Perhaps not, but the US government would probably punish the American for hacking UK computers anyway.
Besides, you all seem to be forgetting that the individual was convicted of a crime. "Boo-hoo" if some tough words made the convict soil his pants -- maybe he should have thought about that before he hacked the computers.
Yeah, sure. I guess the past 6 years of "George Bush Sucks" and "Bush is an idiot" is somehow exempt from the categorization of "oh-so-terrible negative campaigning" right?
Get a clue. They're ALL politicians and they'll ALL do whatever they can to win. Your perceived "moral superiority" is just that -- perceived. With only minor exceptions, they're ALL (Republican and Democratic) worthless.
That may be what YOU do, but that doesn't jive with real life. Addition or increase of a tax shifts the supply curve, resulting in a new ideal price point.
Sure, they may sell a lower quantity of jeans, but their profit is still maximized as they're selling them at the intersection of the supply and demand curves, which is going to be at a higher price.
To be fair Walmart may eat a BIT of the tax as the supply curve will not necessarily shift the full amount of the tax increase, but by and large, the consumer is paying it, not to mentional all the other embedded taxes inherent in our current tax system -- these same embedded taxes that make our products and services less competitive.
Walmart as a corporation, just like every other large and small business in the US, simply passes on corporate taxes to the consumers in the price that is charged for a good or service. So the people that constantly whine about how the "big evil" corporations need to pay more in taxes are really just increasing their own taxes indirectly.
And what tax reform are you talking about? The government graciously allowing me to keep more of the money that's mine in the first place isn't any sort of reform nor do I think that adding 5000 pages to the already insanely voluminous tax code is reform in any sense of the word. Real reform means getting rid of the IRS and the income tax in its entirety and replacing it with a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay in taxes. It's that simple. Read the http://fairtax.org/ book -- it's a quite fair solution to the problem of why America and American goods and services aren't competitive in the global market as well as a fair solution to the whole sense-of-entitlement, socialist-welath-redistribution, class warfare and "eat-the-rich" problem that we also have in this country.
I agree with the concept of a free market. The only problem is that there nothing free in our market. The US is kept at a significant disadvantage by our draconian tax system that punishes achievement.
Although it's only one part of the solution, revamping our tax system to make the US competitive in the global marketplace would go a LONG way in solving this problem. And the best way to go about revamping our tax system is the http://fairtax.org/
Another part of the solution would be to find a way to compel other countries to compete fairly and on the same playing field, i.e. removal of the "Japanese Inspection" of American products at their ports and customs stations. If not, perhaps we as Amerians should consider imposing the same anti-competitive tariffs and procedures on THEIR products as they impose on ours.
So the long and short of it is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are both full of it -- their only interest is to maintain their political power by keeping the current idiotic tax system in place whereby they can manipulate public opinion, pander to their particular voting blocs and stay in office. Moving to the Fair Tax would effectively put control of how much tax we as consumers pay in taxes back into our own hands, as well as make American products competitive again, both domestically and abroad, by elimination of the embedded taxes in ALL of our products and services.
Of course, if being honor students, gifted muscicians, eagle scouts, and a 4 of the damn nicest people I've ever had the joy of knowing is "messed up" I'm also damn glad I don't take this view.
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
First of all, we're not talking about a public library -- we're talking about software that, although it MAY be found in a public library, it's also found on millions of privately-owned PCs.
In addition, the 2nd Amendment, firearms, et.al. aren't pornography. If you're going to block a pro-gun site, then it only stands to reason that the anti-gun sites should be blocked as well. If merely MENTIONING a firearm bothers you, then BOTH sides should be blocked as they both mention them.
IMO, this is just one more attack on the Constitution of the United States. I'm just curious about how many of those that can so easily attack the rights of others to keep and bear arms would willingly give up their first amendment right to speak their mind.
The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that the REST of the amendments are safe from attack by a tyrannical government. If the 2nd andmendment falls, the rest surely will not stand.
Symantec (or the anti-gunners within the company) is/are doing it's/their part to ensure the fall of the great representative republic known as the United States of America.
From this point forward, consider my Windoze boxes Symantec-FREE zones. I'll vote with my wallet on this issue.
In the Real World watching pornography is unacceptable. Period. This is one of the most basic and widely accepted social norms.
The line between pornography and advertising/marketing is very thin indeed these days. We're subjected to it daily (unless you don't watch TV, block banner ads, don't listen to the radio, and ignore all the 20-somethings and teen girls running around with most of their body exposed to plain view.) Notwithstanding, the point being that it's most likely acceptable to view porn at work if your WORK is porn -- more humor than anything else, and not really essential to the conversation, but a valid point, IMO.
Are you kidding me? Not socialist? And what do you think the "-zi" in Nazi stands for if not sozialistische?
* From your favorite search engine: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:fascism
FASCISM: Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction. (p. 870)
(occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stea rns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_F.html)
SOCIALISM: a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole
(www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html)
* from http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three.
* and from http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=398421 (looks like the source of your translation)
Totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of Germany's Nazi Party (1920-45). Its roots lay in the tradition of Prussian militarism and discipline and German Romanticism, which celebrated a mythic past and proclaimed the rights of the exceptional individual over all rules and laws. Its ideology was shaped by Hitler's beliefs in German racial superiority and the dangers of communism. It rejected liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, stressing instead the subordination of the individual to the state and the necessity of strict obedience to leaders. It emphasized the inequality of individuals and "races" and the right of the strong to rule the weak. Politically, National Socialism favoured rearmament, reunification of the German areas of Europe, expansion into non-German areas, and the purging of "undesirables"... See also fascism.
If it walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist, it must be a fascist. The term "socialist" in the party name is, in this case, of little significace in defining the type of governmental system.
Holocaust unfortunatelly passed away this year so I am a little bit sensitive to jokes about Anti-Semitism.
Might I remind you that YOU are the one that threw out the "Nazi" et. al. in the first place. Now you accuse me of anti-semitism when I said NOTHING regarding this, other than to correct you when you mislabeled a particular form of government? I find your debate practices reprehensible at best, and your anti-semitism-baiting offensive. What kind of PC nonsense is this? Reminds me of the "some of my best friends are..." kind of crap. Is this some sort of knee-jerk reaction from too much exposure to political correctness, are you doing this to intentionally throw tangents into the debate, or are you just plain silly?
Perhaps you may understand more easily if it put it into politically correct terms: I certainly have no love for Nazi Germany, either -- I had RELATIVES that were SLAUGHTERED by the Nazi war machine.
I'm glad I finally convinced you about that. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Although you may have missed it, I did mention something at the start of this exchange to the effect of viewing porn during work hours being generally unacceptable, unless you're in the porn industry, or something similar. No convincing was necessary as that has been my position from the start. My differece of opinion with you was how you define porn, i.e. an image not indexed on google.
I only mentioned The Third Reich as it is the most well known socialist state in the history of human kind, as well as the most abused analogy in the kind of arguments like the one you introduced.
Actually, it was a fascist, not socialist, form of government. There's a significant difference between the two, although it's not always readily apparent.
I'm sure there is. There are things much more important than money. The point is that you need lots of money to buy them.
I am firmly of the belief that NOT ALL things can be purchased -- some must be EARNED, and no amount of money can be substituted. I don't want to get into some deep philosophical debate on this issue, but I do want you to see my point.
But the question is: do you have plenty of money right now, and don't want any more?
Of course I want to make as much as possible. What capitalist would NOT want that? The issue isn't the desire for disposable income, but what actions I'm willing to undertake for that disposable income. If I have to compromise my principles, then I'd just a soon not have the job. I can't enjoy money that I earned unethically nor through the compromise of my principles and beliefs. If that makes me "dumb" in the eyes of some, then so be it, but I don't believe in the concept of "going along to get along."
We don't pay our employees to negotiate. We pay them to work while giving them enough money that they don't want to walk away, if they make more money for the company than the money we pay them (plus the minimal insurance we have to pay for those whose status hasn't been changed to contractors yet). They don't walk away and not just because they'd be sued into oblivion if they did, but because they actually want to work here, contrary to what you might think.
You are correct in saying that you don't pay them to negotiate -- that comes BEFORE the contract. Perhaps I should have better-qualified the term "walk away" -- I was referring to walking away from the negotiating table -- knowing when to walk (or run, as the case may be) away from a situation is a crucial survival instinct that's somehow been lost in most people, IMO. Dancing dollar signs somehow blur the vision.
Well, now I'm cofused. I thought you've said that "[t]hese days clearances are given away like promotional items at a trade show,"
And I stand by that -- note that I said something to the effect of "when I went through the process," indicating that it was some time ago. Procedures certainly have become lax in this regard.
I haven't said anything like that. I don't know what do you mean and frankly I'm not sure if I even want to know that...
I know you didn't say it -- that's why I qualified it with "before you say it" and only meant to illustrate the concept that treating people properly IS NOT kowtowing to every bleat and whine of a prissy and demanding person (a.k.a. "kissing their a**"). Treating anyone with the respect due the position or just being civil to people, regardless of their altitude (or lack thereof) on the ladder, whether you like them or not, is the point that I was trying to make. A friendly, professional atmosphere with reasonable requirements is all that I ask of any situation. It's also something that I believe that every employee should expect. It does, however, work both ways -- employers should expect their employee
No, becaue of the lack of sick deviant nature of eating, as opposed to the very act of masturbating. (But it's a good strawman argument -- nice try.)
No, I believe it's a legitimate argument, the whole point of which was to illustrate that just because YOU think something is in poor taste doesn't necessarily mean that it is. I will agree with you that viewing porn during work hours is unacceptable behavior. I'll also agree that the "golden rule" applies ("He who has the gold makes the rules.") Where we disagree is whether or not an unindexed image constitutes porn and whether threatening employees is acceptable behavior. If you could overcome your dictatorial tunnel-vision for long enough to actually read my posts, you might understand that. The title of the original reply "Don't you think perverts might find that offensive" was sarcasm alluding to the political correctness scattered throughout your post.
And when did I mention masturbating, you sicko? Do you really need to drag that into the discussion, pervo?:-)
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least?
As long as the acceptable use policy allows it, I don't consider it incorrect in any way. Besides, based upon your previous statements regarding your policy, if you're replying to this from your work, you're violating them by doing so.
Are you kidding? Do you really think that I allow them to do anything with our equipment which is not work related? Maybe I should also allow them to run DDoS attacks while we're at it?
No, I'm not kidding. Apparently the rules don't apply to you, though, unless you're replying to me from your home.
Oh, please, for the love of god... You just lost a perfectly valid argument in the very second you introduced socialism to the discussion. You may compare anything to Hitler and Nazi Germany but the argument is completely lost.
Grow up, will you? The only person mentioning The Third Reich is YOU. Stop trying to throw distractions into the discussion. If you'd actually debate instead of arguing childishly, you'd see that I was actually agreeing with you on certain points and trying to deflect what I knew would be your childish comeback of calling me a "socialist."
Yes, I do own them, if you ask me. I pay for them and they have to do anything what I command them to do, just like my tv or microwave oven.
You just lost your point here -- you leapt from what was legal to your opinion. Unfortunately, you don't own them. They may be contractually obligated to perform certain duties for payment, however those duties do have boundaries and generally are defined prior to entering the relationship. They are not your microwave or TV, nor will they ever be your property.
Was this meant to be a poor joke? Well, excuse my "problem recognizing sarcasm" then. I was talking about our internal clearance procedures, not about some lame papers which are equally important to me as MSCE.
No, it wasn't a joke. I consider the security of the United States be infinitely more important that that of your little dictatorial fiefdom. If you want to refer to your internal clearances, then STATE as much, but somehow I seriously doubt that they're anywhere NEAR as rigorous -- probably a credit check and a quick criminal records check with the state police. I'm not impressed. Oh my god... If you are indeed keeping your resume secret for people who want to take advantage of you, then enjoy the unemployment status because as much as I hate to break it to you, all of employers employs employees in one and only one purpose: to take advantage of them. If you think otherwise, you clearly must be insane.
No, you're incorrect again. First, I don't make it
Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?
Oh, and if someone likes strawberry ice cream with crushed Oreos on top and you find the taste disgusting, then I guess that would qualify them to be a pervert?
'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least? They get what they are asking for if you ask me.
You pay them to eat lunch, too? As long as your acceptable use policy allows personal use during lunch hours (checking mail, etc.) or at other times, then I'm still of the opinion that threatening someone and their employment and labeling them a "pervert" simply for viewing an image that is assumed to be pr0n simply because it isn't indexed on google is over the top, and may be grounds for legal action against you.
Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.
True, but I'm guessing nobody ever told them they'd be abused and threatened, either. I'm certainly NOT an advocate of socialism -- I believe that you need to put in a day's work for a day's pay. But it works both ways -- you need to have some respect for your employees, too. Contrary to what you apparently believe, you don't OWN them. It's people with attitudes like yours, IMO, that drive a lot of people to what seems to be an ever-increasing socialist "you owe me" mentality against business owners/bosses, etc.
Somehow I highly doubt you'd get the required security clearance.
BTDT -- TS/SCI, and at at time when they actually CARED about it. These days clearances are given away like promotional items at a trade show, IMO.
Do you have a resume published on the web somewhere? I could see what I can do. (Especially if hiring you is good for me, if you follow my drift.)
You obviously have a problem recognizing sarcasm. And yes, I do have my resume published, but not for people who want to take advantage of me.
As much as I agree that the workplace generally isn't the time and place for pr0n (unless that's your work, of course) -- don't you think that someone might find your repeated use of "sick perverts" offensive? (I mean, if you want to get into the "my ears/eyes are too fragile to hear/see that" nonsense).
Don't you think that making a threat against an employee might be a bit over the top just because they wanted to browse their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip, on a site that might actually not let their pictures be indexed or just hasn't been crawled recently?
Oh, and you must have a WONDERFUL work environment, wherever you are, with the constant threats of lawsuits against employees, throwing the word "pervert" around all the time, as well as generally inspiring work effort with the fear of a lawsuit. Can you send me an application?
And, for what it's worth, the only thing that I noticed in the article in question was a text phrase of two words, each by themselves perfectly legitimate in daily conversion.
Having been in the military when this whole program started, I can tell you that we were told that the samples would ONLY be used to identify remains and for no other purpose.
There is, BTW, a little thing called a DD-214 given to everyone that's discharged in order to prove that you served and that you're eligible to receive any veteran's benefits to which you're entitled. There's absolutely no need to maintain DNA after the expiration of your term of service to "prove" anything.
The military survived this long without their precious DNA samples, even with a fire at the records center. Granted, it was hell for those individuals whose records were destroyed and had lost their DD-214 (or equivalent), but they eventually work out the problems.
Your DD-214 is your proof -- if you're worried about losing it, then file a copy with your local recorder of deeds, or several if you move around frequently. Make a bunch of copies and put the original in your safe-deposit box.
There's any number of ways to protect a physical document and absolutely NO need to "maintain" a sample, especially by the ungrateful masters called the DoD. After all, they have already broken their initial promise of the database to be used only for identification of remains (but we all KNEW that they would, right?)
IMO, this whole DNA database is little more than a back-door way to establish a "universal" database of DNA -- for our own protection, of course... (yeah, right)
Fortunately for me, I never gave a sample as I separated soon after the implementation of the program. One glorious desert vacation was enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not, but the US government would probably punish the American for hacking UK computers anyway.
Besides, you all seem to be forgetting that the individual was convicted of a crime. "Boo-hoo" if some tough words made the convict soil his pants -- maybe he should have thought about that before he hacked the computers.
Yeah, sure. I guess the past 6 years of "George Bush Sucks" and "Bush is an idiot" is somehow exempt from the categorization of "oh-so-terrible negative campaigning" right? Get a clue. They're ALL politicians and they'll ALL do whatever they can to win. Your perceived "moral superiority" is just that -- perceived. With only minor exceptions, they're ALL (Republican and Democratic) worthless.
That may be what YOU do, but that doesn't jive with real life. Addition or increase of a tax shifts the supply curve, resulting in a new ideal price point. Sure, they may sell a lower quantity of jeans, but their profit is still maximized as they're selling them at the intersection of the supply and demand curves, which is going to be at a higher price. To be fair Walmart may eat a BIT of the tax as the supply curve will not necessarily shift the full amount of the tax increase, but by and large, the consumer is paying it, not to mentional all the other embedded taxes inherent in our current tax system -- these same embedded taxes that make our products and services less competitive.
No, you really don't get it.
Walmart as a corporation, just like every other large and small business in the US, simply passes on corporate taxes to the consumers in the price that is charged for a good or service. So the people that constantly whine about how the "big evil" corporations need to pay more in taxes are really just increasing their own taxes indirectly.
And what tax reform are you talking about? The government graciously allowing me to keep more of the money that's mine in the first place isn't any sort of reform nor do I think that adding 5000 pages to the already insanely voluminous tax code is reform in any sense of the word. Real reform means getting rid of the IRS and the income tax in its entirety and replacing it with a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay in taxes. It's that simple. Read the http://fairtax.org/ book -- it's a quite fair solution to the problem of why America and American goods and services aren't competitive in the global market as well as a fair solution to the whole sense-of-entitlement, socialist-welath-redistribution, class warfare and "eat-the-rich" problem that we also have in this country.
I agree with the concept of a free market. The only problem is that there nothing free in our market. The US is kept at a significant disadvantage by our draconian tax system that punishes achievement.
Although it's only one part of the solution, revamping our tax system to make the US competitive in the global marketplace would go a LONG way in solving this problem. And the best way to go about revamping our tax system is the http://fairtax.org/
Another part of the solution would be to find a way to compel other countries to compete fairly and on the same playing field, i.e. removal of the "Japanese Inspection" of American products at their ports and customs stations. If not, perhaps we as Amerians should consider imposing the same anti-competitive tariffs and procedures on THEIR products as they impose on ours.
So the long and short of it is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are both full of it -- their only interest is to maintain their political power by keeping the current idiotic tax system in place whereby they can manipulate public opinion, pander to their particular voting blocs and stay in office. Moving to the Fair Tax would effectively put control of how much tax we as consumers pay in taxes back into our own hands, as well as make American products competitive again, both domestically and abroad, by elimination of the embedded taxes in ALL of our products and services.
Of course, if being honor students, gifted muscicians, eagle scouts, and a 4 of the damn nicest people I've ever had the joy of knowing is "messed up" I'm also damn glad I don't take this view.
Hear, Hear! Well put!
Do you also believe your local library should stock Playboy on the shelves with Popular Science?
First of all, we're not talking about a public library -- we're talking about software that, although it MAY be found in a public library, it's also found on millions of privately-owned PCs.
In addition, the 2nd Amendment, firearms, et.al. aren't pornography. If you're going to block a pro-gun site, then it only stands to reason that the anti-gun sites should be blocked as well. If merely MENTIONING a firearm bothers you, then BOTH sides should be blocked as they both mention them.
IMO, this is just one more attack on the Constitution of the United States. I'm just curious about how many of those that can so easily attack the rights of others to keep and bear arms would willingly give up their first amendment right to speak their mind.
The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that the REST of the amendments are safe from attack by a tyrannical government. If the 2nd andmendment falls, the rest surely will not stand.
Symantec (or the anti-gunners within the company) is/are doing it's/their part to ensure the fall of the great representative republic known as the United States of America.
From this point forward, consider my Windoze boxes Symantec-FREE zones. I'll vote with my wallet on this issue.
In the Real World watching pornography is unacceptable. Period. This is one of the most basic and widely accepted social norms.
... See also fascism.
..." kind of crap. Is this some sort of knee-jerk reaction from too much exposure to political correctness, are you doing this to intentionally throw tangents into the debate, or are you just plain silly?
The line between pornography and advertising/marketing is very thin indeed these days. We're subjected to it daily (unless you don't watch TV, block banner ads, don't listen to the radio, and ignore all the 20-somethings and teen girls running around with most of their body exposed to plain view.) Notwithstanding, the point being that it's most likely acceptable to view porn at work if your WORK is porn -- more humor than anything else, and not really essential to the conversation, but a valid point, IMO.
Are you kidding me? Not socialist? And what do you think the "-zi" in Nazi stands for if not sozialistische?
* From your favorite search engine: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:fascism
FASCISM: Political philosophy that became predominant in Italy and then Germany during the 1920s and 1930s; attacked weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism; promised vigorous foreign and military programs; undertook state control of economy to reduce social friction. (p. 870)
(occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stea rns_awl/medialib/glossary/gloss_F.html)
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859 -1&q=define%3Asocialism
SOCIALISM: a theory or system of social organization by which the major means of production and distribution are owned, manages, and controlled by the government, by an association or workers, or the community as a whole
(www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html)
* from http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three.
* and from http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=398421 (looks like the source of your translation)
Totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of Germany's Nazi Party (1920-45). Its roots lay in the tradition of Prussian militarism and discipline and German Romanticism, which celebrated a mythic past and proclaimed the rights of the exceptional individual over all rules and laws. Its ideology was shaped by Hitler's beliefs in German racial superiority and the dangers of communism. It rejected liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, stressing instead the subordination of the individual to the state and the necessity of strict obedience to leaders. It emphasized the inequality of individuals and "races" and the right of the strong to rule the weak. Politically, National Socialism favoured rearmament, reunification of the German areas of Europe, expansion into non-German areas, and the purging of "undesirables"
If it walks like a fascist and talks like a fascist, it must be a fascist. The term "socialist" in the party name is, in this case, of little significace in defining the type of governmental system.
Holocaust unfortunatelly passed away this year so I am a little bit sensitive to jokes about Anti-Semitism.
Might I remind you that YOU are the one that threw out the "Nazi" et. al. in the first place. Now you accuse me of anti-semitism when I said NOTHING regarding this, other than to correct you when you mislabeled a particular form of government? I find your debate practices reprehensible at best, and your anti-semitism-baiting offensive. What kind of PC nonsense is this? Reminds me of the "some of my best friends are
Perhaps you may understand more easily if it put it into politically correct terms: I certainly have no love for Nazi Germany, either -- I had RELATIVES that were SLAUGHTERED by the Nazi war machine.
I'm glad I finally convinced you about that. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)
Although you may have missed it, I did mention something at the start of this exchange to the effect of viewing porn during work hours being generally unacceptable, unless you're in the porn industry, or something similar. No convincing was necessary as that has been my position from the start. My differece of opinion with you was how you define porn, i.e. an image not indexed on google.
I only mentioned The Third Reich as it is the most well known socialist state in the history of human kind, as well as the most abused analogy in the kind of arguments like the one you introduced.
Actually, it was a fascist, not socialist, form of government. There's a significant difference between the two, although it's not always readily apparent.
I'm sure there is. There are things much more important than money. The point is that you need lots of money to buy them.
I am firmly of the belief that NOT ALL things can be purchased -- some must be EARNED, and no amount of money can be substituted. I don't want to get into some deep philosophical debate on this issue, but I do want you to see my point.
But the question is: do you have plenty of money right now, and don't want any more?
Of course I want to make as much as possible. What capitalist would NOT want that? The issue isn't the desire for disposable income, but what actions I'm willing to undertake for that disposable income. If I have to compromise my principles, then I'd just a soon not have the job. I can't enjoy money that I earned unethically nor through the compromise of my principles and beliefs. If that makes me "dumb" in the eyes of some, then so be it, but I don't believe in the concept of "going along to get along."
We don't pay our employees to negotiate. We pay them to work while giving them enough money that they don't want to walk away, if they make more money for the company than the money we pay them (plus the minimal insurance we have to pay for those whose status hasn't been changed to contractors yet). They don't walk away and not just because they'd be sued into oblivion if they did, but because they actually want to work here, contrary to what you might think.
You are correct in saying that you don't pay them to negotiate -- that comes BEFORE the contract. Perhaps I should have better-qualified the term "walk away" -- I was referring to walking away from the negotiating table -- knowing when to walk (or run, as the case may be) away from a situation is a crucial survival instinct that's somehow been lost in most people, IMO. Dancing dollar signs somehow blur the vision.
Well, now I'm cofused. I thought you've said that "[t]hese days clearances are given away like promotional items at a trade show,"
And I stand by that -- note that I said something to the effect of "when I went through the process," indicating that it was some time ago. Procedures certainly have become lax in this regard.
I haven't said anything like that. I don't know what do you mean and frankly I'm not sure if I even want to know that...
I know you didn't say it -- that's why I qualified it with "before you say it" and only meant to illustrate the concept that treating people properly IS NOT kowtowing to every bleat and whine of a prissy and demanding person (a.k.a. "kissing their a**"). Treating anyone with the respect due the position or just being civil to people, regardless of their altitude (or lack thereof) on the ladder, whether you like them or not, is the point that I was trying to make. A friendly, professional atmosphere with reasonable requirements is all that I ask of any situation. It's also something that I believe that every employee should expect. It does, however, work both ways -- employers should expect their employee
No, becaue of the lack of sick deviant nature of eating, as opposed to the very act of masturbating. (But it's a good strawman argument -- nice try.)
:-)
No, I believe it's a legitimate argument, the whole point of which was to illustrate that just because YOU think something is in poor taste doesn't necessarily mean that it is. I will agree with you that viewing porn during work hours is unacceptable behavior. I'll also agree that the "golden rule" applies ("He who has the gold makes the rules.") Where we disagree is whether or not an unindexed image constitutes porn and whether threatening employees is acceptable behavior. If you could overcome your dictatorial tunnel-vision for long enough to actually read my posts, you might understand that. The title of the original reply "Don't you think perverts might find that offensive" was sarcasm alluding to the political correctness scattered throughout your post.
And when did I mention masturbating, you sicko? Do you really need to drag that into the discussion, pervo?
I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least?
As long as the acceptable use policy allows it, I don't consider it incorrect in any way. Besides, based upon your previous statements regarding your policy, if you're replying to this from your work, you're violating them by doing so.
Are you kidding? Do you really think that I allow them to do anything with our equipment which is not work related? Maybe I should also allow them to run DDoS attacks while we're at it?
No, I'm not kidding. Apparently the rules don't apply to you, though, unless you're replying to me from your home.
Oh, please, for the love of god... You just lost a perfectly valid argument in the very second you introduced socialism to the discussion. You may compare anything to Hitler and Nazi Germany but the argument is completely lost.
Grow up, will you? The only person mentioning The Third Reich is YOU. Stop trying to throw distractions into the discussion. If you'd actually debate instead of arguing childishly, you'd see that I was actually agreeing with you on certain points and trying to deflect what I knew would be your childish comeback of calling me a "socialist."
Yes, I do own them, if you ask me. I pay for them and they have to do anything what I command them to do, just like my tv or microwave oven.
You just lost your point here -- you leapt from what was legal to your opinion. Unfortunately, you don't own them. They may be contractually obligated to perform certain duties for payment, however those duties do have boundaries and generally are defined prior to entering the relationship. They are not your microwave or TV, nor will they ever be your property.
Was this meant to be a poor joke? Well, excuse my "problem recognizing sarcasm" then. I was talking about our internal clearance procedures, not about some lame papers which are equally important to me as MSCE.
No, it wasn't a joke. I consider the security of the United States be infinitely more important that that of your little dictatorial fiefdom. If you want to refer to your internal clearances, then STATE as much, but somehow I seriously doubt that they're anywhere NEAR as rigorous -- probably a credit check and a quick criminal records check with the state police. I'm not impressed.
Oh my god... If you are indeed keeping your resume secret for people who want to take advantage of you, then enjoy the unemployment status because as much as I hate to break it to you, all of employers employs employees in one and only one purpose: to take advantage of them. If you think otherwise, you clearly must be insane.
No, you're incorrect again. First, I don't make it
Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?
Oh, and if someone likes strawberry ice cream with crushed Oreos on top and you find the taste disgusting, then I guess that would qualify them to be a pervert?
'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least? They get what they are asking for if you ask me.
You pay them to eat lunch, too? As long as your acceptable use policy allows personal use during lunch hours (checking mail, etc.) or at other times, then I'm still of the opinion that threatening someone and their employment and labeling them a "pervert" simply for viewing an image that is assumed to be pr0n simply because it isn't indexed on google is over the top, and may be grounds for legal action against you.
Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.
True, but I'm guessing nobody ever told them they'd be abused and threatened, either. I'm certainly NOT an advocate of socialism -- I believe that you need to put in a day's work for a day's pay. But it works both ways -- you need to have some respect for your employees, too. Contrary to what you apparently believe, you don't OWN them. It's people with attitudes like yours, IMO, that drive a lot of people to what seems to be an ever-increasing socialist "you owe me" mentality against business owners/bosses, etc.
Somehow I highly doubt you'd get the required security clearance.
BTDT -- TS/SCI, and at at time when they actually CARED about it. These days clearances are given away like promotional items at a trade show, IMO.
Do you have a resume published on the web somewhere? I could see what I can do. (Especially if hiring you is good for me, if you follow my drift.)
You obviously have a problem recognizing sarcasm. And yes, I do have my resume published, but not for people who want to take advantage of me.
As much as I agree that the workplace generally isn't the time and place for pr0n (unless that's your work, of course) -- don't you think that someone might find your repeated use of "sick perverts" offensive? (I mean, if you want to get into the "my ears/eyes are too fragile to hear/see that" nonsense).
Don't you think that making a threat against an employee might be a bit over the top just because they wanted to browse their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip, on a site that might actually not let their pictures be indexed or just hasn't been crawled recently?
Oh, and you must have a WONDERFUL work environment, wherever you are, with the constant threats of lawsuits against employees, throwing the word "pervert" around all the time, as well as generally inspiring work effort with the fear of a lawsuit. Can you send me an application?
And, for what it's worth, the only thing that I noticed in the article in question was a text phrase of two words, each by themselves perfectly legitimate in daily conversion.
Having been in the military when this whole program started, I can tell you that we were told that the samples would ONLY be used to identify remains and for no other purpose.
There is, BTW, a little thing called a DD-214 given to everyone that's discharged in order to prove that you served and that you're eligible to receive any veteran's benefits to which you're entitled. There's absolutely no need to maintain DNA after the expiration of your term of service to "prove" anything.
The military survived this long without their precious DNA samples, even with a fire at the records center. Granted, it was hell for those individuals whose records were destroyed and had lost their DD-214 (or equivalent), but they eventually work out the problems.
Your DD-214 is your proof -- if you're worried about losing it, then file a copy with your local recorder of deeds, or several if you move around frequently. Make a bunch of copies and put the original in your safe-deposit box.
There's any number of ways to protect a physical document and absolutely NO need to "maintain" a sample, especially by the ungrateful masters called the DoD. After all, they have already broken their initial promise of the database to be used only for identification of remains (but we all KNEW that they would, right?)
IMO, this whole DNA database is little more than a back-door way to establish a "universal" database of DNA -- for our own protection, of course... (yeah, right)
Fortunately for me, I never gave a sample as I separated soon after the implementation of the program. One glorious desert vacation was enough.