They had their loser-nature beaten into them by circumstance
I honestly could care less. I've met people that have survived far worse than the "parents" of the kids my agency works with. None of them are putting cigarettes out on their kids or prostituting them out for money and/or drugs. Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.
Most of the real sociopathic parasites on the ass of society are CEOs or board members of Fortune 500 companies, not sad children of broken families.
Umm, at what point have I said that the children are parasites? I believe I was reserving my bile for their so-called parents.
Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.
Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.
Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.
The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything.
So hit the little bastards until they realize who the boss is. Contrary to popular belief, it's still legal in all 50 states to use corporal punishment on your kids. Of course disciplining your kids would require being around them and why would you do a silly thing like that when you can rely on the Wii and TV to raise them?
I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.
That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:
35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent
person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and
supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special
purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon
such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it
necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such
person.
Many states consider an organized group of employees who're armed by the company to provide security for the company (as opposed to just employees who carry personal guns) to be "security guards"
Guns aren't the dividing line in this instance. If you are hiring someone exclusively to provide security then you may well run into licensing issues regardless of whether or not that guy is armed. Mall "cops" are usually licensed even if they aren't armed or are only armed with less than lethal weapons (OC spray).
I was thinking more along the lines of the business owner that keeps a firearm by the cash register for protection in the event of a robbery. Such behavior is not regulated in most American jurisdictions. Those that do regulate it (New York City) typically regulate the ownership of the weapon, not the practice of leaving it available for the self-defense of your employees.
For example, in California, armed security guards have to obtain a license after passing a state-mandated training course--- so Google couldn't just arm all its engineers, unless it also got them all security-guard licenses.
I'm not sure how California works but in most American jurisdictions Google could leave firearms accessible to it's engineers for self-defense purposes. If it expected them to carry those firearms as a routine job function then it might run into licensing issues -- but if it merely made them available for self-defense and didn't require them to be carried it would not be a problem in most of the US.
The government can probably regulate how corporations may arm their employees and deploy those armed employees, but it's not clear what the limits on that power are.
Actually most corporations would be well within their rights to arm employees on their property. Very few states regulate the possession of weapons on private property. Those that do generally only regulate a small subset of weapons, typically handguns and so-called "assault rifles". Certain subsets of private property may be regulated by law (you can't legally possess a firearm at a mental health institution in most states) but for the most part it's up to the property owner to determine who can carry weapons.
You'll note that many small retail businesses in the United States opt to keep a firearm on the premises as a deterrent against robbery. With few exceptions (New York City) the state doesn't generally attempt to regulate this behavior.
Just use the standard defense that works for members of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government: I can't recall. As in, "I can't recall my 64 character truecrypt password. Sorry. If I remember it at a later date I'll be sure to let you know."
Or you could just keep your mouth shut. To the best of my knowledge the US has not yet abrogated the right to silence in the same manner as the UK. And before someone links to the kiddie porn/border crossing case, save it. That guy was foolish enough to enter the password in front of a law enforcement officer and thus waived his 5th amendment rights. If he had kept his mouth shut he wouldn't be in his current predicament.
Pray tell, why should a system such as Air Traffic Control even be accessible on a public network such as the internet? To the best of my knowledge air traffic controllers aren't allowed to telecommute. Why aren't networks such as this hardened and kept off public networks?
Midway was won with a combination of good leadership (McCluskey on the tactical level, Spruance and Nimitz on the strategic), good intelligence, Japanese stupidity and luck.
Midway was not however the turning point of the Pacific War. Midway blunted the Japanese offensive and enabled the US Navy to fight them on a more equal footing but the true turning point came a few months later. Guadalcanal is where the remaining skilled Japanese carrier aviators died -- at the battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz islands. Guadalcanal is where the Allied Navies proved we could beat the Japanese in surface engagements -- though we had to get our asses kicked a few times before we figured out how to do it. Guadalcanal is where we proved that Japanese infantry tactics couldn't match Western firepower and training.
As an aside, Guadalcanal is one of the few campaigns in the 20th century that the US fought on an equal footing with our adversary. We proved that we could take on the Japanese on a level playing field and win. To the best of my knowledge that never happened in Europe -- every time we fought the Germans we did so with superiority in men, material and air/naval power.
since Iran is in fact fully in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the NPT, regardless of what the US, EU, Russia and United Nations try to say.
Fixed that for you. I know it's popular to assume that it's the big bad US beating up on poor helpless Iran but the reality of the situation is such that most of the civilized world is suspicious of Iran's motives.
NEWSFLASH: China helped save our American asses when the recession hit.
NEWSFLASH: China's currency manipulation and mercantilism helped to cause the global recession. The current balance of payments with China is not sustainable, regardless of any reforms that the West may make with regards to the financial sector.
Navies are mostly obsolete unless you're planning an infantry invasion.
WTF are you smoking? Naval superiority has been key to Western military success since the ancient Greeks. It remains relevant today. If anything it's more important now than ever. Global trade relies on freedom of the seas, ya know.....
They literally can't tell the difference between promising not to nuke (most) non-nuclear countries and promising not to do anything at all.
Why is that fact that they are non-nuclear relevant? I would put forward the argument that it's a proper use of our nuclear deterrent to deter chemical and biological attacks. Either style of warfare could kill at least as many (if not more) people as a nuclear attack.
What the fuck do we gain by saying that we won't respond to such an attack with every means at our disposal?
In demanding that Iran surrender their legal rights as specified in the NNPT, the United States is in violation of that treaty
I like how you make it all about the United States when the European Union (and Russia to an extent) is also opposed to the course the Iranians are currently on.
Spoken like a man that has never been in an asymmetrical battle in their lifetime.
How would asymmetrical warfare apply on the Korean peninsula? Presumably our goal is to defend South Korea, not to liberate/conquer (depending on your viewpoint) the North. This isn't South Vietnam where the North can rely on some support from the civilian population.
The only thing that can justify the use of a nuke is firing a nuke (or a weapon of equivalent destruction).
And that's one of the things Obama just traded away for nothing. We've always maintained that we would respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear arms. Now we've tossed that option away. And for what? If someone hits NYC with VX gas or launches a smallpox attack on the United States, why the fuck shouldn't we nuke them? They can kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens but we refuse to respond in kind? What incentive do they have not to attack us?
Earlier I saw this story was tagged with 'jimmycarter'. How appropriate. 2012 can't come soon enough.
Slashdot Mirror
They had their loser-nature beaten into them by circumstance
I honestly could care less. I've met people that have survived far worse than the "parents" of the kids my agency works with. None of them are putting cigarettes out on their kids or prostituting them out for money and/or drugs. Circumstance only goes so far as a rationalization for bad behavior and there comes a point when the individual needs to be held accountable for his or her choices.
Most of the real sociopathic parasites on the ass of society are CEOs or board members of Fortune 500 companies, not sad children of broken families.
Umm, at what point have I said that the children are parasites? I believe I was reserving my bile for their so-called parents.
Just saying 'they are worthless people' doesn't answer anything
Perhaps not, but it accurately describes many individuals that I've had the misfortune of interacting with.
Nothing if you read the Federalist Papers.
Umm, left out the part about the illegal drugs being found in their residence and the fact that their anti-government views were but ONE of the claims levied against them.
Mind you, I don't think marijuana should be illegal but it rather changes your story when you discover that the parents were arrested on drug charges before CPS got involved. You shouldn't have left that detail out.
Or do you think that all the less worthwhile people should just die already to make more room for the rest of us?
Yes. And I work for a human services agency. Come work here and see what some people are capable of and then get back to me about how "very few people are truly worthless". I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that would put her drug habit and boyfriend ahead of her kids. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that prostituted her 11 year old out to repay a drug debt. I can find nothing redeeming in the individual that uses lame ass excuses like "I can't afford gas" (particularly when my agency GIVES THEM GAS MONEY) to avoid having to see their kids.
The kids today know that their parents and leaders can't do anything.
So hit the little bastards until they realize who the boss is. Contrary to popular belief, it's still legal in all 50 states to use corporal punishment on your kids. Of course disciplining your kids would require being around them and why would you do a silly thing like that when you can rely on the Wii and TV to raise them?
I heard a story a few days where Parents lost custody of their kid because, "They were teaching the child that the government can not be trusted."
Citation?
I mean, if they whack them...the kid can call child services on them.
That doesn't mean child services will do anything about it. It's legal here in New York State (hardly a bastion of cultural conservatism) to hit your kids:
35.10 Justification; use of physical force generally. The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person.
Obviously, the ability to do some terrible things without accountability should be reserved for the government.
You've never been on a date have you? ;)
Many states consider an organized group of employees who're armed by the company to provide security for the company (as opposed to just employees who carry personal guns) to be "security guards"
Guns aren't the dividing line in this instance. If you are hiring someone exclusively to provide security then you may well run into licensing issues regardless of whether or not that guy is armed. Mall "cops" are usually licensed even if they aren't armed or are only armed with less than lethal weapons (OC spray).
I was thinking more along the lines of the business owner that keeps a firearm by the cash register for protection in the event of a robbery. Such behavior is not regulated in most American jurisdictions. Those that do regulate it (New York City) typically regulate the ownership of the weapon, not the practice of leaving it available for the self-defense of your employees.
For example, in California, armed security guards have to obtain a license after passing a state-mandated training course--- so Google couldn't just arm all its engineers, unless it also got them all security-guard licenses.
I'm not sure how California works but in most American jurisdictions Google could leave firearms accessible to it's engineers for self-defense purposes. If it expected them to carry those firearms as a routine job function then it might run into licensing issues -- but if it merely made them available for self-defense and didn't require them to be carried it would not be a problem in most of the US.
The government can probably regulate how corporations may arm their employees and deploy those armed employees, but it's not clear what the limits on that power are.
Actually most corporations would be well within their rights to arm employees on their property. Very few states regulate the possession of weapons on private property. Those that do generally only regulate a small subset of weapons, typically handguns and so-called "assault rifles". Certain subsets of private property may be regulated by law (you can't legally possess a firearm at a mental health institution in most states) but for the most part it's up to the property owner to determine who can carry weapons.
You'll note that many small retail businesses in the United States opt to keep a firearm on the premises as a deterrent against robbery. With few exceptions (New York City) the state doesn't generally attempt to regulate this behavior.
That's what proxies and tor are for....
Just use the standard defense that works for members of the Legislative and Executive branches of the Federal Government: I can't recall. As in, "I can't recall my 64 character truecrypt password. Sorry. If I remember it at a later date I'll be sure to let you know."
Or you could just keep your mouth shut. To the best of my knowledge the US has not yet abrogated the right to silence in the same manner as the UK. And before someone links to the kiddie porn/border crossing case, save it. That guy was foolish enough to enter the password in front of a law enforcement officer and thus waived his 5th amendment rights. If he had kept his mouth shut he wouldn't be in his current predicament.
If SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Precedence and case law < statutory law, which is < the US Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Pray tell, why should a system such as Air Traffic Control even be accessible on a public network such as the internet? To the best of my knowledge air traffic controllers aren't allowed to telecommute. Why aren't networks such as this hardened and kept off public networks?
The Battle of Midway was won with nukes?
Midway was won with a combination of good leadership (McCluskey on the tactical level, Spruance and Nimitz on the strategic), good intelligence, Japanese stupidity and luck.
Midway was not however the turning point of the Pacific War. Midway blunted the Japanese offensive and enabled the US Navy to fight them on a more equal footing but the true turning point came a few months later. Guadalcanal is where the remaining skilled Japanese carrier aviators died -- at the battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz islands. Guadalcanal is where the Allied Navies proved we could beat the Japanese in surface engagements -- though we had to get our asses kicked a few times before we figured out how to do it. Guadalcanal is where we proved that Japanese infantry tactics couldn't match Western firepower and training.
As an aside, Guadalcanal is one of the few campaigns in the 20th century that the US fought on an equal footing with our adversary. We proved that we could take on the Japanese on a level playing field and win. To the best of my knowledge that never happened in Europe -- every time we fought the Germans we did so with superiority in men, material and air/naval power.
since Iran is in fact fully in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the NPT, regardless of what the US, EU, Russia and United Nations try to say.
Fixed that for you. I know it's popular to assume that it's the big bad US beating up on poor helpless Iran but the reality of the situation is such that most of the civilized world is suspicious of Iran's motives.
NEWSFLASH: China helped save our American asses when the recession hit.
NEWSFLASH: China's currency manipulation and mercantilism helped to cause the global recession. The current balance of payments with China is not sustainable, regardless of any reforms that the West may make with regards to the financial sector.
Navies are mostly obsolete unless you're planning an infantry invasion.
WTF are you smoking? Naval superiority has been key to Western military success since the ancient Greeks. It remains relevant today. If anything it's more important now than ever. Global trade relies on freedom of the seas, ya know.....
If he seriously wanted to get rid of nukes, he probably could tomorrow by executive order.
Congress might have something to say about that......
and was, during the 1980s, led by a lunatic who believed the Soviets were the "Evil Empire"
A matter of perspective. I'm guessing you aren't from Eastern Europe or Central Asia if you don't regard the Soviet Union as an evil empire?
They literally can't tell the difference between promising not to nuke (most) non-nuclear countries and promising not to do anything at all.
Why is that fact that they are non-nuclear relevant? I would put forward the argument that it's a proper use of our nuclear deterrent to deter chemical and biological attacks. Either style of warfare could kill at least as many (if not more) people as a nuclear attack.
What the fuck do we gain by saying that we won't respond to such an attack with every means at our disposal?
In demanding that Iran surrender their legal rights as specified in the NNPT, the United States is in violation of that treaty
I like how you make it all about the United States when the European Union (and Russia to an extent) is also opposed to the course the Iranians are currently on.
Spoken like a man that has never been in an asymmetrical battle in their lifetime.
How would asymmetrical warfare apply on the Korean peninsula? Presumably our goal is to defend South Korea, not to liberate/conquer (depending on your viewpoint) the North. This isn't South Vietnam where the North can rely on some support from the civilian population.
The only thing that can justify the use of a nuke is firing a nuke (or a weapon of equivalent destruction).
And that's one of the things Obama just traded away for nothing. We've always maintained that we would respond to a chemical or biological attack with nuclear arms. Now we've tossed that option away. And for what? If someone hits NYC with VX gas or launches a smallpox attack on the United States, why the fuck shouldn't we nuke them? They can kill hundreds of thousands of our citizens but we refuse to respond in kind? What incentive do they have not to attack us?
Earlier I saw this story was tagged with 'jimmycarter'. How appropriate. 2012 can't come soon enough.