Those are the people you need to watch out for because they can easily drive everyone else away. Hopefully they get caught early because of the culture clash.
The one I had the most trouble with, this is exactly what happened. There were multiple screaming matches (at a company where, after years working there, I had never heard a voice raised in anger) and we lost most of the senior people and quite a few junior ones. He did not seem to care, he just hired people who matched his personality better. So I guess he was effective when he can build his own team, but destructive when managing an existing one.
Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.
The problem with the general idea of reducing the population is that the people who consume the most would be the least likely to actually be impacted by such programs, it would probably eat from the middle out.
I think 'mixed bag' sums it up rather nicely. It is good to discuss potential advantages and disadvantages so one can look at current or potential employees with that knowledge, but as individuals how they pan out will of course vary.
Yes there was. There were piles of detailed plans on what to do when and how to handle various contingencies. As a planner you had to have a good idea of what your own people are going to do when you can not actually communicate with them.
One the other hand, I have had trouble with ex-military people keeping quiet about problems and generally being unwilling to bring up issues when the project would really benefit from knowing something is wrong. Some also seem to have difficulty either standing up to their superior at times when they really should, or not seeing their boss as superior and switching into 'leader' mode. They can be really frustrating to have as subordinates sometimes since they have had a whole set of triggers instilled in them for dominance and submission that do not always translate into the workplace.
I am less worried about the 'cog' people since they probably will not get very far in IT due to lack of, well, being useful..
The military people I have had trouble with in the past were ones who had really internalized hierarchy and protocol then have trouble when others do not fall into line with their expected behavior and deference.
On (C) at least, I think the frustration is they seized and liquidated the evidence before the case is settled. It is part of a larger problem with law enforcement lately where police can bring charges against the assets themselves and keep them. In some regions it is a serious money maker to the point finding too much cash in a random traffic stop funds the department.
Unless you are a wealthy company, in which case it is your right to try to change things. It is only unfair when you build tools to give power to the undeserving large groups of poor people rather then reenforce the power of the people who deserve it like rich people.
Why do you think they single out unions so consistently? They do not seem to mind small groups in positions of power leveraging their bargaining position, but somehow when workers get together and say 'hey, we have skills you want so here are our terms' it becomes communist and evil.
Of course the laws are counter productive, they were never designed to actually protect children in the first place. These laws were political tools, and many were put on the books specifically to go after gay men. It was not until a couple decades ago that people started having the expectation that they would be applied to heterosexual abuse and I still encounter (older) people who honestly believe that what they are doing or did is not child abuse because it was their daughter/niece, and are strongly in favor of the laws because they see them as not applying to people like them.
But today the laws are really just crafted to advance careers. They are very poorly constructed for actually addressing problems, but are well crafted for scoring political points with both voters and party members. They are written in such a way that they can be easily selectively applied to cases most likely to result in career advancement and ignore cases that do not benefit the prosecutor or police. Thus it is really easy to connect the prosecutions to the narrative, ensuring it matches up in a way that pleases voters since everyone loves data that confirms what they already know from TV.
I would disagree with the 'no longer exists' in that, looking at what people got away with in centuries past, we are moving towards a more just system rather then away from it. It was pretty damn open in the past, open enough that people just considered it normal, esp if you were not a white male landowner. Only within the last few decades are we actually starting to behave like we expect such things to be prosecuted and are upset when it does not happen.
Legally at least, minors do not have say in the matter. They can not do such things 'voluntarily' because they lack the legal standing to do so, it is not their body to photograph so taking pictures of themselves is equivalent to taking a picture of an unwilling victim.
Minors do not have legal rights over their own body or its integrity, so her taking pictures of herself is just as illegal as a 40 year old creep. At that age, it is not her body to take pictures of.
If you have a budget and a legal department, it is not kiddy porn. In order to count the material generally has to 'lack artistic merit', so pretty much any movie that cost significant money to make will get a free pass from most judges. It is a 'well of COURSE we do not mean those cases' thing.
Or if the DA is thinking of running for public office or is scoping out a promotion, then it is illegal. Kiddy porn cases are great for career advancement and no matter how outrageous or nonsensical the charge, no matter what the backlash, the fact it was 'kiddy porn' and the person prosecuted it will be a feather in their cap.
I would say their detractors are much thinner skinned then the SJWs. They rant and scream at any challenge to their privileged position and even the slightest mention that something might be bias towards them gets an avalanche of outrage. Seriously, the anti-SJW movement can not take even a hint of criticism or examination. Seems pretty thin skinned to me, esp when compared to people who are routinely mistreated.
Do you bitch this loudly about when they violate your first amendment, or your fourth amendment, or your fifth amendment? Or anything else? Or is it just guns in particular you worry yourself about?
Of course, how else would they prevent the police from searching their home and taking away their kiddy porn?
You know, sometimes I wonder why the people who believe in the absolute interoperation of the 2nd amendment are not fighting to legalize child pornography too.
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
At the time it was taken for granted that a person was a white christian male. Women were legal non-entities, they were essentially non-transferable property (outside a few narrow transactions) with no legal rights or protections. It was not 'silent' on the matter, it was just a 'everyone knows women are not people' thing. The 19th ammedment essentially changed the definition of 'People' in 'We the People', but the earlier version had a defintion even if it was not spelled out in writing.
Constitutional amendments have nothing to do with debating the merits of the topic. Politicians are concerned with keeping their jobs, their entire reward/punishment system is built around obtaining and holding political power. The only way an amendment would get passed is if a large number of political figures were convinced they would get voted out if they did not, and given the 97% incumbency rate we have today, that is just not going to happen.
California was debating requiring a serial number on home made guns independent of how they were made.
Since homemade guns are not transferable it was mostly a symbolic idea which at most would add another charge onto an existing arrest and that is about it.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a place for structure and hierarchy, but one can take it too far too.
Those are the people you need to watch out for because they can easily drive everyone else away. Hopefully they get caught early because of the culture clash.
The one I had the most trouble with, this is exactly what happened. There were multiple screaming matches (at a company where, after years working there, I had never heard a voice raised in anger) and we lost most of the senior people and quite a few junior ones. He did not seem to care, he just hired people who matched his personality better. So I guess he was effective when he can build his own team, but destructive when managing an existing one.
Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.
The problem with the general idea of reducing the population is that the people who consume the most would be the least likely to actually be impacted by such programs, it would probably eat from the middle out.
I think 'mixed bag' sums it up rather nicely. It is good to discuss potential advantages and disadvantages so one can look at current or potential employees with that knowledge, but as individuals how they pan out will of course vary.
Yes there was. There were piles of detailed plans on what to do when and how to handle various contingencies. As a planner you had to have a good idea of what your own people are going to do when you can not actually communicate with them.
One the other hand, I have had trouble with ex-military people keeping quiet about problems and generally being unwilling to bring up issues when the project would really benefit from knowing something is wrong. Some also seem to have difficulty either standing up to their superior at times when they really should, or not seeing their boss as superior and switching into 'leader' mode. They can be really frustrating to have as subordinates sometimes since they have had a whole set of triggers instilled in them for dominance and submission that do not always translate into the workplace.
I am less worried about the 'cog' people since they probably will not get very far in IT due to lack of, well, being useful..
The military people I have had trouble with in the past were ones who had really internalized hierarchy and protocol then have trouble when others do not fall into line with their expected behavior and deference.
Yeah, but who counts as a person?
On (C) at least, I think the frustration is they seized and liquidated the evidence before the case is settled. It is part of a larger problem with law enforcement lately where police can bring charges against the assets themselves and keep them. In some regions it is a serious money maker to the point finding too much cash in a random traffic stop funds the department.
Unless you are a wealthy company, in which case it is your right to try to change things. It is only unfair when you build tools to give power to the undeserving large groups of poor people rather then reenforce the power of the people who deserve it like rich people.
Why do you think they single out unions so consistently? They do not seem to mind small groups in positions of power leveraging their bargaining position, but somehow when workers get together and say 'hey, we have skills you want so here are our terms' it becomes communist and evil.
Heh. In an abstract way, yes. Kinda like a trust fun, some lawyer has stewardship till the recipient comes of age.
Given how common affairs with young women are in congress, looks like they utilize the ownership too.
Of course the laws are counter productive, they were never designed to actually protect children in the first place. These laws were political tools, and many were put on the books specifically to go after gay men. It was not until a couple decades ago that people started having the expectation that they would be applied to heterosexual abuse and I still encounter (older) people who honestly believe that what they are doing or did is not child abuse because it was their daughter/niece, and are strongly in favor of the laws because they see them as not applying to people like them.
But today the laws are really just crafted to advance careers. They are very poorly constructed for actually addressing problems, but are well crafted for scoring political points with both voters and party members. They are written in such a way that they can be easily selectively applied to cases most likely to result in career advancement and ignore cases that do not benefit the prosecutor or police. Thus it is really easy to connect the prosecutions to the narrative, ensuring it matches up in a way that pleases voters since everyone loves data that confirms what they already know from TV.
I would disagree with the 'no longer exists' in that, looking at what people got away with in centuries past, we are moving towards a more just system rather then away from it. It was pretty damn open in the past, open enough that people just considered it normal, esp if you were not a white male landowner. Only within the last few decades are we actually starting to behave like we expect such things to be prosecuted and are upset when it does not happen.
Legally at least, minors do not have say in the matter. They can not do such things 'voluntarily' because they lack the legal standing to do so, it is not their body to photograph so taking pictures of themselves is equivalent to taking a picture of an unwilling victim.
Minors do not have legal rights over their own body or its integrity, so her taking pictures of herself is just as illegal as a 40 year old creep. At that age, it is not her body to take pictures of.
If you have a budget and a legal department, it is not kiddy porn. In order to count the material generally has to 'lack artistic merit', so pretty much any movie that cost significant money to make will get a free pass from most judges. It is a 'well of COURSE we do not mean those cases' thing.
Though that is still at least more specific then 'obscenity', which pretty much comes down to 'if the judge sees no merit in it'.
Or if the DA is thinking of running for public office or is scoping out a promotion, then it is illegal. Kiddy porn cases are great for career advancement and no matter how outrageous or nonsensical the charge, no matter what the backlash, the fact it was 'kiddy porn' and the person prosecuted it will be a feather in their cap.
I would say their detractors are much thinner skinned then the SJWs. They rant and scream at any challenge to their privileged position and even the slightest mention that something might be bias towards them gets an avalanche of outrage. Seriously, the anti-SJW movement can not take even a hint of criticism or examination. Seems pretty thin skinned to me, esp when compared to people who are routinely mistreated.
Do you bitch this loudly about when they violate your first amendment, or your fourth amendment, or your fifth amendment? Or anything else? Or is it just guns in particular you worry yourself about?
Of course, how else would they prevent the police from searching their home and taking away their kiddy porn?
You know, sometimes I wonder why the people who believe in the absolute interoperation of the 2nd amendment are not fighting to legalize child pornography too.
Well, yes and no. In the original debates (not The Federalist Papers, which had specific authors expressing their own opinions) there was a great deal of 'of course we do not mean XYZ', with significant disagreement about how absolute they were and what did not even need saying (ah, common sense). For instance there were arguments about whether Islam, Judaism, and Catholicism counted as religions. There was no debate about whether the native ones counted, they were most certainly not.
At the time it was taken for granted that a person was a white christian male. Women were legal non-entities, they were essentially non-transferable property (outside a few narrow transactions) with no legal rights or protections. It was not 'silent' on the matter, it was just a 'everyone knows women are not people' thing. The 19th ammedment essentially changed the definition of 'People' in 'We the People', but the earlier version had a defintion even if it was not spelled out in writing.
Constitutional amendments have nothing to do with debating the merits of the topic. Politicians are concerned with keeping their jobs, their entire reward/punishment system is built around obtaining and holding political power. The only way an amendment would get passed is if a large number of political figures were convinced they would get voted out if they did not, and given the 97% incumbency rate we have today, that is just not going to happen.
I am kinda curious where this 'the 2nd amendment is so we can keep the government in check' idea came from. Historically it is complete nonsense.
California was debating requiring a serial number on home made guns independent of how they were made.
Since homemade guns are not transferable it was mostly a symbolic idea which at most would add another charge onto an existing arrest and that is about it.