I'm with you, and figured I would add a bit to your points.
These comments are mostly being met with angry backlash from other commenters, which is good.
Ahh, nothing like open bias in an article. Down with anyone claiming personal responsibility is a factor! If you leave a 100dollar bill on your porch and a thief steals it, you were never in any way responsible for leaving the 100 dollar bill on your porch. Anyone claiming you were partially at fault should be chastised by the masses, obviously they are worthless slugs (hopefully the sarcasm is obvious).
A typical example of a weak "rebuttal" is this cartoon you may have seen shared on Facebook, in which an arrogant man lectures women, "Don't want your nude selfies to leak, ladies? Simple: don't take any! Bothered by street harassment? Don't be so eager to walk down streets."
Not only is walking down the street the same thing as taking nude photographs of yourself, but taking a nude photo of yourself and storing them in a public server is the same thing as a physical media you keep at home where you have some control.
And of course the author claims anyone that disagrees is using a "week" argument.
To begin with the benefits: Jennifer Lawrence explained bluntly in her Vanity Fair interview why she took the photos: "I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you." (Considering how easily she could have gotten away with some platitudes about how "deeply hurt" she was, and how she "thanks all her fans for her support in this difficult period" -- doesn't a quote like that make you think she's decently cool?) OK, so that's the benefit. To her boyfriend at the time, a pretty big benefit.
An excuse for taking and nude photographs is just an excuse. Good lord, I have had long distance relationships too and I did not send or expect to receive naked pictures as part of the relationship. Even though mailing photographs (it's been some time since I have had one of those) I should have had legal expectation of privacy which is at least as stringent than an EULA on someone's "Cloud" server. Tampering with US Postal mail _is_ a felony.
So that's it. The correct response to the victim-blamers is not to draw false analogies to "having a credit card" or "walking down the street".
The author should first find the pot and kettle analogy and study it for at least a minute before making accusations. Then they should try to explain how walking down the street and taking nude photos of yourself and sending them anywhere equates to the same fucking thing (because they don't)!
If this was one of them pervert snapping pictures under girls skirts, the article would have some merit.
They weren't made-up numbers, he cited his sources.
My refutation was that any source will be corrupt, not that just his source was corrupt. I used 3 sources to validate my claim.
If you are attempting to claim that a citation is proof, then if were to find a web site claiming "Gravity does not exist" that is sufficient for "proof" that gravity does not exist? Or can you show me three sources to debunk that claim and sufficiently prove the claim and source wrong?
I honestly skimmed the rest and find nothing worth discussing beyond the blatant logic error you made.
It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.
I don't believe you are correct trying to divorce peace from politics. I don't want to hijack the conversation and turn the thread into a D vs. R debate so won't introduce blame here. That said, what if Obama had been able live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric? Personally I would have no problem with him winning the Peace prize if that was the situation.
Barack Obama did not receive the prize based on his actions or accomplishments, he receive the prize for what he put on a piece of paper. That is the part that had, and has, people scratching their heads.
Politicians have the potential for the biggest impacts to peace, both positive and negative. I have no issue with them receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but the measure should always be their actions and accomplishments.
And there is a huge problem pulling numbers like this, which is a large part of what statistics is all about. We can use this as our reference. Note that this is related to physical abuse, and not verbal abuse. Statistically we would have to increase the suppressed reports of abuse when dealing with non-physical abuses.
Domestic violence against men refers to abuse against men or boys in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating, or within a family. As with violence against women, the practice is often regarded as a crime but pressures against reporting complicate issues.
If one adds in rape (606,000 victims) the total is 5,427,000 women-but there is an issue of double-counting of an incident as both rape and intimate partner physical violence. (Emphasis mine).
Men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to the following challenges: the stigma of being a male victim, the perceived failures to conform to the macho stereotype, the fear of not being believed, the denial of victim status, and the lack of support from society, family members, and friends.
In the case of men and boys, not only are they more likely to self suppress reports of abuse but they will not be heard if they do. Meanwhile, crimes against minorities and females are often double counted due to various laws.
Reports of non-physical abuse become more complicated, because men and women do not see the same things as abuse. Lets take a very easy subject: Link your image to a porn actor/actress. Most men would not take this as an insult, most women would.
How about name calling for another. Calling a person "slut" for example would not necessarily be considered abuse by the male, and would more likely be considered abuse by the female.
If you want more references and studies, simply search for "are men less likely to report abuse than women?" in your favorite search engine.
Lastly, as I stated above, this whole argument is a tangent to the real issue which is "Trolling" or "Abuse". While you go pull more made up numbers to back your tangent, nothing gets done to resolve the real issue.
Fair enough, but let's play along with the Socratic method if you don't mind.
Does the motive for taking a wrong action make the action right? Does wrong action become more wrong depending on the motive? Does wrong action lead to righteous results ever (be cautious with this one)?
Assuming that Socrates is correct, what is the benefit of arguing something tangential to the real problem instead of the problem? Does it help resolve the conflict, or does it dilute the root cause as GP stated?
If there is no benefit, then you must pursue a different question along a different path instead of pig-a-backing a base argument.
From one informal fallacy to another, what a surprise..
How the fuck you are supposed to prove that anyway I have no idea. But fine, hide behind your belief nothing happens unless it is proven. I'm sure it's a much nicer world to believe that.
You claimed it was true, and that anyone that didn't believe you was causing harm. Neither GP, nor I, ever made such an outrageous claim, you did.
So you are admitting that your assertion was false, and that it's impossible to prove? If your assertion is false, how does arguing a tangential non existent issue resolve the real problem? Think really long and hard before attempting to answer. Hint: It does not address the problem, which is the point GP made originally.
I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.
Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.
Really now? Proof by assertion is not proof, it's an informal fallacy. Yes, even if you claim that not believing your assertion is "not helping". Prove that women get trolled more, and prove that the trolling is more vicious as you claim. I await your great study of everyone trolled on the Internet with eagerness.
My comment was regarding the closing arguments in the paper. Reading is not that difficult, so let us see if you perhaps ignored content intentionally.
but we do have good evidence that intelligence is partly hereditary
Ahh, there it is, and its a steaming pile of bullshit! We have no evidence that intelligence is hereditary! What we do have evidence of, is that poverty and wealth have dramatic impact on intelligence. In order for your statement to be true, poverty must also be hereditary. Since we both know that is poverty is not hereditary, you are simply trying to bolster eugenics arguments through a correlation that does not exist.
The experiment demonstrated very clearly that race does not have as much bearing on intelligence as a persons environment. This is not even questioned at this point, as this one experiment was one of many social experiments that show the same exact result.
Even with this "science" there is a constant fixation on "this group is a superior race" which attempts to focus on everything except the obvious answer the social experiments have shown. Kind of like a magic diet pill always gets hype while lifestyle which can truly lead to weight loss gets ignored. People constantly fall for the hype, and the hype is constantly generated. Cui Bono? You can figure it out if you desire.
Considering that these are intro level jobs, it is safe in my opinion to restrict the question to this. "Who makes the better intro level candidate, 22-24 year old veteran or a 22-24 year old with a High School Diploma and maybe a few credits from a Community College?" I should for clarity add that the "veteran" is honorably discharged from the Military. Given that scenario, I'd lean toward the veteran every time.
Arguing about the technology that either a Military or Civilian organization uses has nothing to do with any of my list of characteristics. Military people using no technology will still have all of the characteristics I stated. Technology tends to be pretty disparate between those two as well, so we have to consider that we are training these candidates either way.
That said, who is more likely to take the initiative to go learn something when they lack knowledge? The obvious answer is the Military person, because they are both self motivated, and will persevere though education. Again, I can count at least dozens of non-veterans who are simply sexual intellects (AKA. "Fu&%ing know it all's") that refuse to learn. Those same people tend to quickly blame others when their lack of knowledge causes problems, and some are living examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. I don't see the same with veterans as a general rule.
On the other hand, bad former-military people were cogs in a machine, and don't see past their prescribed task at all.
Sure, generalizations are usually bad. That said, the Military does provide training that Civilians do not get, so what you should be asking is "what does the Military training focus on?"..
I don't think that having been military or not really gives much of a sign of how one will work out.
I'm guessing that you are not former Military and/or lack exposure to veterans (intentionally pluralized), so let me give a few things that all military people will have.
1. Self motivation. If you don't have it, you won't get out of boot camp. There are plenty of people that get out during boot camp under various hardships, they can't handle the training. Self motivation is essential for "good" IT people, we usually call it "self starter" in the civilian sector..
2. Perseverance. Same with above, even when things get tough you learn to cope in the military (or you exit). As with above, this means that Military people are less likely to give up on a problem, and will continue debugging for a much longer time.
3. Understanding of Hierarchy and chain of command. No need to teach this to a Veteran, we know what it is and how it works. Give a Military person a flow chart, and be amazed at how they can follow the proper chain of command for any department in your company.
4. Willingness to follow orders. Sometimes this can be seen as a downer, but as a veteran I have no issue following orders after I give my assessment of the situation. Management knows that they have to live with their decision if I'm overruled. I'm fine with that, and I have yet to see a manager that fails to live up to their decision (though it may take a bit memory jogging via email chains, etc..)
5. Understanding the importance of teamwork. The military teaches this by example all the time. You don't succeed in missions as Rambo (surviving an encounter is not a successful mission most of the time).
Given my first comment about generalizations, there are certainly exceptions to the rule. Similarly, there are certainly people without military experience that have the same set characteristics. Overall, I have almost never had to worry about these characteristics when working with Veterans. I can give hundreds of examples of non veterans that lack all or most of these characteristics.
There were a good number of founding fathers who were against slavery and fought pretty hard to make it illegal. Of course those people harm your biased opinion so you ignored them and made a false generalization.
There are certain crimes in the US where intent can not be considered. Yes, it's extremely absurd and people have argued against these rules for decades. The first I remember hearing of such a thing was after the "War on Drugs" started, but at least most illegal narcotics had specific quantities which were considered "casual use" and did not come with an automatic sentence.
The problem is not with the founding fathers, the problem is that all of our candidates are being bought and paid for by the same sponsors. The founding fathers did very well in designing what Socrates envisioned as a perfect Government 2,600 years ago. Put the blame in the right spot and things can actually get better. Of course petitioning your own candidates onto the ballot is hard, so you will most likely not do anything.
Google removed the pictures every time they received a take down notice, and continues to do so when people create new accounts and upload new copies. What is not being removed are news stories (including blogger reports) that _show_ some of these images in redacted form.
This claim is to make money and promote people, not about any real harm. A secondary effect is to get back to promoting internet censorship. I'm guessing that the same scum involved in framing 4chan to promote internet censorship is involved here somewhere. If this case ever makes it to court the prosecution should be laughed away and have to pay Google's legal expenses.
Of course you are correct, but the law and definition are intentionally vague. This allows loopholes and selective prosecution, which is the whole point. The people involved in the Franklin Coverup need loopholes and have the money for attorneys and bribes^W"donations" to ensure they don't go to jail. Those lower stock people living below the upper crust on the other hand, well who said they should have had a cell phone to begin with? (that last bit is sarcasm, just in case it's not obvious enough)
Or you get a response to someone you think may be attractive and set up a meeting, only to find out that they posted numerous pictures from 10 years and 100 lbs earlier.
No, I'm not shallow enough to think that appearance is everything but I do have problems with deception and I do believe that there needs to be some physical attraction if you plan to be more than just friends.
Needless to say, I don't have much faith in online dating sites. I know a couple of people (literally 2) that got lucky on an online dating site, where most people I know met their partners through friends, family, work, church, etc...
The argument should not be whether or not data can be hidden from the Government, but rather that the Government should not be attacking it's own citizens all of the time. I'm not claiming that the Government of the USA is currently acting within their Constitutional limits. Any 3rd grader that can read the Constitution should be able to tell you that they are not currently within their legal limits. Yes, searching all of your data all of the time is attacking your Constitutional rights. Whether they take action on what they find is similarly the wrong argument.
I don't agree that it's hard, just that human nature will always try and take the path of least resistance. Most security is actually pretty easy for users, just follow these X steps and you will be safe. Users read the first and last step because it's easy. Other users may perform all the steps a few times, and jump to using step 1 and finish because the don't remember the point in performing all the steps. There are others that believe the propaganda fed to them by media and government and consider all security a waste of time.
To back my point, go back and reread all of the examples they give. Every single one of them was a result of someone missing a step, not because a step was hard.
Notes has security that Exchange lacks, so I hope not. Of course MS promised a decade or so ago to have built in functional secure mail at the same standard specs as Lotus Notes. It has gotten better recently, but still not up to the bar yet. MS could have fixed this long ago by adopting open standards, but as with everything else their goal is to make everything proprietary.
You can certainly attempt to disagree, but Socrates makes a point when defining "Justice" which is that "Justice" must be consistent. If a law allows one person to do something that another person gets punished for, then the law is unjust. Justice is the ideal that Laws are supposed to maintain, therefor justice does not change.
People have ignored or remained ignorant to Socrates's definition, but nobody has proven him wrong or provided a more accurate definition.
Someone below links to an interesting blog that had quite a bit of exposure a while back, discussing this topic and boldly claiming within the next 10 years possessing child porn needs to be legalized. Find the link, and give it a read. It's honestly much more detailed than my summary below.
Two 14 year old teenagers experimenting with sex is not a surprise, is not a shock, and is more often than not completely voluntary and consensual. I won't take the position of cheering them on, or even encouraging those acts, but we all know it happens (probably from first hand experience). I kissed my first girl at a younger age (she was 14 and I was 12) and saw partial nudity. I lost my virginity at 14 with a different 14 year old girlfriend. We didn't have cell phones back then to take pictures, but if we did we'd have probably snapped lots of pictures. Wholly crap man, it was the first time either of us had seen another person intimately.
Seeing a prepubescent child getting raped is another story. That act is disgusting and disturbing, and in my opinion the rapist should be castrated prior to spending life in prison. Actually this is one of few cases where I would actually consider arguing for capital punishment.
The same Laws cover both of those topics equally. If a judge decides to charge one or both teens, their life is ruined from that day forward. Further, possession of child porn by law does not consider mens rea (intent). If you film or photograph a person raping a child, you are guilty of a Federal crime even if your only intent was to provide evidence to police. Knowingly possessing any child pornography (which is a massively broad definition including cartoons) is a Felony, period.
I agree with what you say, and was going to write a similar comment. What I'd add to your points is that Justice no longer exists in the US. We have a bunch of rules which have been written to exclude some, and include others and those selective rules are are being selectively enforced.
I can't say that is a new phenomenon, but it is at least more obvious today (perhaps more openly done as well). How many times this year have cops been cleared of all wrong doing after brutally beating and murdering unarmed suspects? How many bank executives have gone to jail for fraud that cause millions of families everything? How many Government officials have been brought up on perjury charges?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you, and figured I would add a bit to your points.
These comments are mostly being met with angry backlash from other commenters, which is good.
Ahh, nothing like open bias in an article. Down with anyone claiming personal responsibility is a factor! If you leave a 100dollar bill on your porch and a thief steals it, you were never in any way responsible for leaving the 100 dollar bill on your porch. Anyone claiming you were partially at fault should be chastised by the masses, obviously they are worthless slugs (hopefully the sarcasm is obvious).
A typical example of a weak "rebuttal" is this cartoon you may have seen shared on Facebook, in which an arrogant man lectures women, "Don't want your nude selfies to leak, ladies? Simple: don't take any! Bothered by street harassment? Don't be so eager to walk down streets."
Not only is walking down the street the same thing as taking nude photographs of yourself, but taking a nude photo of yourself and storing them in a public server is the same thing as a physical media you keep at home where you have some control.
And of course the author claims anyone that disagrees is using a "week" argument.
To begin with the benefits: Jennifer Lawrence explained bluntly in her Vanity Fair interview why she took the photos: "I was in a loving, healthy, great relationship for four years. It was long distance, and either your boyfriend is going to look at porn or he's going to look at you." (Considering how easily she could have gotten away with some platitudes about how "deeply hurt" she was, and how she "thanks all her fans for her support in this difficult period" -- doesn't a quote like that make you think she's decently cool?) OK, so that's the benefit. To her boyfriend at the time, a pretty big benefit.
An excuse for taking and nude photographs is just an excuse. Good lord, I have had long distance relationships too and I did not send or expect to receive naked pictures as part of the relationship. Even though mailing photographs (it's been some time since I have had one of those) I should have had legal expectation of privacy which is at least as stringent than an EULA on someone's "Cloud" server. Tampering with US Postal mail _is_ a felony.
So that's it. The correct response to the victim-blamers is not to draw false analogies to "having a credit card" or "walking down the street".
The author should first find the pot and kettle analogy and study it for at least a minute before making accusations. Then they should try to explain how walking down the street and taking nude photos of yourself and sending them anywhere equates to the same fucking thing (because they don't)!
If this was one of them pervert snapping pictures under girls skirts, the article would have some merit.
They weren't made-up numbers, he cited his sources.
My refutation was that any source will be corrupt, not that just his source was corrupt. I used 3 sources to validate my claim.
If you are attempting to claim that a citation is proof, then if were to find a web site claiming "Gravity does not exist" that is sufficient for "proof" that gravity does not exist? Or can you show me three sources to debunk that claim and sufficiently prove the claim and source wrong?
I honestly skimmed the rest and find nothing worth discussing beyond the blatant logic error you made.
It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.
I don't believe you are correct trying to divorce peace from politics. I don't want to hijack the conversation and turn the thread into a D vs. R debate so won't introduce blame here. That said, what if Obama had been able live up to his campaign promises and rhetoric? Personally I would have no problem with him winning the Peace prize if that was the situation.
Barack Obama did not receive the prize based on his actions or accomplishments, he receive the prize for what he put on a piece of paper. That is the part that had, and has, people scratching their heads.
Politicians have the potential for the biggest impacts to peace, both positive and negative. I have no issue with them receiving a Nobel Peace Prize, but the measure should always be their actions and accomplishments.
And there is a huge problem pulling numbers like this, which is a large part of what statistics is all about. We can use this as our reference. Note that this is related to physical abuse, and not verbal abuse. Statistically we would have to increase the suppressed reports of abuse when dealing with non-physical abuses.
Domestic violence against men refers to abuse against men or boys in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating, or within a family. As with violence against women, the practice is often regarded as a crime but pressures against reporting complicate issues.
How about this report which shows numbers are intentionally skewed in favor of women victims.
If one adds in rape (606,000 victims) the total is 5,427,000 women-but there is an issue of double-counting of an incident as both rape and intimate partner physical violence. (Emphasis mine).
Finally we can look here.
Men and boys are less likely to report the violence and seek services due to the following challenges: the stigma of being a male victim, the perceived failures to conform to the macho stereotype, the fear of not being believed, the denial of victim status, and the lack of support from society, family members, and friends.
In the case of men and boys, not only are they more likely to self suppress reports of abuse but they will not be heard if they do. Meanwhile, crimes against minorities and females are often double counted due to various laws.
Reports of non-physical abuse become more complicated, because men and women do not see the same things as abuse. Lets take a very easy subject: Link your image to a porn actor/actress. Most men would not take this as an insult, most women would.
How about name calling for another. Calling a person "slut" for example would not necessarily be considered abuse by the male, and would more likely be considered abuse by the female.
If you want more references and studies, simply search for "are men less likely to report abuse than women?" in your favorite search engine.
Lastly, as I stated above, this whole argument is a tangent to the real issue which is "Trolling" or "Abuse". While you go pull more made up numbers to back your tangent, nothing gets done to resolve the real issue.
The following is all subjective, so be warned. :)
Fair enough, but let's play along with the Socratic method if you don't mind.
Does the motive for taking a wrong action make the action right? Does wrong action become more wrong depending on the motive? Does wrong action lead to righteous results ever (be cautious with this one)?
Assuming that Socrates is correct, what is the benefit of arguing something tangential to the real problem instead of the problem? Does it help resolve the conflict, or does it dilute the root cause as GP stated?
If there is no benefit, then you must pursue a different question along a different path instead of pig-a-backing a base argument.
From one informal fallacy to another, what a surprise..
How the fuck you are supposed to prove that anyway I have no idea. But fine, hide behind your belief nothing happens unless it is proven. I'm sure it's a much nicer world to believe that.
You claimed it was true, and that anyone that didn't believe you was causing harm. Neither GP, nor I, ever made such an outrageous claim, you did.
So you are admitting that your assertion was false, and that it's impossible to prove? If your assertion is false, how does arguing a tangential non existent issue resolve the real problem? Think really long and hard before attempting to answer. Hint: It does not address the problem, which is the point GP made originally.
I really wish we could just drop the sexism part of this right now. Both genders get attacked by these people.
Both do, but it *is* sexist. It is far more widespread and vicious towards women. Ignoring that is not helping.
Really now? Proof by assertion is not proof, it's an informal fallacy. Yes, even if you claim that not believing your assertion is "not helping". Prove that women get trolled more, and prove that the trolling is more vicious as you claim. I await your great study of everyone trolled on the Internet with eagerness.
My comment was regarding the closing arguments in the paper. Reading is not that difficult, so let us see if you perhaps ignored content intentionally.
but we do have good evidence that intelligence is partly hereditary
Ahh, there it is, and its a steaming pile of bullshit! We have no evidence that intelligence is hereditary! What we do have evidence of, is that poverty and wealth have dramatic impact on intelligence. In order for your statement to be true, poverty must also be hereditary. Since we both know that is poverty is not hereditary, you are simply trying to bolster eugenics arguments through a correlation that does not exist.
The experiment demonstrated very clearly that race does not have as much bearing on intelligence as a persons environment. This is not even questioned at this point, as this one experiment was one of many social experiments that show the same exact result.
Even with this "science" there is a constant fixation on "this group is a superior race" which attempts to focus on everything except the obvious answer the social experiments have shown. Kind of like a magic diet pill always gets hype while lifestyle which can truly lead to weight loss gets ignored. People constantly fall for the hype, and the hype is constantly generated. Cui Bono? You can figure it out if you desire.
Considering that these are intro level jobs, it is safe in my opinion to restrict the question to this. "Who makes the better intro level candidate, 22-24 year old veteran or a 22-24 year old with a High School Diploma and maybe a few credits from a Community College?" I should for clarity add that the "veteran" is honorably discharged from the Military. Given that scenario, I'd lean toward the veteran every time.
Arguing about the technology that either a Military or Civilian organization uses has nothing to do with any of my list of characteristics. Military people using no technology will still have all of the characteristics I stated. Technology tends to be pretty disparate between those two as well, so we have to consider that we are training these candidates either way.
That said, who is more likely to take the initiative to go learn something when they lack knowledge? The obvious answer is the Military person, because they are both self motivated, and will persevere though education. Again, I can count at least dozens of non-veterans who are simply sexual intellects (AKA. "Fu&%ing know it all's") that refuse to learn. Those same people tend to quickly blame others when their lack of knowledge causes problems, and some are living examples of the Dunning–Kruger effect. I don't see the same with veterans as a general rule.
On the other hand, bad former-military people were cogs in a machine, and don't see past their prescribed task at all.
Sure, generalizations are usually bad. That said, the Military does provide training that Civilians do not get, so what you should be asking is "what does the Military training focus on?"..
I don't think that having been military or not really gives much of a sign of how one will work out.
I'm guessing that you are not former Military and/or lack exposure to veterans (intentionally pluralized), so let me give a few things that all military people will have.
1. Self motivation. If you don't have it, you won't get out of boot camp. There are plenty of people that get out during boot camp under various hardships, they can't handle the training. Self motivation is essential for "good" IT people, we usually call it "self starter" in the civilian sector..
2. Perseverance. Same with above, even when things get tough you learn to cope in the military (or you exit). As with above, this means that Military people are less likely to give up on a problem, and will continue debugging for a much longer time.
3. Understanding of Hierarchy and chain of command. No need to teach this to a Veteran, we know what it is and how it works. Give a Military person a flow chart, and be amazed at how they can follow the proper chain of command for any department in your company.
4. Willingness to follow orders. Sometimes this can be seen as a downer, but as a veteran I have no issue following orders after I give my assessment of the situation. Management knows that they have to live with their decision if I'm overruled. I'm fine with that, and I have yet to see a manager that fails to live up to their decision (though it may take a bit memory jogging via email chains, etc..)
5. Understanding the importance of teamwork. The military teaches this by example all the time. You don't succeed in missions as Rambo (surviving an encounter is not a successful mission most of the time).
Given my first comment about generalizations, there are certainly exceptions to the rule. Similarly, there are certainly people without military experience that have the same set characteristics. Overall, I have almost never had to worry about these characteristics when working with Veterans. I can give hundreds of examples of non veterans that lack all or most of these characteristics.
Your generalization fallacy was wrong, get over it.
There were a good number of founding fathers who were against slavery and fought pretty hard to make it illegal. Of course those people harm your biased opinion so you ignored them and made a false generalization.
There are certain crimes in the US where intent can not be considered. Yes, it's extremely absurd and people have argued against these rules for decades. The first I remember hearing of such a thing was after the "War on Drugs" started, but at least most illegal narcotics had specific quantities which were considered "casual use" and did not come with an automatic sentence.
The problem is not with the founding fathers, the problem is that all of our candidates are being bought and paid for by the same sponsors. The founding fathers did very well in designing what Socrates envisioned as a perfect Government 2,600 years ago. Put the blame in the right spot and things can actually get better. Of course petitioning your own candidates onto the ballot is hard, so you will most likely not do anything.
Stop, you are killing me!
Google removed the pictures every time they received a take down notice, and continues to do so when people create new accounts and upload new copies. What is not being removed are news stories (including blogger reports) that _show_ some of these images in redacted form.
This claim is to make money and promote people, not about any real harm. A secondary effect is to get back to promoting internet censorship. I'm guessing that the same scum involved in framing 4chan to promote internet censorship is involved here somewhere. If this case ever makes it to court the prosecution should be laughed away and have to pay Google's legal expenses.
Of course you are correct, but the law and definition are intentionally vague. This allows loopholes and selective prosecution, which is the whole point. The people involved in the Franklin Coverup need loopholes and have the money for attorneys and bribes^W"donations" to ensure they don't go to jail. Those lower stock people living below the upper crust on the other hand, well who said they should have had a cell phone to begin with? (that last bit is sarcasm, just in case it's not obvious enough)
Or you get a response to someone you think may be attractive and set up a meeting, only to find out that they posted numerous pictures from 10 years and 100 lbs earlier.
No, I'm not shallow enough to think that appearance is everything but I do have problems with deception and I do believe that there needs to be some physical attraction if you plan to be more than just friends.
Needless to say, I don't have much faith in online dating sites. I know a couple of people (literally 2) that got lucky on an online dating site, where most people I know met their partners through friends, family, work, church, etc...
The argument should not be whether or not data can be hidden from the Government, but rather that the Government should not be attacking it's own citizens all of the time. I'm not claiming that the Government of the USA is currently acting within their Constitutional limits. Any 3rd grader that can read the Constitution should be able to tell you that they are not currently within their legal limits. Yes, searching all of your data all of the time is attacking your Constitutional rights. Whether they take action on what they find is similarly the wrong argument.
I don't agree that it's hard, just that human nature will always try and take the path of least resistance. Most security is actually pretty easy for users, just follow these X steps and you will be safe. Users read the first and last step because it's easy. Other users may perform all the steps a few times, and jump to using step 1 and finish because the don't remember the point in performing all the steps. There are others that believe the propaganda fed to them by media and government and consider all security a waste of time.
To back my point, go back and reread all of the examples they give. Every single one of them was a result of someone missing a step, not because a step was hard.
Notes has security that Exchange lacks, so I hope not. Of course MS promised a decade or so ago to have built in functional secure mail at the same standard specs as Lotus Notes. It has gotten better recently, but still not up to the bar yet. MS could have fixed this long ago by adopting open standards, but as with everything else their goal is to make everything proprietary.
You can certainly attempt to disagree, but Socrates makes a point when defining "Justice" which is that "Justice" must be consistent. If a law allows one person to do something that another person gets punished for, then the law is unjust. Justice is the ideal that Laws are supposed to maintain, therefor justice does not change.
People have ignored or remained ignorant to Socrates's definition, but nobody has proven him wrong or provided a more accurate definition.
Someone below links to an interesting blog that had quite a bit of exposure a while back, discussing this topic and boldly claiming within the next 10 years possessing child porn needs to be legalized. Find the link, and give it a read. It's honestly much more detailed than my summary below.
Two 14 year old teenagers experimenting with sex is not a surprise, is not a shock, and is more often than not completely voluntary and consensual. I won't take the position of cheering them on, or even encouraging those acts, but we all know it happens (probably from first hand experience). I kissed my first girl at a younger age (she was 14 and I was 12) and saw partial nudity. I lost my virginity at 14 with a different 14 year old girlfriend. We didn't have cell phones back then to take pictures, but if we did we'd have probably snapped lots of pictures. Wholly crap man, it was the first time either of us had seen another person intimately.
Seeing a prepubescent child getting raped is another story. That act is disgusting and disturbing, and in my opinion the rapist should be castrated prior to spending life in prison. Actually this is one of few cases where I would actually consider arguing for capital punishment.
The same Laws cover both of those topics equally. If a judge decides to charge one or both teens, their life is ruined from that day forward. Further, possession of child porn by law does not consider mens rea (intent). If you film or photograph a person raping a child, you are guilty of a Federal crime even if your only intent was to provide evidence to police. Knowingly possessing any child pornography (which is a massively broad definition including cartoons) is a Felony, period.
I agree with what you say, and was going to write a similar comment. What I'd add to your points is that Justice no longer exists in the US. We have a bunch of rules which have been written to exclude some, and include others and those selective rules are are being selectively enforced.
I can't say that is a new phenomenon, but it is at least more obvious today (perhaps more openly done as well). How many times this year have cops been cleared of all wrong doing after brutally beating and murdering unarmed suspects? How many bank executives have gone to jail for fraud that cause millions of families everything? How many Government officials have been brought up on perjury charges?