Maybe a warning the first time it happens. But it does make business sense to write up or fire people if they do it twice.
Think about it. You have how many people sitting around for three hours in the morning wondering where all their chairs, whiteboards, and tables went? That's a several thousand dollar problem every time it happens. Add to that the tension that's going to be created between the two departments involved, that's got to be an HR nightmare.
In a third world country? A house does not imply running water, sewage, or any kind of power generation infrastructure. There are many countries where the power is of poor quality (very spiky, random surges, brownouts, etc), intermittent, or only available between certain hours.
That said, this bulb will run for two hours? I don't care how long it takes to charge, if it can't run for more than two hours then what's the point? A lightbulb that only functions a little bit after dark isn't going to help anyone do anything in the dark.
"When I was last in the corporate world, we strictly acquired perks like nicer chairs and our own white boards via commando-style raids. We would actually have strategic planning meetings for the raids. The 8 pm Network Operations shift change was our standard time, and the 5th floor our standard target."
In most of the companies I know, you'd be written up or fired within 8 hours of pulling such a stunt.
"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so."
Nonsense. It is based on the circumstances at hand. It is not "always OK" or "never ok" to leak classified information.
Example: Nuclear weapon blueprints. Probably not a good idea to leak those. Probably also not good to leak troop movements or things like access codes to restricted areas. However, illegal wiretapping, murder covered up by the army, Abu Ghraib abuse problems, etc. are all things that NEED to be leaked in order to ensure the democratic process continues to work. The people have decided that some information needs to be secret. The people need to make sure this power isn't abused... by any means necessary. Once we allow the government to subvert our freedom the entire point of this country is gone. If you don't want freedom then there's plenty of other places to go that don't have it. Feel free to move there any time. The USA was founded on the principle that freedom was more important than anything, even security.
"Tweet is a word" Tweet is what a bird does. Tweet does not, officially, mean "to submit a text string to twitter.com". The problem using "tweet" is that it's slang. Slang terms are unprofessional. You might as well allow NYT editors to write articles like "Popo caps a bitch after she tried to jack a 7-11" instead of "police shoot a woman after she attempted to rob a convenience store".
This entire situation is not a matter of "do people understand what we're saying?" It's a matter of "Is this professional". Of course people know what the word "tweet" means, but the issue is that it's not professional.
And responding to the assertion that twitter will force out the NYT: bullshit. Refusing to use slang terms in a professional publication does not ensure said publication's demise. In fact, it ensures exactly the opposite, that people will still regard the NYT as a professional publication with real writers, not some website where anyone can post literally anything without even the most basic fact checking.
"And how is anyone ever going to be able to use IP addresses as evidence anymore if you can just claim that you have an open network."
I guess that you'll have to actually obtain some evidence of illegal activity then. It is not the job of laws to restrict freedom for the purpose of making it easy to sue people or catch criminals.
The price of freedom is that some criminals will run free, get used to it. It's what all of America was built on for fuck's sake. It saddens me that there's people who can't accept this fact.
I turned autorun off on every computer I've ever had without much issue. That's windows 98, 2000, XP, vista, server '08, and win 7. All of them made it easy enough to turn it off. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.
It should not be the job of the government and companies to put measurements into units that idiots with no math skills can understand. MPG isn't stupidly convoluted. If the average American can't see that going from 10 MPG to 20 MPG is a 100% increase and that going from 33 to 50 mpg is a 66% increase, then it says more about the idiocy that society is allowing to spread.
This isn't a matter of companies giving nonsense units or making things up or intentionally misleading consumers. This is a case of Americans being too fucking stupid to divide two fucking numbers.
I find that every day I'm a little less proud to live in this country.
"No, it isn't your "right" to wear anything that covers your face if/when a cop wants to identify you"
Yes, it is. I do not have to identify myself to a cop unless I am driving a car. If asked to provide my driver's license while not operating a motor vehicle, I have the right to refuse.
What the fuck is wrong with putting something over your face? For fuck's sake, you saying I can't wear sunglasses? You can go fuck yourself. How about you wear whatever the hell you want and I wear whatever the hell I want and we're both happy. It's my fucking right to wear what I want, asshole.
"But behavioral observation... is the only real profiling technique that has any chance of not falling into obvious traps."
What nonsense did you use to arrive at that conclusion? SPOT has been proven ineffective. Searches are partially effective. How can you say that only SPOT has any chance of success?
Furthermore, you assert that having innocent passengers subject to extra search. How far are you willing to take this? Anyone that looks suspicious should be turned away from the airport? You've arbitrary drawn the line at "it's acceptable to subject innocent people to extra searches", there's no reasoning not to draw the line at any other place.
We simply have to admit that FLYING ISN'T FUCKING 100% SAFE BECAUSE NOTHING IS. It's safer than driving a car for fuck's sake, if you're willing to drive a car then you should have no problem flying in a plane. At least with a terrorist you have the chance to tackle them on the plane and beat them to a pulp before they can blow anything up. You don't even have a fighting chance against, say, a drunk driver running a light.
PROTIP: See someone trying to light their shoes or balls on fire? Tackle them.
Yeah, but most of the time it's "company in has problems because did some illegal shit". I don't think that many companies based out of china turn their manufacturing over to the US or other countries, is usually the other way around.
What do you mean "unfortunately". It's almost as though you think that having a law against it will stop EVERYONE from intercepting your data. You DO realize that criminals will still analyze your data, right?
And no, using kismet does not show that the data collection was intentional. There are many uses for any network monitoring tool, even those tools that CAN capture lots and lots of data.
100 years ago I guess this would have been the equivalent of personally going to everyone in the village and repeating these statements? 20 years ago a LOT of shit would have been different. We're not talking about what happened 20 fucking years ago before the widespread use of the internet.
"Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?"
I'm sick to think that I live in a country that actually needs to ask this question. The first amendment plainly spells out the right to free speech. The fact that anyone is even considering limiting it is absurd. "right to discipline" I don't see that anywhere in the constitution, why the hell should it even be compared to the right to free speech? It's not a right. It's just something that the schools have been doing for so long that people somehow believe that it's necessary.
"who had no one above him giving him inhuman orders became oblivious to the behavior of the guards and the experiment was only ended when his girlfriend reminded him of how appalling it all was."
Which is exactly why that experiment isn't really considered especially valid. The observer taking part in the experiment, the biased instructions he gave, and the fact that he completely lost all sense of ethics until his girlfriend reminded him shows that he clearly wasn't impartial.
"Your camera is making me uncomfortable please stop taking photos" like he does in that video you should comply"
Absolutely not. If it's some cop who is off duty out of uniform then yeah, cops have the same right to not be harassed as anyone else. This still doesn't mean that you can't take pictures of them in public. You are allowed to photograph people in public simply because they're in public, taking a harassing number of photos or following them is stalking though. Anyone acting as a private citizen should have the same rights not to be harassed as anyone else.
If there is a uniformed officer, in public, then he should have no rights to not be photographed and the laws regarding stalking should be relaxed specifically in this instance. Cops are SUPPOSED to be better than everyone else. You don't just give any random citizen off the street a gun and a badge and say "go enforce the law". Of course, cops are only human and thus can't be expected to act better than anyone else if left to their own devices. The only way of ensuring that cops don't abuse their authority is to ensure that they may be photographed while on duty so that any abuses may be taped.
While an officer is working in PUBLIC to defend and serve the PUBLIC while being paid by the PUBLIC then they should have no special ability to make their actions PRIVATE.
Unless the cop is just a dick. I've had cops come up to me and be total douchebags. Just a simple "hello officer" and they start ranting about some bullshit. I've had cops that are really nice too, and I would agree with you if they were all like the nice cops I've dealt with. Unfortunately, they're not. Some cops ARE assholes.
How do you build rapport with some random cop you've never met before writing you a speeding ticket? That doesn't make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe a warning the first time it happens. But it does make business sense to write up or fire people if they do it twice.
Think about it. You have how many people sitting around for three hours in the morning wondering where all their chairs, whiteboards, and tables went? That's a several thousand dollar problem every time it happens.
Add to that the tension that's going to be created between the two departments involved, that's got to be an HR nightmare.
Firing those responsible makes perfect sense.
In a third world country? A house does not imply running water, sewage, or any kind of power generation infrastructure. There are many countries where the power is of poor quality (very spiky, random surges, brownouts, etc), intermittent, or only available between certain hours.
That said, this bulb will run for two hours? I don't care how long it takes to charge, if it can't run for more than two hours then what's the point? A lightbulb that only functions a little bit after dark isn't going to help anyone do anything in the dark.
"Reagan's EO12333"
Regan's executive orders are no longer valid. They expire when the president leaves office.
"When I was last in the corporate world, we strictly acquired perks like nicer chairs and our own white boards via commando-style raids. We would actually have strategic planning meetings for the raids. The 8 pm Network Operations shift change was our standard time, and the 5th floor our standard target."
In most of the companies I know, you'd be written up or fired within 8 hours of pulling such a stunt.
"Professionalism" is not a good thing always in journalism if you are trying to make money"
The job of the media is not to make money, it's to print the facts in a professional and unbiased manner.
"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so."
Nonsense. It is based on the circumstances at hand. It is not "always OK" or "never ok" to leak classified information.
Example: Nuclear weapon blueprints. Probably not a good idea to leak those. Probably also not good to leak troop movements or things like access codes to restricted areas.
However, illegal wiretapping, murder covered up by the army, Abu Ghraib abuse problems, etc. are all things that NEED to be leaked in order to ensure the democratic process continues to work. The people have decided that some information needs to be secret. The people need to make sure this power isn't abused... by any means necessary. Once we allow the government to subvert our freedom the entire point of this country is gone. If you don't want freedom then there's plenty of other places to go that don't have it. Feel free to move there any time. The USA was founded on the principle that freedom was more important than anything, even security.
"Tweet is a word"
Tweet is what a bird does. Tweet does not, officially, mean "to submit a text string to twitter.com". The problem using "tweet" is that it's slang. Slang terms are unprofessional. You might as well allow NYT editors to write articles like "Popo caps a bitch after she tried to jack a 7-11" instead of "police shoot a woman after she attempted to rob a convenience store".
This entire situation is not a matter of "do people understand what we're saying?" It's a matter of "Is this professional". Of course people know what the word "tweet" means, but the issue is that it's not professional.
And responding to the assertion that twitter will force out the NYT: bullshit. Refusing to use slang terms in a professional publication does not ensure said publication's demise. In fact, it ensures exactly the opposite, that people will still regard the NYT as a professional publication with real writers, not some website where anyone can post literally anything without even the most basic fact checking.
"And how is anyone ever going to be able to use IP addresses as evidence anymore if you can just claim that you have an open network."
I guess that you'll have to actually obtain some evidence of illegal activity then. It is not the job of laws to restrict freedom for the purpose of making it easy to sue people or catch criminals.
The price of freedom is that some criminals will run free, get used to it. It's what all of America was built on for fuck's sake. It saddens me that there's people who can't accept this fact.
I turned autorun off on every computer I've ever had without much issue. That's windows 98, 2000, XP, vista, server '08, and win 7. All of them made it easy enough to turn it off. I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.
Sorry, little error in my math there. 33 to 50 MPG is a 51.5% increase.
Yeah, I know it sounds ironic but math errors happen when you get outraged at the lack of basic math skills in America and try to do division.
No, it's stupid people.
It should not be the job of the government and companies to put measurements into units that idiots with no math skills can understand. MPG isn't stupidly convoluted. If the average American can't see that going from 10 MPG to 20 MPG is a 100% increase and that going from 33 to 50 mpg is a 66% increase, then it says more about the idiocy that society is allowing to spread.
This isn't a matter of companies giving nonsense units or making things up or intentionally misleading consumers. This is a case of Americans being too fucking stupid to divide two fucking numbers.
I find that every day I'm a little less proud to live in this country.
"No, it isn't your "right" to wear anything that covers your face if/when a cop wants to identify you"
Yes, it is. I do not have to identify myself to a cop unless I am driving a car. If asked to provide my driver's license while not operating a motor vehicle, I have the right to refuse.
Go look it up.
What the fuck is wrong with putting something over your face? For fuck's sake, you saying I can't wear sunglasses? You can go fuck yourself. How about you wear whatever the hell you want and I wear whatever the hell I want and we're both happy. It's my fucking right to wear what I want, asshole.
"But behavioral observation ... is the only real profiling technique that has any chance of not falling into obvious traps."
What nonsense did you use to arrive at that conclusion?
SPOT has been proven ineffective. Searches are partially effective. How can you say that only SPOT has any chance of success?
Furthermore, you assert that having innocent passengers subject to extra search. How far are you willing to take this? Anyone that looks suspicious should be turned away from the airport? You've arbitrary drawn the line at "it's acceptable to subject innocent people to extra searches", there's no reasoning not to draw the line at any other place.
We simply have to admit that FLYING ISN'T FUCKING 100% SAFE BECAUSE NOTHING IS. It's safer than driving a car for fuck's sake, if you're willing to drive a car then you should have no problem flying in a plane. At least with a terrorist you have the chance to tackle them on the plane and beat them to a pulp before they can blow anything up. You don't even have a fighting chance against, say, a drunk driver running a light.
PROTIP: See someone trying to light their shoes or balls on fire? Tackle them.
"And I remember seeing ads on TV for law firms that don't charge unless they win your case."
Those lawyers are probably about as qualified to handle a case as a parrot.
"But any firm that defects and doesn't have their customers as much over a barrel as AT&T stands to make hearty profits"
That's not the case. Things like 2 year contracts make certain that customers can't make use of the free market.
Yeah, but most of the time it's "company in has problems because did some illegal shit". I don't think that many companies based out of china turn their manufacturing over to the US or other countries, is usually the other way around.
What do you mean "unfortunately". It's almost as though you think that having a law against it will stop EVERYONE from intercepting your data. You DO realize that criminals will still analyze your data, right?
And no, using kismet does not show that the data collection was intentional. There are many uses for any network monitoring tool, even those tools that CAN capture lots and lots of data.
You CAN photograph people, even cops. The cops abused their authority and made shit up to say that you can't. They were wrong.
We can debate semantics all day. "very tedious and impractical" is effectively the same things as impossible.
"20 yrs ago this would have..."
100 years ago I guess this would have been the equivalent of personally going to everyone in the village and repeating these statements?
20 years ago a LOT of shit would have been different. We're not talking about what happened 20 fucking years ago before the widespread use of the internet.
"Is it a student's right to free speech or a school's right to discipline?"
I'm sick to think that I live in a country that actually needs to ask this question. The first amendment plainly spells out the right to free speech. The fact that anyone is even considering limiting it is absurd. "right to discipline" I don't see that anywhere in the constitution, why the hell should it even be compared to the right to free speech? It's not a right. It's just something that the schools have been doing for so long that people somehow believe that it's necessary.
"who had no one above him giving him inhuman orders became oblivious to the behavior of the guards and the experiment was only ended when his girlfriend reminded him of how appalling it all was."
Which is exactly why that experiment isn't really considered especially valid. The observer taking part in the experiment, the biased instructions he gave, and the fact that he completely lost all sense of ethics until his girlfriend reminded him shows that he clearly wasn't impartial.
"Your camera is making me uncomfortable please stop taking photos" like he does in that video you should comply"
Absolutely not. If it's some cop who is off duty out of uniform then yeah, cops have the same right to not be harassed as anyone else. This still doesn't mean that you can't take pictures of them in public. You are allowed to photograph people in public simply because they're in public, taking a harassing number of photos or following them is stalking though. Anyone acting as a private citizen should have the same rights not to be harassed as anyone else.
If there is a uniformed officer, in public, then he should have no rights to not be photographed and the laws regarding stalking should be relaxed specifically in this instance. Cops are SUPPOSED to be better than everyone else. You don't just give any random citizen off the street a gun and a badge and say "go enforce the law". Of course, cops are only human and thus can't be expected to act better than anyone else if left to their own devices. The only way of ensuring that cops don't abuse their authority is to ensure that they may be photographed while on duty so that any abuses may be taped.
While an officer is working in PUBLIC to defend and serve the PUBLIC while being paid by the PUBLIC then they should have no special ability to make their actions PRIVATE.
Unless the cop is just a dick. I've had cops come up to me and be total douchebags. Just a simple "hello officer" and they start ranting about some bullshit.
I've had cops that are really nice too, and I would agree with you if they were all like the nice cops I've dealt with. Unfortunately, they're not. Some cops ARE assholes.
How do you build rapport with some random cop you've never met before writing you a speeding ticket? That doesn't make sense.