I agree with what you said, but I wonder if cheap publicity stunts are really the way to go.
I vote based on issues, I think both major parties are filled with liars and fools, including their presidential candidates. But under NO circumstances would I vote for someone who engaged in this type of behavior, no matter their political leanings.
Currently, I'm planning to abstain from voting, using my vote as a form of protest. And yes, I think it's perfectly reasonanble to do so.
Or maybe it has do with the fact that reasonable people don't vote for candidates who engage in cheap publicity stunts. Save your 'serving papers" nonsense, the only reason the suit was filed in the first place was so that this idiotic little display could occur.
Breaking confidentiality is a firable offense in every office where there is client confidentiality. It has nothing to do with a handbook. If you worked in an industry of this type, you would understand how serious violating confidentiality is.
But you don't, and you don't, so you say stupid shit like that.
Client confidentiality. He installed an unapproved program, that potentially would have compromised security, and thereby client confidentiality.
"But SETI doesn't do that" you say. Doesn't matter, because it COULD and you CAN NOT fuck around with client confidentiality. Ever, under any circumstances, period.
All you people shouting about slander lawsuits, imagine the shitstorm if 100,000 client records got compromised by some dumbass installing a supposedly safe program. That's why he should have been fired.
The fact that you think it's reidiculous doesn't make it ridiculous. This guy worked at a government office that handles sensitive information. There are very serious consequences for violating confidientiality, for example in my state it's a $10000 fine for every offense. There were almost certainly records on this computer that could have been compromised. If this occurred at my facility (residential treatment center) firing is REQUIRED by company policy. No appeal, no "write ups" just get your crap and get out.
but you probably never bothered to think about the confidentiality issue. It's far bigger that just installing software.
Could I patent this process as a business model? Get some money, buy a few trivial patents, and sue anyone who tries to use anything vaguely resembling what I have patented.
When I was in college, I played volleyball when I wasn't in class. Yes I was on the school team, but after practice or in the off season, I played for recreation.
Now, there were days I would go to the beach, play from sun up till sun down, and go back and do it the next day. I would frequently blow off social engagements, simply because I made a choice about how to use my time.
I loved it. I could have played less, and probably done a bit more socializing, but I dated, had girlfriends and got laid plenty (it helps that I look like all the other beach volleyball players)
I also went to Europe 3 times on someone else's dime, traveled all over the country to other schools, and partied with their teams. I found a way to live life.
The point I guess is that if you had been an outsider, and you applied the same standard as these idiots, I would have been a candidate for treatment. Stupid people.
Also, addiction is no longer a term used by professionals, it is "abuse" and "dependence" . The fact that these people use the term when it doesn't apply speaks volume about their credibility.
Um, no. There are very clear distinctions between physiological and psychological dependence in the DSM. It would do well to read one if you plan to comment on such things.
The truth is treatment for substance abuse/dependence is being refined continuously, and there are very conscientious professionals who only wish to help people overcome problems which cripple their social function. Not everyone is interested in making a buck off of other people's misery.
My understanding is that cane sugar (why the capitals?) was more expensive to use, so replacing it with corn syrup simply made it available to more people at lower cost.
"Addiction" is not a term used in the DSM any more. It has been refined into "dependence" and "abuse" with dependence being the more serious of the two.
In actuality, dependence has simply replaced the term addiction (which was considered too negatively connotated) and if you were "addicted" to something, you would technically be dependent.
Emotion? I asked for specific policies outlined in a document. How is that emotional? It's emotional that I want to actually hear the CANDIDATE tell me what he would do? Ok, I guess I'll have to deal with being emotional then.
More importantly, you need to ask yourself why you are letting a candidate get away with saying nothing of substance about his policies. That's the purpose of a campaign, not to say feel good crap and make pie-in-the-sky promises. Both candidates have done a piss poor job, why are you allowing it? Why are you DEFENDING them?
And I stand by my statement, you continue to prove how stupid you are. Please, please don't vote. We'll all thank you.
Hey anonymous idiot, that was in reference to a pot about HOW IT USED TO BE 50 YEARS AGO. I understand why you post anonymously, it must be shameful to be so stupid.
Man, you're really stupid. Stop sticking up for Kerry's lack of clarity and poor choices. Lot's of other politicians discuss their views specifically. it's not unusual at all. You've made 3 attempts to justify why a link to a PDF with detailed information about Kerry's policies doesn't exist, and all 3 attempts were utter nonsense. I have a much better, and more honest, answer. He doesn't have any specific policies. Stop trying to convince people that there's a legitimate reason he hasn't made them public.
As far as doing research, I guarantee I know more about the issues and candidates than you do (especially after reading all of your moronic justifications). You want me to vote for you, YOU better fucking tell me why. Not your record, not some lackey, YOU.
if you're so stupid that you would vote for someone without detailed information from the candidate themselves, then maybe YOU should reconsider voting. The world would be a better place for it.
So what's wrong with "oil" companies making moneyoffof hydrogen? You don't have a good reason because none exists. SOMEONE has to do it, and the oil companies are in the best shape. You may not like oil companies because of your politics but when they make their money off of hydrogen, what will your objection be then? Hydrogen is a good technology, and you're lettng your stupid political views get in the way of reason.
Get your facts straight. Yes the main source of hydrogen is natural gas (not oil like you stated, a dead giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about) but there are many other viable sources that could and will be scaled up if necessary. Hydrogen producing algae, biomass, and electrolysis are 3 examples.
Steam-reformation accounts for around 80% of commercial hydrogen production. Oil is not a source of ANY commercial hydrogen. I think you may have been thinking about natural gas.
Why lie about something that can be checked easily?
The only reason that we get hydrogen from non-renewable resources now is that you have to develop feasible fuel cells before we worry about infrastructure. What, we should find a way to refine vast amounts of hydrogen when there's no place to use it? Yeah, that's genius...
By the way, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon (and eat crow if it crashes) because this is the magic bullet. Electricity and pure water, made from the most abundant element in the universe. Hmm we'd sure look like asses for buying into that one.
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's a really poor answer. You're trying to tell me that a link to a PDF with some detailed information is too much to place on a website? That's nonsense.
As far as whether it's to his advantage, there's no way in hell I'll vote for a candidate who hasn't clearly outlined his policies. It IS to his advantage because people like me exist, and we might vote for him if he has good ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with what you said, but I wonder if cheap publicity stunts are really the way to go.
I vote based on issues, I think both major parties are filled with liars and fools, including their presidential candidates. But under NO circumstances would I vote for someone who engaged in this type of behavior, no matter their political leanings.
Currently, I'm planning to abstain from voting, using my vote as a form of protest. And yes, I think it's perfectly reasonanble to do so.
Or maybe it has do with the fact that reasonable people don't vote for candidates who engage in cheap publicity stunts. Save your 'serving papers" nonsense, the only reason the suit was filed in the first place was so that this idiotic little display could occur.
I voted libertarian last time, but not this time.
Um, nice retort.
Breaking confidentiality is a firable offense in every office where there is client confidentiality. It has nothing to do with a handbook. If you worked in an industry of this type, you would understand how serious violating confidentiality is.
But you don't, and you don't, so you say stupid shit like that.
Client confidentiality. He installed an unapproved program, that potentially would have compromised security, and thereby client confidentiality.
"But SETI doesn't do that" you say. Doesn't matter, because it COULD and you CAN NOT fuck around with client confidentiality. Ever, under any circumstances, period.
All you people shouting about slander lawsuits, imagine the shitstorm if 100,000 client records got compromised by some dumbass installing a supposedly safe program. That's why he should have been fired.
It's not libel, if anything it would be slander.
That being said, it's not slander either. I agree, however, that the comments were unprofessional and unnecessary.
"He was terminated for using company resources without permission" would have been fine, but better just to refuse comment.
The fact that you think it's reidiculous doesn't make it ridiculous. This guy worked at a government office that handles sensitive information. There are very serious consequences for violating confidientiality, for example in my state it's a $10000 fine for every offense. There were almost certainly records on this computer that could have been compromised. If this occurred at my facility (residential treatment center) firing is REQUIRED by company policy. No appeal, no "write ups" just get your crap and get out.
but you probably never bothered to think about the confidentiality issue. It's far bigger that just installing software.
Could I patent this process as a business model? Get some money, buy a few trivial patents, and sue anyone who tries to use anything vaguely resembling what I have patented.
Oh, wait prior art, never mind.
When I was in college, I played volleyball when I wasn't in class. Yes I was on the school team, but after practice or in the off season, I played for recreation.
Now, there were days I would go to the beach, play from sun up till sun down, and go back and do it the next day. I would frequently blow off social engagements, simply because I made a choice about how to use my time.
I loved it. I could have played less, and probably done a bit more socializing, but I dated, had girlfriends and got laid plenty (it helps that I look like all the other beach volleyball players)
I also went to Europe 3 times on someone else's dime, traveled all over the country to other schools, and partied with their teams. I found a way to live life.
The point I guess is that if you had been an outsider, and you applied the same standard as these idiots, I would have been a candidate for treatment. Stupid people.
Also, addiction is no longer a term used by professionals, it is "abuse" and "dependence" . The fact that these people use the term when it doesn't apply speaks volume about their credibility.
Um, no. There are very clear distinctions between physiological and psychological dependence in the DSM. It would do well to read one if you plan to comment on such things.
The truth is treatment for substance abuse/dependence is being refined continuously, and there are very conscientious professionals who only wish to help people overcome problems which cripple their social function. Not everyone is interested in making a buck off of other people's misery.
My understanding is that cane sugar (why the capitals?) was more expensive to use, so replacing it with corn syrup simply made it available to more people at lower cost.
"Addiction" is not a term used in the DSM any more. It has been refined into "dependence" and "abuse" with dependence being the more serious of the two.
In actuality, dependence has simply replaced the term addiction (which was considered too negatively connotated) and if you were "addicted" to something, you would technically be dependent.
Emotion? I asked for specific policies outlined in a document. How is that emotional? It's emotional that I want to actually hear the CANDIDATE tell me what he would do? Ok, I guess I'll have to deal with being emotional then.
More importantly, you need to ask yourself why you are letting a candidate get away with saying nothing of substance about his policies. That's the purpose of a campaign, not to say feel good crap and make pie-in-the-sky promises. Both candidates have done a piss poor job, why are you allowing it? Why are you DEFENDING them?
And I stand by my statement, you continue to prove how stupid you are. Please, please don't vote. We'll all thank you.
Hey anonymous idiot, that was in reference to a pot about HOW IT USED TO BE 50 YEARS AGO. I understand why you post anonymously, it must be shameful to be so stupid.
Man, you're really stupid. Stop sticking up for Kerry's lack of clarity and poor choices. Lot's of other politicians discuss their views specifically. it's not unusual at all. You've made 3 attempts to justify why a link to a PDF with detailed information about Kerry's policies doesn't exist, and all 3 attempts were utter nonsense. I have a much better, and more honest, answer. He doesn't have any specific policies. Stop trying to convince people that there's a legitimate reason he hasn't made them public.
As far as doing research, I guarantee I know more about the issues and candidates than you do (especially after reading all of your moronic justifications). You want me to vote for you, YOU better fucking tell me why. Not your record, not some lackey, YOU.
if you're so stupid that you would vote for someone without detailed information from the candidate themselves, then maybe YOU should reconsider voting. The world would be a better place for it.
So what's wrong with "oil" companies making moneyoffof hydrogen? You don't have a good reason because none exists. SOMEONE has to do it, and the oil companies are in the best shape. You may not like oil companies because of your politics but when they make their money off of hydrogen, what will your objection be then? Hydrogen is a good technology, and you're lettng your stupid political views get in the way of reason.
Get your facts straight. Yes the main source of hydrogen is natural gas (not oil like you stated, a dead giveaway that you don't know what you're talking about) but there are many other viable sources that could and will be scaled up if necessary. Hydrogen producing algae, biomass, and electrolysis are 3 examples.
Yes, everything you said is true.
Now to the part you haven't bothered to learn about. Several types of algae exist in nature that produce hydrogen as a byproduct of photosynthesis.
In addition, hydrogen can also be produced using biomass.
Both are renewable, and don't rely on fossil fuels to make hydrogen.
No, you're wrong. Oil is not used for hydrogen, natural gas is. They are not the same.
There are types of algae that naturally emit hydrogen. Why bother with natural gas when you can just get the goods right away?
No it's not.
Steam-reformation accounts for around 80% of commercial hydrogen production. Oil is not a source of ANY commercial hydrogen. I think you may have been thinking about natural gas.
Why lie about something that can be checked easily?
and he beat you TO it TOO
One method of stabilizing it is to store it in palladium. Palladium absorbs vast amounts of hydrogen like a sponge.
The only reason that we get hydrogen from non-renewable resources now is that you have to develop feasible fuel cells before we worry about infrastructure. What, we should find a way to refine vast amounts of hydrogen when there's no place to use it? Yeah, that's genius...
By the way, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon (and eat crow if it crashes) because this is the magic bullet. Electricity and pure water, made from the most abundant element in the universe. Hmm we'd sure look like asses for buying into that one.
Um, I assume that was an attempt at an insult, but you need practice.
If I am a property owner, why would it be my mom's basement? How does that make sense?
Speaking of mom's, yours left her grundies at my house last night. Tell her to bring my money when she comes to get them.
Don't take this the wrong way, but that's a really poor answer. You're trying to tell me that a link to a PDF with some detailed information is too much to place on a website? That's nonsense.
As far as whether it's to his advantage, there's no way in hell I'll vote for a candidate who hasn't clearly outlined his policies. It IS to his advantage because people like me exist, and we might vote for him if he has good ideas.