What is wrong with you? Do you think that a very narrow-reading of the title that conflicts with than the actual content of the article is in any way meaningful? Do you honestly believe that you are correct here? Are you trying to troll me? Are you trying to protect your ego by not admitting you made a mistake? What is in your head that makes you write such a transparently false statement?
Don't be silly, the OP was asking about insider threats. The OP explicitly used the words "insider" and "trusted employee" while never using the word whistle-blower or any other synonym.
Your arguments all assume the initial point - that when an industrialist says "reasonable" he really means completely in his own interest. Thus when the guy said educated people are the last to accept an imposition it didn't mean anything because of course he is so completely one-sided in his own perspective that he could never fathom any of his own desires as being unreasonable. Pretty much everything you've quoted works exactly the same way - it sounds shitty if you go into it expecting the worst of the authors, so that's the proof they are shitty so you should go into it expecting the worst of them.
nor does it mean he's guilty of the dozens of other crimes that they tortured him into confessing to
To the best of my knowledge he didn't give them jack shit despite being waterboarded around 180 times. For a while there was this pro-torture narrative going around that he "broke" after ~30 seconds of waterboarding when later it turned out that the real story was closer to the CIA gave up waterboarding him after ~30 days of doing it to him 5 times a day and getting nothing.
The quote was from Nasaw's book and was therefore his selection.
Which should be enough to cast doubt on his entire premise. The guy deliberately pulled a quote that was immediate followed by the statement that educated people are the least likely to put up with bullshit. As direct a contradiction of his thesis as it gets.
The thrust of the whole passage--indeed the whole letter--is that the educated workers are more virtuous and hygienic and, in sum, that they do what they're told.
That's spin. There is no doubt the the writer is happy about the quality of educated employees, but to frame that as "docility" is to trivialize the situation. It is akin to saying that the reason people are required to pass a driver's license exam is not to make them better drivers but to make them more meek drivers.
The intent to make the populace manageable could not be clearer than we find it in the first publications of John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board:
That quote too is out of context - it had absolutely nothing to do with industry. The document the partial quote came from was purely about rural education - making better farmers. The document is "The Country School of To-morrow" - subtitled "In which young and old will be taught in practicable ways how to make rural life beautiful, intelligent, fruitful, recreative, healthful and joyous."
"The manufacturers were unanimous in proclaiming that those workers with schooling were, as Mann had suggested they might be, "more orderly and respectful in their deportment, and more ready to comply with the wholesome and necessary regulations of an establishment.â
The rest of the quote says,
"And in times of agitation on account of some change in regulations or wages, I have always looked to the most intelligent, best educated, and the most, moral, for support, and have seldom been disappointed. For, while they are the last to submit to imposition, they reason; and, if your requirements are reasonable, they will generally acquiesce, and exert a salutary influence upon their associates. But the ignorant and uneducated I have generally found the most turbulent and troublesome, acting under the impulse of excited passion and jealousy."
That's an entirely different take - its not about being docile its about having an accurate perspective.
Lets see a citation for that claim. Seriously - you claim it exists you should be able to name it and link to either an analysis of the text confirming your claims or to the text directly. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.
By the same token, rolling out fingerprint scanners on middle- and highschools, and irisscanners here, are as much a test of the technology as, if not moreso than, any benefits for the administration('s political squabbles).
Its about crony-capitalism. Check out the people responsible for making the decision to deploy these systems. historically they have always been connected to the companies that won the bid to do it. Lots of times the link is as straightforward as the CEO being on the school board.
It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.
I'm too lazy to hunt down a citation but my understanding is that the previous pope was put in charge of the committee to handle all of the internal allegations of pedo-priestiality long before he was made pope. So, basically all of the foot-dragging and cover-ups on that front leading up to the public lawsuits is on his head. I don't think his involvement was a secret though.
FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself). All of the good stuff he's been doing makes me wonder if there is more to the story of this change in the laws, I am inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt pending better reporting.
(much like the modern parallel FWD.us has an interest in promoting certain kinds of immigration policies)
No, absolutely NOT like FWD.us - thats a PAC that has absolutely no redeeming public value. They are 100% self-interest and 0% public interest. Public education is a literal public good - as in a rising tide lifts all boats.
The rest of your explanation is, as the AC pointed out, working backwards from (some) results to divine intent. That is the stuff of conspiracy theory.
For people who are stuck with vulnerable phones it should be possible for an app to scan the.apk you are considering side-loading and checking if it is a trojan using this particular vulnerability.
I think the pedo laws are completely out of hand, but the idea that severe penalties will cause molesters to kill their victims is bogus. The kind of person who murders is already sociopathic enough that any amount of penalty is going to be enough to justify murdering their victim. Even if there was absolutely no legal penalty they would still have to worry about parents going vigilante on them.
Yes! Thank you for the illustration - you think I am "defending" some cause beyond simple accuracy in basic facts. You had soooo many chances to just leave it at that, but you can't see the world that way, you kept trying to redefine my position into something you could wrap your simple brain around. Your dogged illogic is exactly what made start to wonder what makes you tick. I thank you for doing that, you've really helped me to better understand individuals like yourself.
Your love of hierarchy doesn't give you the mental freedom to see the world in any other terms than defenders/members of your hierarchy and enemies of your hierarchy. Obviously an innately illogical perspective to anyone who doesn't love hierarchy but perfectly logical to anyone who stuck in the mode of believing hierarchy makes the world go around.
I find it illuminating that for you, conflictual debate leads quickly to questions of mental stability.
No, its not conflictual debate, its illogic. Repeated insistence on illogic. That makes me wonder what the cause is. Its interesting that you focused on mental stability when that wasn't really my best guess.
I was thinking love of hierarchy was probably your real issue, you aren't the first person to be so insistently illogical. My working theory is that hierarchy is a replacement for empathy. That hierarchy is a heuristic for understanding the circumstances of each person - so long as they are in their place then their experience in life is defined by their position in the hierarchy.
It's only when people don't fit into the hierarchy that you have to engage other parts of your brain to understand their perspective. Having used hierarchy as a crutch for so long the part of your brain that processes empathy is underdeveloped. So you end up having a very hard time figuring out if their actions are appropriate or not. The default state, for most humans, seems to be that if you can't understand it, then it is bad. That's a very primal reaction which would explain your illogic.
Maybe that also explains your excessive focus on typos and your inability to realize that the reference to a rorschach test was not literal. Understanding a metaphor requires a certain level of abstract thinking, which hierarchy does not encourage either. I bet you have problems with metaphors quite frequently, am I right?
I'd recommend you reread your posts before clicking submit to avoid posting nonsensical replies...
Oooh, typo flame. Such heady intellectualism.
Let's see, which one make sense?
> I get the impression people accuse me of being a zealot quite frequently. or > I get the impression people accuse you of being a zealot quite frequently.
Rorschah test and you failed...
I'd also recommend that you look up the word zealot & reflect on why you are hearing it so often.
What is really interesting here is you. Snowden eh, you could have substituted anyone else who has done some interviews and everything I wrote would have been the same. But you, you are such an interesting specimen. What is it that motivates you to such levels of irrationality?
Are you mentally ill? I try not engage with the mentally ill so much because its just mean-spirited to poke at their reality-impairments. Would you even know it if you were mentally ill?
Or are you just one of those people who love hierarchy so much that they take anything that threatens the hierarchy to which they belong as a personal attack? An attack that provokes an emotional rather than a logical response? Sure you might try to use the forms of logic but when the ideas of your words don't actually follow in any logical manner it seems like just a veneer, an attempt to appropriate the language of a higher moral stage than what you are actually functioning at.
What is it that makes your clock tick so erratically and yet so emphatically?
Slashdot Mirror
yes, and in a few years when only the police has guns, don't be surprised when they trample all over your rights and do whatever they want.
In a few years? That shit happens all the time.
Like this one example out of thousands:
https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm
What is wrong with you? Do you think that a very narrow-reading of the title that conflicts with than the actual content of the article is in any way meaningful? Do you honestly believe that you are correct here? Are you trying to troll me? Are you trying to protect your ego by not admitting you made a mistake? What is in your head that makes you write such a transparently false statement?
Reference please. Sounds like more of your Islamicist apologist rubbish - hence, reputable reference please.
Torture doesn't work is an apologia for some religion? What a simplistic world you live in.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Laughed Off Waterboarding
Don't be silly, the OP was asking about insider threats. The OP explicitly used the words "insider" and "trusted employee" while never using the word whistle-blower or any other synonym.
It will stop people of conscience but not any other forms of espionage.
Your arguments all assume the initial point - that when an industrialist says "reasonable" he really means completely in his own interest. Thus when the guy said educated people are the last to accept an imposition it didn't mean anything because of course he is so completely one-sided in his own perspective that he could never fathom any of his own desires as being unreasonable. Pretty much everything you've quoted works exactly the same way - it sounds shitty if you go into it expecting the worst of the authors, so that's the proof they are shitty so you should go into it expecting the worst of them.
Don't be a prick, all religions have weird fetishistic rituals. A quick peck on a freshly washed foot is not unhygienic.
nor does it mean he's guilty of the dozens of other crimes that they tortured him into confessing to
To the best of my knowledge he didn't give them jack shit despite being waterboarded around 180 times. For a while there was this pro-torture narrative going around that he "broke" after ~30 seconds of waterboarding when later it turned out that the real story was closer to the CIA gave up waterboarding him after ~30 days of doing it to him 5 times a day and getting nothing.
The quote was from Nasaw's book and was therefore his selection.
Which should be enough to cast doubt on his entire premise. The guy deliberately pulled a quote that was immediate followed by the statement that educated people are the least likely to put up with bullshit. As direct a contradiction of his thesis as it gets.
The thrust of the whole passage--indeed the whole letter--is that the educated workers are more virtuous and hygienic and, in sum, that they do what they're told.
That's spin. There is no doubt the the writer is happy about the quality of educated employees, but to frame that as "docility" is to trivialize the situation. It is akin to saying that the reason people are required to pass a driver's license exam is not to make them better drivers but to make them more meek drivers.
The intent to make the populace manageable could not be clearer than we find it in the first publications of John D. Rockefeller's General Education Board:
That quote too is out of context - it had absolutely nothing to do with industry. The document the partial quote came from was purely about rural education - making better farmers. The document is "The Country School of To-morrow" - subtitled "In which young and old will be taught in practicable ways how to make rural life beautiful, intelligent, fruitful, recreative, healthful and joyous."
See for yourself: http://books.google.com/books?id=QzhDAAAAYAAJ
Already debunked by pulling the entire quotation.
You are doing that selective quote thing:
"The manufacturers were unanimous in proclaiming that those workers with schooling were, as Mann had suggested they might be, "more orderly and respectful in their deportment, and more ready to comply with the wholesome and necessary regulations of an establishment.â
The rest of the quote says,
"And in times of agitation on account of some change in regulations or wages, I have always looked to the most intelligent, best educated, and the most, moral, for support, and have seldom been disappointed. For, while they are the last to submit to imposition, they reason; and, if your requirements are reasonable, they will generally acquiesce, and exert a salutary influence upon their associates. But the ignorant and uneducated I have generally found the most turbulent and troublesome, acting under the impulse of excited passion and jealousy."
That's an entirely different take - its not about being docile its about having an accurate perspective.
Q: What do you when you have enough money?
A: Anything you want, including discarding the trash you used to get to the top.
That can be read at least two different ways:
(a) trash = scummy politicians who took your bribes
(b) trash = idealists who believed your promises
I think that the closer you get to having "enough money" the more the definition of "trash" changes from (a) to (b).
Lets see a citation for that claim. Seriously - you claim it exists you should be able to name it and link to either an analysis of the text confirming your claims or to the text directly. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proof.
Given that he was "out-humbling" everybody back in Brazil long before he was pope, I think its genuine.
By the same token, rolling out fingerprint scanners on middle- and highschools, and irisscanners here, are as much a test of the technology as, if not moreso than, any benefits for the administration('s political squabbles).
Its about crony-capitalism. Check out the people responsible for making the decision to deploy these systems. historically they have always been connected to the companies that won the bid to do it. Lots of times the link is as straightforward as the CEO being on the school board.
It simply needs to be recorded that he was *aware* of specific allegations and refused to act.
I'm too lazy to hunt down a citation but my understanding is that the previous pope was put in charge of the committee to handle all of the internal allegations of pedo-priestiality long before he was made pope. So, basically all of the foot-dragging and cover-ups on that front leading up to the public lawsuits is on his head. I don't think his involvement was a secret though.
FWIW, it seems like this new pope is actually pretty saintly - avoiding much of the ostentatiousness of the office, washing the feet of a poor muslim woman instead of a priest on Maundy Thursday (a triple break with tradition) and being conciliatory to atheists (immediately disclaimed by the church PR office but not by the pope himself). All of the good stuff he's been doing makes me wonder if there is more to the story of this change in the laws, I am inclined to give the guy the benefit of the doubt pending better reporting.
(much like the modern parallel FWD.us has an interest in promoting certain kinds of immigration policies)
No, absolutely NOT like FWD.us - thats a PAC that has absolutely no redeeming public value. They are 100% self-interest and 0% public interest. Public education is a literal public good - as in a rising tide lifts all boats.
The rest of your explanation is, as the AC pointed out, working backwards from (some) results to divine intent. That is the stuff of conspiracy theory.
That is such bullshit. Public education leads to more workers full stop - that's why industrialists promoted public education.
The whole brainwashing/docile/pod-people crap is just conspiracy theory gone wild.
For people who are stuck with vulnerable phones it should be possible for an app to scan the .apk you are considering side-loading and checking if it is a trojan using this particular vulnerability.
I think the pedo laws are completely out of hand, but the idea that severe penalties will cause molesters to kill their victims is bogus. The kind of person who murders is already sociopathic enough that any amount of penalty is going to be enough to justify murdering their victim. Even if there was absolutely no legal penalty they would still have to worry about parents going vigilante on them.
Yes! Thank you for the illustration - you think I am "defending" some cause beyond simple accuracy in basic facts. You had soooo many chances to just leave it at that, but you can't see the world that way, you kept trying to redefine my position into something you could wrap your simple brain around. Your dogged illogic is exactly what made start to wonder what makes you tick. I thank you for doing that, you've really helped me to better understand individuals like yourself.
Your love of hierarchy doesn't give you the mental freedom to see the world in any other terms than defenders/members of your hierarchy and enemies of your hierarchy. Obviously an innately illogical perspective to anyone who doesn't love hierarchy but perfectly logical to anyone who stuck in the mode of believing hierarchy makes the world go around.
I find it illuminating that for you, conflictual debate leads quickly to questions of mental stability.
No, its not conflictual debate, its illogic. Repeated insistence on illogic. That makes me wonder what the cause is. Its interesting that you focused on mental stability when that wasn't really my best guess.
I was thinking love of hierarchy was probably your real issue, you aren't the first person to be so insistently illogical. My working theory is that hierarchy is a replacement for empathy. That hierarchy is a heuristic for understanding the circumstances of each person - so long as they are in their place then their experience in life is defined by their position in the hierarchy.
It's only when people don't fit into the hierarchy that you have to engage other parts of your brain to understand their perspective. Having used hierarchy as a crutch for so long the part of your brain that processes empathy is underdeveloped. So you end up having a very hard time figuring out if their actions are appropriate or not. The default state, for most humans, seems to be that if you can't understand it, then it is bad. That's a very primal reaction which would explain your illogic.
Maybe that also explains your excessive focus on typos and your inability to realize that the reference to a rorschach test was not literal. Understanding a metaphor requires a certain level of abstract thinking, which hierarchy does not encourage either. I bet you have problems with metaphors quite frequently, am I right?
I'd recommend you reread your posts before clicking submit to avoid posting nonsensical replies...
Oooh, typo flame. Such heady intellectualism.
Let's see, which one make sense?
> I get the impression people accuse me of being a zealot quite frequently.
or
> I get the impression people accuse you of being a zealot quite frequently.
Rorschah test and you failed...
I'd also recommend that you look up the word zealot & reflect on why you are hearing it so often.
What is really interesting here is you. Snowden eh, you could have substituted anyone else who has done some interviews and everything I wrote would have been the same. But you, you are such an interesting specimen. What is it that motivates you to such levels of irrationality?
Are you mentally ill? I try not engage with the mentally ill so much because its just mean-spirited to poke at their reality-impairments. Would you even know it if you were mentally ill?
Or are you just one of those people who love hierarchy so much that they take anything that threatens the hierarchy to which they belong as a personal attack? An attack that provokes an emotional rather than a logical response? Sure you might try to use the forms of logic but when the ideas of your words don't actually follow in any logical manner it seems like just a veneer, an attempt to appropriate the language of a higher moral stage than what you are actually functioning at.
What is it that makes your clock tick so erratically and yet so emphatically?
I get the impression people accuse of being zealot quite frequently.