to make money, non-profit corporations would not exist. Yet they do. Therefore, not all corporations exist to make money; not all corporations exist for any single common reason. That was the point I was making. Also, the OP was guilty of personification, which is not applicable to the 'legal entity' which is a corporation. Had the OP stated that 'many corporations exist to make money' I would not have quibbled with that particular point, although I still reject the personification aspects of the OP. I realize it may seem like a tiny distinction, but it is not. It's the difference between 'some white people are racist' and 'all white people are racist'.
I suppose if you were hiring a security consultant, a prime concern would be how well he could blow smoke up your ass.
Corrected version: I suppose if you were hiring a consultant, a prime concern would be how well he could blow smoke up your ass.
People rarely want consultants to say anything other than what they were hired to say. I equate it to government/corporate funded surveys and studies: find what we're looking for or it's your ass.
Man gets fired for making 'false' claims that a company exploits its monopoly of the market, because his bosses dare not offend that company. Hmm.
I didn't read anyone from @stake saying his claims were false, merely that they did not reflect the official company stance. He got fired not for speaking truth, or even presenting his opinion; he got fired for possibly negatively impacting his company's bottom line.
An academic who says the wrong thing may not be out on the street touting for work, but with no research funding in an expensive subject like CS, he is reduced to a schoolteacher.
'Reduced' to a schoolteacher? A professor? NO! Why on Earth would anyone treat a professor like a schoolteacher? That would be shameful, because being a tenured leech that doesn't even teach anything is soooooooooooooooo much better than actually educating. Prick. My problem isn't as much with people who are getting paid to teach being little more than corporate R&D, although I find that distasteful. My problem is much more that people think 'professors' are so much better than schoolteachers. 'Reduced' to a schoolteacher, indeed. If our society gave more esteem to schoolteachers and less to ivory tower leeches, perhaps our public education system wouldn't be the giant shitpile it is.
Free speach is something that doesnt really exist in this country.
True. Luckily we still have free speech.
I cannot say anything bad about a person or business because it is slanderous.
Only if it's false.
I cannot write it because it is lible.
No, it's libel, and again, only if it's false.
I cannot speak my mind in my company because it is against the corporations ideals and I get fired.
Correction: You cannot speak your mind in an official capacity for your corporation *if* what you say is against the corporation's ideals (or best interests) or you'll be fired.
You will all say what the goverment / big corporations want you to say or you will be punished by them.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I am in the millitary, if I were to say that "G. Bush is a moron" I can go to jail.
Don't be an idiot. I work on an air force base and I hear that constantly. No one I work with is in jail. Either you're a troll or you're really dumb....either way, congratulations!
Considering that the avowed objective of any corporation is to make money, and no other purpose, they are by definition non-ethical.
Considering that you're making an assumption about all corporations, you are by definition not using logic. Please provide evidence first that 'corporations' (excluding the individuals that make them up) have *any* sort of aim. Then please provide evidence that every corporation in existence (including all employees) has no aim or goal other than 'making money' and has no legal or moral compunction when it comes to said sole aim. I won't hold my breath. Of course the 'virtual entity' isn't ethical, because it's virtual. However, the decisions aren't made by the 'virtual entity', they're made by people, who may or may not be ethical.
A corporation has no conscience, no morals, and should not be considered equal or superior to a human being, and be given equal rights.
Are you saying that people should give up their rights when they are employed by 'a corporation', but not when they are self-employed? How can you justify this? If Geer worked for me, and my biggest customer was IBM, and he wrote a paper that was highly critical of IBM, I'd fire him. Why shouldn't a corporation be allowed to do that too? He made a choice in putting his name to that report. I respected the choice he made, until I found out that he didn't expect any fallout from it. Initially I thought he was risking his job to speak his mind on purpose. Now it seems he had no clue there could be repercussions from his action, even though 9 other people had the prudence to know it.
I know everyone likes to jump on the 'corporations are evil' personification bandwagon, but people make up the corporations, they make the decisions, and in this case, it was a prudent business decision. It's not like they fired him cause he put up an 'I hate Microsoft' blog or something.
Did the templars and others who fought the Crusades long after they started fight for land and power?
My best guess is that most fought because they were soldiers, and were ordered to. I'm sure some of them were zealots, but the people in charge of starting and financing the war were not. Also, some racial hatred directed toward the Moors was a factor as well.
Are Islamic militants in Israel/Palestine NOT fighting because they are Islamic militants? Occurs to me they blow themselves to bits entirely because of their religion.
There are many causes for the fighting in Palestine, but religion is again used as a cover. If you research Islam, it is not a violent religion. Neither is Christianity. Any wars fought under the name of religion are a perversion of its message, and should not be confused with the religion itself. 'Turn the other cheek' is not a battlecry.
And whatever the root cause is (power grab, etc), isn't the fact that religion is used to get the consent of the populace indicative of religion's power to drive people to war?
No, I would say it's more indicative of people's ability to justify actions they wish to take using a framework larger than themselves, in order to make themselves appear less culpable. Religion has never started a war, leaders of countries start them. Again, it's no different to say 'I'm fighting a war sponsored by Greenpeace' than to say you're fighting a religious war. Justifications have never been and will never be actual causes.
Obviously, if everyone followed the "love thy neighbor" crap, the world would be a different place... (and yeah, 'crap' is indicative of my general state of mind;))
True. You've pointed out, to me, the biggest problem with the concept of a 'religious war'. The precepts of the religion directly contradict the actions of war. (at least in Christianity and Islam) Thus it appears clear to me that anyone who claims to be fighting a 'holy war' or 'religious war' is simply justifying their actions to themselves and others. It's like this: if conquistadores and inquisitors and templars had been truly devout, 'Thou shalt not kill' would have been more important than killing the Moors or grabbing a neighboring nation's land, resources, or people.
On a side note, I'd like to thank you for presenting clear, sensible discussion. I'm always pleasantly surprised to find such here. I hope your state of mind improves, because while there's a lot wrong with our world, there's a lot that just plain rocks, too.
But it wasn't unthinking. In answer to your question, which do I hate, wars or religion, I'd have to start with religion, because it causes more hatred and war than any other social interaction.
Not true. It's simply what's used as a cover often, to get the common masses to support/accept the war. They're almost all about acquiring land or property. The Crusades, the Inquisition, all were about acquiring power, influence, and land. They were *justified* in name by the use of religion, but the 'Christian' king who started the Crusades had been 'Christian' for a short time, for political gain, and did not act in accordance with Christian principles at all. Neither did the 'mother church' that sent off the conquistadores. Do some research into how the 'priests' in Spain lived just before and during the Inquisition. All I'm saying is: just because someone claims to be 'religious' or claims that they're annexing other countries in the name of 'God', doesn't mean that's what is really going on. It's fairly obvious from even small samples of research into the crusades and the inquisition that the people in charge did not act in accordance with their expressed beliefs. Thus, look beyond the shallow exterior and you will find that 'religious' wars are nothing more than power grabs (like any other war).
Re:Boycott RFID products
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
And probably get busted because they won't be quite as stupid as yourself...
Congratulations! You completely missed the point! Well done, sir. Well done. I was commenting on how silly simple tear-off tags would be, as they were suggested by the OP. You shur ar smart.
That would be nearly as fallacious as saying all politicians are corrupt regardless of their party affiliation.
Nearly as fallacious? What, so there's something more truthful than Gospel truth? Because politicians are inherently corrupt these days. Any person seeking a career in politics has become corrupt. Politician as we understand it today would have been a laughable concept when our government was created. Our founding fathers had day jobs, which they returned to when not serving the public. It was never meant to be a career path, merely something that civic-minded, responsible citizens did as a service. Anyone who approaches it as a career, as personal betterment, or as a way to improve their standing/station is already corrupt. So sorry, but there are few statesmen left.
On a side note, the OP did not say that all policemen have no integrity, merely that we don't expect all policemen to have it anymore. I would have to say, knowing things that have been done to myself and to others I know, that I would not assume a random police officer to have any regard for myself, my rights, my person, or my dignity. That statement does not mean that all police officers are bad, merely that at one time you could put your life into the hands of nearly any police officer without reservation, and these days it would be unthinkable by many people. Are you shocked, or even surprised, when a story of police corruption, police brutality, or police mistakes is broken? I'm always saddened, but rarely surprised. The OP did imply that most journalists had integrity, but a representative sampling of news stories from various sources on any given day should give the lie to that notion.
Slashdot Mirror
US$5/US$50 (from the corner) has a single digit missing...and memorizing dead presidents heads doesn't sound like a fun task!
Most people in America probably couldn't tell you whose faces are on which bills, yet they have no problem distinguishing a "5" from a "50". I've seen all these comments about how American money is so confusing, and European money is so much better because you don't have to have basic number skills to use it, and yet most of the time all I hear on slashdot is how Americans are stupid. Apparently we are able to distinguish "5" from "50", and most Europeans aren't. Hmm, stupid Americans can tell "2" from "20" and "5" from "50" while Europeans have to have the "5" and "50" denomination bills be totally different sizes and eye-wrenching colors in order to be able to recognize the difference. Wow.
Doesn't having all green bills contribute to small scale fraud though? Like duping barmen with little slight of hand tricks? I know it sounds like something insignificant, but i'm sure it all adds up. Here in England things like this are impossible as all the notes are different colours.
Yes, I'm sure there are no scammers/confidence men in all of merry old England. Here's a free lesson in human nature: Make the money look like whatever you want, and people will still scam other people out of it, one way or the other.
Were I a barman, I'd scrutinize the bills I got to whatever level satisfied me personally. Then, if I were to get taken by a scammer, I'd have no one to blame but myself. Somehow, in this land of all green money, I've managed to live and have several customer service jobs without ever once being scammed. Many others I know have similar experiences. I realize that anecdotal evidence is suspect, but unless someone wants to fund a research project, that's all I am going to give. If you are dumb enough to accept counterfeit money, you deserve to deal with the consequences. If the government can print money, so can someone else, no matter how sophisticated they make it. If humans can produce it, humans can reproduce it. The onus to prove the money real or counterfeit is on the person accepting it.
The much-stronger-than-the-US-dollar Sterling wishes to disagree.
Unfortunately, since it's inanimate, it can't. Also, it doesn't look cool. It may be stronger than Hulk Hogan; I don't know and I don't care. It still looks like an old lady with a large stick jammed somewhere unpleasant. Looks != performance.
And, they just look cool.
I have to say, nothing says 'World Power' like having a guy named 'Banjo' on your money. Plus, all the portraits that appear on your bills have a common flaw. The subjects all appear to be suffering from extreme constipation. I guess the colors and stuff are okay...however, it must be hard on the slang users. It just sounds wussy saying "Yeah, I'm really clockin' that pink and purple slangin' them keys, boy"
I have to say, I'd rather see green/black than tie-dyed any day. That's just me though, and my observations are based solely upon asthetics. I suppose it's cool to get not just money out of your wallet, but an explosion of riotous color, as well. It makes mundane things like buying nutella bright and cheery.
then you could connect it to "internet". (which is sort of like AOL but has more downloads)
I don't need to. I already got The Internet on my CPU. It's right under the Tra...er, Recycle Bin.
I agree that a "web based" search engine would be the best kind.
Once it's all built and such, you should add some of that 'html' to make it look better. I think web pages that use 'html' are the bestest.
Slashdot makes a lot of revenue from Microsoft advertising. If you were Taco, would you ban posters critcal of Microsoft?
No. Nor is that comparable to what @stake did. Posters are not employees and Geer was not posting to an internet bulletin board. Ad revenue is not the same as 'largest customer of your product or service'. I would, as an employer, fire any employee who went on record insulting my biggest source of revenue. If I did not, I would expect my revenue to dry up, my business to go away, and *all* of my employees to be unemployed. Perhaps that wouldn't happen, and definitely it shouldn't, but as an employer I wouldn't take the chance. Fair? No. If you expect life to be fair, however, you've a disappointment coming.
Of course, you'll go on to say that all of the things that drove the firing didn't have anything to do with it.
No, I wouldn't. I'd explain to my employee that vilifying our biggest revenue source has caused him to become fired. I don't bullshit.
Hey, if certain other companies knew the real reasons they might not choose to do business with you in the future, right?
Which do you think is more likely:
a large corporation would like my company if my employees were on record saying negative things about my customers
a large corporation would like my company if employees who published papers disparaging my customers were fired
If you're a bend-over bitch for a company like Microsoft, there are companies who might want a more impartial vendor and/or researcher who may not use you if they know you're going to vet everything through a billg-filter.
Yeah, right. I'm sure companies would much rather give money to companies that insult them. That's a good one! You're funny. I'm sure there are companies out there like that, but I guarantee you none of them have the resources of Microsoft.
Yes, I realize that the world would be a better place if anyone could insult anyone else with no repercussions. The world would also be a better place if ambrosia flowed like water and I never had to talk about my feelings to get laid, but that doesn't change the real world.
I agree with all of what you you said, but I have to point out that the analogy you chose was a bad one.
:)
The winner of the World Poker Championship at Binion's Casino in Las Vegas for this year was a first time entrant named Chris Moneymaker. He credits his time spent on internet based gambling sites as the reason he won.
One person out of how many internet poker players?
The OP insinuated that AA is training legions of killer kids. However, that isn't the case. My analogy is fine, because you've only pointed to one person, not a legion of poker champs. Also, just because internet poker apparently helped one person does not mean that it would help me.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was communicating with one of those special people who are differently abled when it comes to making contextual inferences. I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.
I guess wanting words to have meanings which don't change every 2 seconds *is* different, here on slashdot. However, no matter how you wish to slice it up, no matter how much you insult me, no matter how you twist what I said, 'all' and 'a subset of all' are not, and will never be, the same thing. Sorry. About hurting my feelings: only people that have some sort of worth to me can hurt my feelings, and you've no need to ever worry about that. Just to state it again, you shouldn't use the word 'all' if you aren't referring to...wait for it...all of something.
by the fact that your tax dollars (if you live in the US) are going to create a game which simulates basic training? it's one thing if a private company wants to do it, but don't do it with my money! the basic training exercises were specifically designed to desensitize soldiers' human instinct not to kill people after studies post-WWII found that many soldiers never fired their weapons. it's one thing if a private company wants to do it, but i don't want to pay to train kids to kill. how long before we have another columbine-type scenario where the kids have learned team combat tactics from playing these kinds of games and are far more successful?
First of all: You're an idiot. Now that that is out of the way, allow me to explain why. This game cost less to develop than 1 super bowl commercial costs *to air*. Ever seen recruitment posters, recruitment ads, etc? Those cost far more than this game did. Basic training is designed to mold an individual into part of a unit, and to follow orders instantly and without question. If you don't want to pay to train kids to kill, stop supporting your local police department, because they DAMN sure get trained to kill. Don't expect to have an army to protect your country, because armies are trained to kill (although not desensitized to it, as you claim). Taking a tactical army game and attempting to state that it will train coordinated squads of killers is retarded. 'The Art of War' could teach them far more effective strategy. It's not very likely that any group of high schoolers is going to have access to the equipment that soldiers use, and which is used in the game. Lastly, paintball clubs are many, many times more effective for teaching tactical combat, since you're...actually fighting. Sitting behind a desk using a mouse is NOT going to turn nerds into Rambo. By your logic, playing poker on pogo.com should enable me to beat the casinos in vegas, right? I for one would much rather see the Army putting out games than moronic webcasts of idiot basic trainees...which ain't free either, bud.
That's not a point. That's pedantic hair-splitting. The poster was clearly (to everyone but you) referring to for-profit corporate entities. And as far as the personification of "the legal entity which is a corporation" goes, the Supreme Court is about 117 years ahead of you. See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
I suppose you'd call it 'pedantic hair-splitting' if he had said 'all women are blonde' and I said 'some women are blonde'. If the poster meant 'for profit corporate entities', then that's what should have been said. Words mean things, and 'all' means 'all'. The phrase 'all corporations' has NO business meaning 'only for-profit corporations'. Sorry, it's not hair-splitting, it's knowing the difference between 'some' and 'all'.
There's a difference between 'a group of people join together to form a legally recognized entity' and 'the entity itself possesses human traits and emotions'. Again, you may call it hair-splitting but to me it's a vast difference. Calling all corporations unethical (but not the people which make them up) is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous to say 'all people who make up corporations are unethical', yet remove the 'all people who make up' part and I'm supposed to accept it? Why? That makes no sense.
Perhaps. I think he's pointing out that it doesn't, though. Hard to argue with him, eh?
From his post, I believe it was unconscious bias showing. He saw being 'reduced to a common schoolteacher' as a negative, and stated it that way not to intentionally take a shot at schoolteachers, but because he really believes that a schoolteacher has less value than a 'professor' who does research and doesn't teach.
Could be the heat making blood and other chemicals fire quicker. However, I'm reminded of the short story `Flowers for Algernon`...
It's either funny or sad, but the first thing that came to my mind was the crayon removal episode of the simpsons. Yes, yes, I realize it paralleled Flowers for Algernon, yes I read FfA long before the simpsons ever started....but for better or worse, that show stuck out in my mind more than the beautifully written and heart-wrenching source material. Sorry for the OT post.
So what you're really saying is If Geer worked for me, and my biggest customer was IBM, and he told the truth, I'd fire him.
Nice.
I realize how someone of limited intelligence might come to that conclusion, however that was not at all what I was 'really saying'. Any employee of mine should feel free to speak only truth. I'd fire someone I caught lying. However, publishing a paper bashing your biggest source of revenue is NOT SMART. It wasn't the veracity of his comments that got him fired, it was at whom they were aimed. Should an employee of mine cause my customers to stop giving me revenue, with what would you propose I pay the rest of my employees? Righteous anger? Become self-employed if you don't wish to consider the consequences of your actions, or else you risk becoming unemployed.
Of course, in practice, these rules are bent, non-profit corporations exist, ethical considerations are considered essential to maximizing return, etc. But, I believe the poster is correct in stating that the LCD of corporations is making money. No other ethic can be universally applied.
No ethic can be universally applied. That was my point. If all corporations exist to make money, non-profit corporations would not exist. Yet they do. Therefore, not all corporations exist to make money; not all corporations exist for any single common reason.
That was the point I was making. Also, the OP was guilty of personification, which is not applicable to the 'legal entity' which is a corporation.
Had the OP stated that 'many corporations exist to make money' I would not have quibbled with that particular point, although I still reject the personification aspects of the OP. I realize it may seem like a tiny distinction, but it is not. It's the difference between 'some white people are racist' and 'all white people are racist'.
I suppose if you were hiring a security consultant, a prime concern would be how well he could blow smoke up your ass.
Corrected version:
I suppose if you were hiring a consultant, a prime concern would be how well he could blow smoke up your ass.
People rarely want consultants to say anything other than what they were hired to say.
I equate it to government/corporate funded surveys and studies: find what we're looking for or it's your ass.
Man gets fired for making 'false' claims that a company exploits its monopoly of the market, because his bosses dare not offend that company. Hmm.
I didn't read anyone from @stake saying his claims were false, merely that they did not reflect the official company stance. He got fired not for speaking truth, or even presenting his opinion; he got fired for possibly negatively impacting his company's bottom line.
An academic who says the wrong thing may not be out on the street touting for work, but with no research funding in an expensive subject like CS, he is reduced to a schoolteacher.
'Reduced' to a schoolteacher? A professor? NO!
Why on Earth would anyone treat a professor like a schoolteacher? That would be shameful, because being a tenured leech that doesn't even teach anything is soooooooooooooooo much better than actually educating. Prick. My problem isn't as much with people who are getting paid to teach being little more than corporate R&D, although I find that distasteful. My problem is much more that people think 'professors' are so much better than schoolteachers. 'Reduced' to a schoolteacher, indeed. If our society gave more esteem to schoolteachers and less to ivory tower leeches, perhaps our public education system wouldn't be the giant shitpile it is.
Free speach is something that doesnt really exist in this country.
True. Luckily we still have free speech.
I cannot say anything bad about a person or business because it is slanderous.
Only if it's false.
I cannot write it because it is lible.
No, it's libel, and again, only if it's false.
I cannot speak my mind in my company because it is against the corporations ideals and I get fired.
Correction: You cannot speak your mind in an official capacity for your corporation *if* what you say is against the corporation's ideals (or best interests) or you'll be fired.
You will all say what the goverment / big corporations want you to say or you will be punished by them.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I am in the millitary, if I were to say that "G. Bush is a moron" I can go to jail.
Don't be an idiot. I work on an air force base and I hear that constantly. No one I work with is in jail.
Either you're a troll or you're really dumb....either way, congratulations!
Considering that the avowed objective of any corporation is to make money, and no other purpose, they are by definition non-ethical.
Considering that you're making an assumption about all corporations, you are by definition not using logic. Please provide evidence first that 'corporations' (excluding the individuals that make them up) have *any* sort of aim. Then please provide evidence that every corporation in existence (including all employees) has no aim or goal other than 'making money' and has no legal or moral compunction when it comes to said sole aim. I won't hold my breath. Of course the 'virtual entity' isn't ethical, because it's virtual. However, the decisions aren't made by the 'virtual entity', they're made by people, who may or may not be ethical.
A corporation has no conscience, no morals, and should not be considered equal or superior to a human being, and be given equal rights.
Are you saying that people should give up their rights when they are employed by 'a corporation', but not when they are self-employed? How can you justify this? If Geer worked for me, and my biggest customer was IBM, and he wrote a paper that was highly critical of IBM, I'd fire him. Why shouldn't a corporation be allowed to do that too? He made a choice in putting his name to that report. I respected the choice he made, until I found out that he didn't expect any fallout from it. Initially I thought he was risking his job to speak his mind on purpose. Now it seems he had no clue there could be repercussions from his action, even though 9 other people had the prudence to know it.
I know everyone likes to jump on the 'corporations are evil' personification bandwagon, but people make up the corporations, they make the decisions, and in this case, it was a prudent business decision. It's not like they fired him cause he put up an 'I hate Microsoft' blog or something.
Did the templars and others who fought the Crusades long after they started fight for land and power?
;))
My best guess is that most fought because they were soldiers, and were ordered to. I'm sure some of them were zealots, but the people in charge of starting and financing the war were not. Also, some racial hatred directed toward the Moors was a factor as well.
Are Islamic militants in Israel/Palestine NOT fighting because they are Islamic militants? Occurs to me they blow themselves to bits entirely because of their religion.
There are many causes for the fighting in Palestine, but religion is again used as a cover. If you research Islam, it is not a violent religion. Neither is Christianity. Any wars fought under the name of religion are a perversion of its message, and should not be confused with the religion itself. 'Turn the other cheek' is not a battlecry.
And whatever the root cause is (power grab, etc), isn't the fact that religion is used to get the consent of the populace indicative of religion's power to drive people to war?
No, I would say it's more indicative of people's ability to justify actions they wish to take using a framework larger than themselves, in order to make themselves appear less culpable.
Religion has never started a war, leaders of countries start them. Again, it's no different to say 'I'm fighting a war sponsored by Greenpeace' than to say you're fighting a religious war. Justifications have never been and will never be actual causes.
Obviously, if everyone followed the "love thy neighbor" crap, the world would be a different place... (and yeah, 'crap' is indicative of my general state of mind
True. You've pointed out, to me, the biggest problem with the concept of a 'religious war'. The precepts of the religion directly contradict the actions of war. (at least in Christianity and Islam) Thus it appears clear to me that anyone who claims to be fighting a 'holy war' or 'religious war' is simply justifying their actions to themselves and others. It's like this: if conquistadores and inquisitors and templars had been truly devout, 'Thou shalt not kill' would have been more important than killing the Moors or grabbing a neighboring nation's land, resources, or people.
On a side note, I'd like to thank you for presenting clear, sensible discussion. I'm always pleasantly surprised to find such here. I hope your state of mind improves, because while there's a lot wrong with our world, there's a lot that just plain rocks, too.
But it wasn't unthinking. In answer to your question, which do I hate, wars or religion, I'd have to start with religion, because it causes more hatred and war than any other social interaction.
Not true. It's simply what's used as a cover often, to get the common masses to support/accept the war. They're almost all about acquiring land or property. The Crusades, the Inquisition, all were about acquiring power, influence, and land. They were *justified* in name by the use of religion, but the 'Christian' king who started the Crusades had been 'Christian' for a short time, for political gain, and did not act in accordance with Christian principles at all. Neither did the 'mother church' that sent off the conquistadores. Do some research into how the 'priests' in Spain lived just before and during the Inquisition. All I'm saying is: just because someone claims to be 'religious' or claims that they're annexing other countries in the name of 'God', doesn't mean that's what is really going on. It's fairly obvious from even small samples of research into the crusades and the inquisition that the people in charge did not act in accordance with their expressed beliefs. Thus, look beyond the shallow exterior and you will find that 'religious' wars are nothing more than power grabs (like any other war).
And probably get busted because they won't be quite as stupid as yourself...
Congratulations! You completely missed the point! Well done, sir. Well done. I was commenting on how silly simple tear-off tags would be, as they were suggested by the OP. You shur ar smart.
That would be nearly as fallacious as saying all politicians are corrupt regardless of their party affiliation.
Nearly as fallacious? What, so there's something more truthful than Gospel truth? Because politicians are inherently corrupt these days. Any person seeking a career in politics has become corrupt. Politician as we understand it today would have been a laughable concept when our government was created. Our founding fathers had day jobs, which they returned to when not serving the public. It was never meant to be a career path, merely something that civic-minded, responsible citizens did as a service. Anyone who approaches it as a career, as personal betterment, or as a way to improve their standing/station is already corrupt. So sorry, but there are few statesmen left.
On a side note, the OP did not say that all policemen have no integrity, merely that we don't expect all policemen to have it anymore. I would have to say, knowing things that have been done to myself and to others I know, that I would not assume a random police officer to have any regard for myself, my rights, my person, or my dignity. That statement does not mean that all police officers are bad, merely that at one time you could put your life into the hands of nearly any police officer without reservation, and these days it would be unthinkable by many people. Are you shocked, or even surprised, when a story of police corruption, police brutality, or police mistakes is broken? I'm always saddened, but rarely surprised. The OP did imply that most journalists had integrity, but a representative sampling of news stories from various sources on any given day should give the lie to that notion.