The key word here is "sensible". He can consult with his inferiors, but he is in no way obliged to do so.
I beg to differ. It is his prerogative to decide when and to what degree. If he does not take advantage of their knowledge, experience, and specialization then he would be an incompetent leader. He is obliged to be competent. You're right, this does not mean that he must always follow their recommendations.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he IS sensible?
No. Call it wishful thinking if you like.
I'm not insisting on shit, I'm merely stating that he doesn't have to listen to anyone below him in rank.
You are insisting that he can do that which would make him incompetent and not sensible. The insinuation (I believe) was that you expect him to act that way.
Any sensible general wont make such a decision without the input of his entire command staff. Further, he would get the opinions of every man directly beneath his command. They, in turn (if they are competent), will have solid information passed up to them from the lower ranks.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he is not sensible? Why do you insist that he's not? (Being Bush appointed doesn't count. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.)
That's a very shallow interpretation. There was a time, unfortunately, that a society (ancient Israel) needed that law. Then there came a time when they didn't, and they could live a higher law. I'm surprised you haven't heard that (John 8:1-11).
Or are you being both antisemitic and intentionally ignoring the New Testament? (You said "anybody".)
*Nobody* lives strictly by the Bible and everybody picks and chooses.
That's not true, though those people are far and few between. What everyone does do is decide for themselves what they think the Bible says.
And before you go spouting off that there is one diffinative interpretation, yours certainly isn't it, based on your own example.
You weren't paying attention to what he said, were you?
I realize that I am idealizing what our courtroom and legal system should be, but we have to pursue idealism in our societal systems to minimize the damage done by the imperfect humans that take part in those systems.
He wasn't saying that our courtrooms did find the truth, only that their ideological purpose is for finding the truth.
"He deceitfully used someone else's name and password so he would not get caught and was looking to profit from his criminal act."
Things don't add up. His password would have worked. He reported the problem. That's the last thing you would do if you were going to try to profit from the data.
Why is a state trooper being treated as an authority in this matter? Is he a computer security professional? Is he just a cop who's running his mouth when he shouldn't?
I see no reason to believe he used someone else's password, as I don't believe the source.
But you have to realize that is how people see it.
Fine, but it's still not a legitimate way of looking at it (Argumentum ad populum).
Look at it from the perspective of the same admin, under different conditions. Assume that he later discovers the vulnerability on his own. If he is at all ethical, he will need to do the exact same investigation. (only this time he wouldn't have a scapegoat if he found damage.)
oh, and I'll add that the officer does need to shut his mouth. He should direct questions to more knowledgeable investigators. (or not talk about a case under active investigation, which might have been why reporters couldn't have found a better source of info.)
The state trooper (not a computer professional) said that he had copied the data for personal profit using someone else's password. The school has admitted that thousands of students potentially had access, meaning that his own password would have worked just fine. The kid anonymously contacted the principle. I give this cop zero credibility. The few facts we know contradict him.
Ask the average person about their visit with a computer repair tech. Ask them details. You'll find that they either didn't ask the technician anything, or they have their facts very wrong. It can be humorous to hear the things that they think they heard. I don't think the cop is lying, I just think he is a terrible source of information in this case.
In short, I don't believe he intentionally copied privileged data or abused a security breach.
If I can disprove some of the things said by global warming pundits, can we discard global warming along with it?
Just because various religious crazies have rejected scientific theories does not mean you've disproven the Bible, only a couple of idiotic interpretations. That you have started with astronomy highlights my point. You have very indirectly inferred that religious pundits in Galileo's time were wrong. Every church in the world (with few possible exceptions) agrees with you. The only reason that there is more than one Christian church is because a whole bunch of people decided that the Bible was true, but the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were not. (I don't mean to offend Catholics here, but it is what happened.)
For example:
Catholics said astronomy was wrong.
Catholics said the Bible is true.
Astronomy is true
Therefore the Bible is false.
In other words:
c -> ~a
c -> b
a
a -> ~c (modus tollens from step 1.)
~c
~c -> ~b (This step is false, and is denying the antecedent. Comes from step 2.)
~b QED (Which is not actually proven at all.)
A few of those present challenges. I'd be foolish to say otherwise. None of those have yet disproven the Bible, though some of the theories attached to a few of them are incompatible.
Your hospital example isn't as far fetched as it sounds (example). Granted, I don't think lives would actually be lost the way those cars were sequestered, but really bad situations are liable to occur.
"Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud."
I've determined that you are either a troll, or have a reading comprehension noticeably below the average American. This conversation is not worth continuing.
Sorry, but you're being selfishly narrow minded. You are also putting words into my mouth and I find that offensive.
While "policies or practices" does include turning in every registration form, that is a disingenuous, extremely narrow interpretation of the phrase. It also includes employee training, telling them that they will get caught and fired if they turn in fake records. It involves more than just flagging suspicious records, but firing the employees responsible in a timely manner. It involves gathering data to help with prosecution (Which shouldn't be too hard; ACORN is a victim here, so they claim). It may involve announcing to their staff that an employee has been fired for registration fraud. It may involve announcing to their staff that evidence has been handed over to the state.
I don't know what their policies are, but something isn't working. If this was the first election that they had this problem, it would be negligence from naivete, and easier to forgive.
Huh?!? Of course they are required to! No duh! We can't have people taking voter registration forms and arbitrarily not turn them in. Nobody has said that they shouldn't turn them in. Argue with what is written if you must, but don't argue against what you wish I had said.
This isn't the first time this has happened "to" ACORN. Drawing the connection to the Democrat party isn't a stretch. At a minimum, Obama used to work for them. I'm not going to blame ACORN, yet. Let there be an investigation. Yes, I know that phrase is overused, but here it's warranted. Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud.
"You ^&*% fraudster! How dare you call me and #$%^@^$ demand my money!"
"Call the FBI for me. Please."
"What?"
"No, I'm serious. The Boston FBI specifically. I'll give you the number if you want..."
After you've woken them up with that shock, you can give your sob story. Might work. Might not. I think most of them will come to their senses. At least it will alleviate and redirect some of the anger of the callers. On the plus side, it might tick off the FBI, but they can't blame you for all the calls they'll be getting. (I know religion on Slashdot is taboo, but you might refer to the parable of the unjust judge: Luke 18:2-5) I would also recommend contacting a lawyer.
The one from Arizona or the one from Chicago... Would somebody please give us some better choices? Right now we're arguing over who is going to be the less atrocious of the two.
When enough people want something, it will happen, one way or another.
No, that's still wishful thinking. When enough people want something, it causes politicians to make themselves busy pretending to fix things. They then turn around and either claim to have fixed things, or that they made a sincere effort.
Real immigration reform? Social Security? Healthcare? (Which is broken, but I don't want it socialized and broken further)
Slashdot Mirror
The key word here is "sensible". He can consult with his inferiors, but he is in no way obliged to do so.
I beg to differ. It is his prerogative to decide when and to what degree. If he does not take advantage of their knowledge, experience, and specialization then he would be an incompetent leader. He is obliged to be competent. You're right, this does not mean that he must always follow their recommendations.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he IS sensible?
No. Call it wishful thinking if you like.
I'm not insisting on shit, I'm merely stating that he doesn't have to listen to anyone below him in rank.
You are insisting that he can do that which would make him incompetent and not sensible. The insinuation (I believe) was that you expect him to act that way.
Any sensible general wont make such a decision without the input of his entire command staff. Further, he would get the opinions of every man directly beneath his command. They, in turn (if they are competent), will have solid information passed up to them from the lower ranks.
Are you claiming to know first hand that he is not sensible? Why do you insist that he's not? (Being Bush appointed doesn't count. That would be an ad hominem fallacy.)
While this statement is not true, I think it shows great insight.
Peace cannot be unilateral, and the ostrich technique has been shown to be deeply flawed.
Name one Frenchman who fought for our independence and spoke out against the Iraq war.
I dare you.
That's a very shallow interpretation. There was a time, unfortunately, that a society (ancient Israel) needed that law. Then there came a time when they didn't, and they could live a higher law. I'm surprised you haven't heard that (John 8:1-11).
Or are you being both antisemitic and intentionally ignoring the New Testament? (You said "anybody".)
*Nobody* lives strictly by the Bible and everybody picks and chooses.
That's not true, though those people are far and few between. What everyone does do is decide for themselves what they think the Bible says.
And before you go spouting off that there is one diffinative interpretation, yours certainly isn't it, based on your own example.
You weren't paying attention to what he said, were you?
I realize that I am idealizing what our courtroom and legal system should be, but we have to pursue idealism in our societal systems to minimize the damage done by the imperfect humans that take part in those systems.
He wasn't saying that our courtrooms did find the truth, only that their ideological purpose is for finding the truth.
"He deceitfully used someone else's name and password so he would not get caught and was looking to profit from his criminal act."
Things don't add up. His password would have worked. He reported the problem. That's the last thing you would do if you were going to try to profit from the data.
Why is a state trooper being treated as an authority in this matter? Is he a computer security professional? Is he just a cop who's running his mouth when he shouldn't?
I see no reason to believe he used someone else's password, as I don't believe the source.
But you have to realize that is how people see it.
Fine, but it's still not a legitimate way of looking at it (Argumentum ad populum).
Look at it from the perspective of the same admin, under different conditions. Assume that he later discovers the vulnerability on his own. If he is at all ethical, he will need to do the exact same investigation. (only this time he wouldn't have a scapegoat if he found damage.)
oh, and I'll add that the officer does need to shut his mouth. He should direct questions to more knowledgeable investigators. (or not talk about a case under active investigation, which might have been why reporters couldn't have found a better source of info.)
The state trooper (not a computer professional) said that he had copied the data for personal profit using someone else's password. The school has admitted that thousands of students potentially had access, meaning that his own password would have worked just fine. The kid anonymously contacted the principle. I give this cop zero credibility. The few facts we know contradict him.
Ask the average person about their visit with a computer repair tech. Ask them details. You'll find that they either didn't ask the technician anything, or they have their facts very wrong. It can be humorous to hear the things that they think they heard. I don't think the cop is lying, I just think he is a terrible source of information in this case.
In short, I don't believe he intentionally copied privileged data or abused a security breach.
If I can disprove some of the things said by global warming pundits, can we discard global warming along with it?
Just because various religious crazies have rejected scientific theories does not mean you've disproven the Bible, only a couple of idiotic interpretations. That you have started with astronomy highlights my point. You have very indirectly inferred that religious pundits in Galileo's time were wrong. Every church in the world (with few possible exceptions) agrees with you. The only reason that there is more than one Christian church is because a whole bunch of people decided that the Bible was true, but the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church were not. (I don't mean to offend Catholics here, but it is what happened.)
You've fallen victim to one of several logical fallacies, probably Argumentum ad populum or Denying the antecedent.
For example:
Catholics said astronomy was wrong.
Catholics said the Bible is true.
Astronomy is true
Therefore the Bible is false.
In other words:
c -> ~a
c -> b
a
a -> ~c (modus tollens from step 1.)
~c
~c -> ~b (This step is false, and is denying the antecedent. Comes from step 2.)
~b QED (Which is not actually proven at all.)
A few of those present challenges. I'd be foolish to say otherwise. None of those have yet disproven the Bible, though some of the theories attached to a few of them are incompatible.
Uh, I suspect they called it showmanship when he did do that.
Your hospital example isn't as far fetched as it sounds (example). Granted, I don't think lives would actually be lost the way those cars were sequestered, but really bad situations are liable to occur.
Trusted Computing
"Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud."
I've determined that you are either a troll, or have a reading comprehension noticeably below the average American. This conversation is not worth continuing.
Sorry, but you're being selfishly narrow minded. You are also putting words into my mouth and I find that offensive.
While "policies or practices" does include turning in every registration form, that is a disingenuous, extremely narrow interpretation of the phrase. It also includes employee training, telling them that they will get caught and fired if they turn in fake records. It involves more than just flagging suspicious records, but firing the employees responsible in a timely manner. It involves gathering data to help with prosecution (Which shouldn't be too hard; ACORN is a victim here, so they claim). It may involve announcing to their staff that an employee has been fired for registration fraud. It may involve announcing to their staff that evidence has been handed over to the state.
I don't know what their policies are, but something isn't working. If this was the first election that they had this problem, it would be negligence from naivete, and easier to forgive.
Huh?!? Of course they are required to! No duh! We can't have people taking voter registration forms and arbitrarily not turn them in. Nobody has said that they shouldn't turn them in. Argue with what is written if you must, but don't argue against what you wish I had said.
Stop attacking straw men.
This isn't the first time this has happened "to" ACORN. Drawing the connection to the Democrat party isn't a stretch. At a minimum, Obama used to work for them. I'm not going to blame ACORN, yet. Let there be an investigation. Yes, I know that phrase is overused, but here it's warranted. Something about their policies or practices is allowing a tendency of fraud.
Quite possibly. Why do you think I hate our two party system?
If I were to take a guess, it wasn't the socket that the keyboard plugs into that he fried, but whatever IC had the ps/2 controller on it.
"Hello?"
"You ^&*% fraudster! How dare you call me and #$%^@^$ demand my money!"
"Call the FBI for me. Please."
"What?"
"No, I'm serious. The Boston FBI specifically. I'll give you the number if you want..."
After you've woken them up with that shock, you can give your sob story. Might work. Might not. I think most of them will come to their senses. At least it will alleviate and redirect some of the anger of the callers. On the plus side, it might tick off the FBI, but they can't blame you for all the calls they'll be getting. (I know religion on Slashdot is taboo, but you might refer to the parable of the unjust judge: Luke 18:2-5) I would also recommend contacting a lawyer.
Shades of gray tend to produce arbitrary boundaries.
The one from Arizona or the one from Chicago... Would somebody please give us some better choices? Right now we're arguing over who is going to be the less atrocious of the two.
When enough people want something, it will happen, one way or another.
No, that's still wishful thinking. When enough people want something, it causes politicians to make themselves busy pretending to fix things. They then turn around and either claim to have fixed things, or that they made a sincere effort.
Real immigration reform? Social Security? Healthcare? (Which is broken, but I don't want it socialized and broken further)
Short answer... both.