Demanding reporters name anonymous sources so that they can have their lives ruined is about the stupidest thing you could possibly come up with to say about the situation, regardless of what you think really happened.
If you stopped right there you'd be spot-on. But then you started equivocating about how in this case, they get to pretend they can prove a negative, because you proposed a hypothetical that sounds self-consistent to you. But actually, nobody has the level of detail that would be needed to prove anything, other than potentially Bloomberg.
The parts of what you said that are factual could actually be part of a different event that happened concurrently. You don't even have enough detail to know that much.
Just because it is psychologically unpleasant to not know answers, that doesn't mean that the least-bad answer you have the details to support is automatically true. It might just mean that the answers won't come out until some time in the future. It might even be we never get to know the truth. It would still be true, though; even in that state of complete failure to ever know, it would still be incorrect to claim that a negative can be proven. It's hard, I know.
OK, sjames, since you're a kid who was born yesterday, I'll just give out the spoiler:
journalists protect their sources, that isn't information you ever have been receiving in your life when these things get reported on. Journalists sometimes even go to jail rather than tell you who their sources were. No, that isn't information you were reasonably expecting to get. And in this case, it would obvious endanger the actual physical lives of the sources.
Now, are you really sure you didn't already know all that? Really?!
A contractor is, or should be, or at least might be, an independent expert who doesn't need a lot of directions
And here's the point where you didn't read the last sentence in my post, making everything you're talking about here moot.
Nope. That's how weak your claim was; it is refuted merely by my opinion! Whoopsie. lol You choose your words, don't bother trying to choose mine. That's a task for some sort of pushy Sisyphus. I'm not sure what you'd get out of it, but I know you'd be systemically prevented from ever having success.
In the end though, you probably just didn't comprehend what I said, so you didn't comprehend that rather than mooting it, it was a basic premise repeated in my words. Notice that I said, "That's why paying them more than an employee is allowed..."
Stop being aliterate. Knowing how to read words is not enough to be fully literate; you have to follow that knowledge with the actual act of reading the words to be literate. If you know how but still can't do it, then you're still functionally non-literate, ie, aliterate.
Executives and/or HR say "No", because it would violate some arbitrary rule on number of employees or number of direct reports or something similar.
However, the manager is allowed to hire a contractor at 150% the cost of an employee, because that doesn't violate the arbitrary rule.
The rule isn't arbitrary. The employees only have to follow directions, and you need somebody giving those directions. A contractor is, or should be, or at least might be, an independent expert who doesn't need a lot of directions. They only need documentation of the business and technical needs of the project. That's why paying them more than an employee is allowed, even when the manager already is giving directions to the max number of people they're considered able to supervise.
As a contractor, I'm responsible for the success of the project. I'm expected to operate as a whole department, including leadership. In a tight labor market, that can easily save the company money compared to trying to get enough managers for more employees. When you get bad managers, not only might your project fail, but you might even end up on the news and have six months of bad twitter hashtags next to your brand.
Full time employees can be fired just as easily as a contractor.
Legally, employees can be fired for almost any reason, or for no reason, at any time. But psychologically it is difficult to sit down with a worker who has a family and a mortgage, and tell them to their face that they are fired. So managers tend to
... hire HR staff to do that part. Once they decide you're out the door, telling HR should mean the person making the decision doesn't have to deal with the full psychological stresses. And the HR person isn't the one making the decision, so they shouldn't feel the same stress; it is already decided and out of their hands. They're just doing the paperwork.
"My rate is increasing ______ starting on the __th day of ______ month."
Done.
What you need is to do is take a class on negotiation at the local community college. As a contractor, you're in charge. If you're not, you're doing it wrong.
For the past 30+ years, all the local manufacturing jobs use "temp agencies" for new workers. They do get hired on as real employees after 90 days. But it is generally not possible in many trades to participate in the economy as an employee without first being a contractor. And you might have to stand out as a great and loyal worker while merely a contractor to even get considered as an employee.
SJW is the abusive narcissist's derogatory term for "person stands on the side of decency making me look bad so I must retaliate to avoid confronting my own inner demons"
I'm not convinced they're moral enough to be defending a misplaced sense of decency. Maybe they're just assholes, and they know they're on the internet??
I always assume they're the same people who, face-to-face, say shit like, "I'll bet you're fun at parties."
NSA, maybe, I'm like 50/50 on that as I can't see a good angle for why they would lie about it one way or the other.
***ROFLCOPTER***
Like, spy agencies need a special occasion to find benefit in the public having incorrect information about them?!
I wouldn't trust them to take an office poll about everybody's favorite flavor of ice cream. They'd lie for sure, out of fear of accidentally leaking some aspect of their process.
An organization that only recently started even admitting that it exists, and people already treat them like some do-goody nun who would never lie unless it was for a really good reason like protecting refugees hidden in the basement. I wonder though, what sort of thing would the NSA hide in the basement? Probably just some leftover one-time pads from WWII, or something like that. Right?!
Uh, where did the words "that many" come from? Maybe it wasn't "that many," maybe it was only a few out of millions?
News flash: We have no idea if the NSA modifies actual hardware. As far as we know, they do, and they were the ones who modified the hardware in this story. Or they weren't, but they want people to think that they do. Or they don't, but they're worried somebody will leak that they don't, so they leaked a fake story that they did. Or they do, and they were worried about a leak, so they leaked that they don't. Or they do, and they were worried about a leak, so they leaked that they do, so that they can control the story. Like the Air Force did with the "weather balloon" when their experimental aircraft crashed off-base.
Spy chips create no physical evidence that is knowable over the internet. Same as every other story about everything. The physical evidence is not mailed out to all Earthlings. The most you'll get access to is picture from a news source that purports to be evidence of whatever conclusion is published nearby. Information itself is difficult to "prove," but information about what secretive government agencies are doing is clearly not trustable, no matter what it says. It could always be misinformation from the very agency you think you learned something about! There is no way to trust anybody, after all.
As for "plausible deniability," I can understand the theory when it is a cop pretending to use a "confidential informant," or when it is a carefully prepared public statement that somebody's lawyer wrote. But why would the NSA need that? The only people they "answer" to are sworn to secrecy! Even if we assume that they follow all the rules, then Senator Wyden knows the truth, but can't tell us. But he doesn't tell us to just trust them, either. The NSA doesn't even have to confirm or deny anything, and you can't sue them to make them talk. If they don't even have a need for deniability, why would they need it to be plausible?!?
Wow, even Ray Morris got confused by this story! He's not sure anymore which is provable, positive statements, or negative statements? If it happened and people who didn't know actually didn't know, does that mean they did know?!
You have no idea if the executives would be in jeopardy or not, because there are no public facts about if they're being directed to make the statements by the government. It is quite obvious that any public knowledge of the necessary information will only come out at a much later stage.
It doesn't matter how strong the denials are; making a negative statement using stronger language doesn't somehow make the negative statement provable; it doesn't somehow imply that if it didn't happen, they would know that.
If it did happen, people with knowledge of it have knowledge of it. If it didn't happen, nobody has any knowledge of it! Their strong statements prove themselves to be lies, because if it didn't happen then they have no evidence one way or the other! They would only be able to make a very weak denial if they want to still be truthful. They're claiming to have absolute knowledge of something not even knowable.
They have 17 sources, so that's one heck of a conspiracy theory once you fit that in.;)
What surprises me is how many people, even here at slashdot, hear a few executives making strong statements and they forget all about which is provable, positive statements, or negative statements?
If it happened, and not everybody knew about it, do people who tried to find out about it but found nothing have evidence that nothing happened? Or do they only have no information?
The way I see it, Bloomberg is making statements they haven't shown the proof to. But they claim they do have that proof. As these things normally go, the details would get dribbled out later. But the deniers, they're saying they don't have any proof at all. So they're claiming that they are ignorant of if it is true. And yet, they're also claiming that their ignorance means it didn't happen, which is clearly specious.
Even the NSA, who doesn't make public statements even in situations where the country is known to have been attacked, is claiming that they're ignorant and their ignorance means something. Wowsers, people. Just wowsers. If that's what it takes to convince people you can prove a negative, they've been naive to be so quiet about so many important things for so long!
You wouldn't know if I had been to a gun show or not from what I said, you're just spewing.
Facts don't change depending one your policy opinions.
The whudubut you point at doesn't even have the implications you think it does. For one thing, what if most gun shows are monitored by the government and foreigners who attend are likely under surveillance? It isn't hard to imagine reasonably possible circumstances that would mitigate the threat you identified, but not the one under discussion here. But regardless, so what? If gunshows have some sort of regulatory loophole, that does not imply that all regulation is therefore useless, or that all other regulation would disappear, or that other concerns would disappear, or that policy discussion would somehow stop.
My assumption is you were triggered by the words "freeze peach."
Legitimate concerns are not undermined by additional concerns, or by concluding that you're against taking any action.
You don't even seem to understand the concept that places exist, on planet earth, and that the places are not all in the same place. So a government having weapons, does not automatically teleport those weapons under the beds of their foreign agents, to use untraced. Instead they have to transport them around, without knowing if they've been tracked or not. So even hostile governments don't normally do it that way. Instead they send money, which is used to attempt to buy weapons locally. Or in the case of explosives, they often send a large amount of money through a network of agents other countries, to eventually get a smaller amount of money into the target country undetected, and then they use that money to rent property and buy equipment to make the explosives. Sometimes that works, sometimes they accidentally blow themselves up just trying to make the explosives. But still, it is more effective than if they just hand over some weapons from their national arsenal as if there were no counter-terrorism efforts being made by other countries. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The simple truth is that the people actually engaging directly in the final stage of the attack are often intended not to survive the attack, but the people who organized it try really hard to keep their involvement secret. So a sucky weapon that risks injury to the attacker isn't really even relevant to the legitimate interests involved.
Facts don't care about Freeze Peaches or people's cold dead hands, or any of that sort of stuff. What the rules should be is a totally different matter than what people's concerns actually are, or what the known dangers or uses of a technology are.
Slashdot Mirror
Demanding reporters name anonymous sources so that they can have their lives ruined is about the stupidest thing you could possibly come up with to say about the situation, regardless of what you think really happened.
Lack of detail in a story does not imply an absolute in a continuous tense. That would make every story in every newspaper false.
Instead, lack of detail in the phrasing only implies a lack of detail in the knowledge.
Well, if they aren't smart enough to make the increase happen at contract renewal time, they should really think about getting a "real job." lol
You can't prove a negative. That's a known fact.
If you stopped right there you'd be spot-on. But then you started equivocating about how in this case, they get to pretend they can prove a negative, because you proposed a hypothetical that sounds self-consistent to you. But actually, nobody has the level of detail that would be needed to prove anything, other than potentially Bloomberg.
The parts of what you said that are factual could actually be part of a different event that happened concurrently. You don't even have enough detail to know that much.
Just because it is psychologically unpleasant to not know answers, that doesn't mean that the least-bad answer you have the details to support is automatically true. It might just mean that the answers won't come out until some time in the future. It might even be we never get to know the truth. It would still be true, though; even in that state of complete failure to ever know, it would still be incorrect to claim that a negative can be proven. It's hard, I know.
Why is it on multiple companies to prove a negative,
I didn't say it is "on them" to prove a negative, I said they're claiming to have already proven the negative, that's their whole denial!
The lie is on them, not the requirement to lie. ;)
OK, sjames, since you're a kid who was born yesterday, I'll just give out the spoiler:
journalists protect their sources, that isn't information you ever have been receiving in your life when these things get reported on. Journalists sometimes even go to jail rather than tell you who their sources were. No, that isn't information you were reasonably expecting to get. And in this case, it would obvious endanger the actual physical lives of the sources.
Now, are you really sure you didn't already know all that? Really?!
A contractor is, or should be, or at least might be, an independent expert who doesn't need a lot of directions
And here's the point where you didn't read the last sentence in my post, making everything you're talking about here moot.
Nope. That's how weak your claim was; it is refuted merely by my opinion! Whoopsie. lol You choose your words, don't bother trying to choose mine. That's a task for some sort of pushy Sisyphus. I'm not sure what you'd get out of it, but I know you'd be systemically prevented from ever having success.
In the end though, you probably just didn't comprehend what I said, so you didn't comprehend that rather than mooting it, it was a basic premise repeated in my words. Notice that I said, "That's why paying them more than an employee is allowed..."
Stop being aliterate. Knowing how to read words is not enough to be fully literate; you have to follow that knowledge with the actual act of reading the words to be literate. If you know how but still can't do it, then you're still functionally non-literate, ie, aliterate.
Manager asks for another employee.
Executives and/or HR say "No", because it would violate some arbitrary rule on number of employees or number of direct reports or something similar.
However, the manager is allowed to hire a contractor at 150% the cost of an employee, because that doesn't violate the arbitrary rule.
The rule isn't arbitrary. The employees only have to follow directions, and you need somebody giving those directions. A contractor is, or should be, or at least might be, an independent expert who doesn't need a lot of directions. They only need documentation of the business and technical needs of the project. That's why paying them more than an employee is allowed, even when the manager already is giving directions to the max number of people they're considered able to supervise.
As a contractor, I'm responsible for the success of the project. I'm expected to operate as a whole department, including leadership. In a tight labor market, that can easily save the company money compared to trying to get enough managers for more employees. When you get bad managers, not only might your project fail, but you might even end up on the news and have six months of bad twitter hashtags next to your brand.
Full time employees can be fired just as easily as a contractor.
Legally, employees can be fired for almost any reason, or for no reason, at any time. But psychologically it is difficult to sit down with a worker who has a family and a mortgage, and tell them to their face that they are fired. So managers tend to
... hire HR staff to do that part. Once they decide you're out the door, telling HR should mean the person making the decision doesn't have to deal with the full psychological stresses. And the HR person isn't the one making the decision, so they shouldn't feel the same stress; it is already decided and out of their hands. They're just doing the paperwork.
"My rate is increasing ______ starting on the __th day of ______ month."
Done.
What you need is to do is take a class on negotiation at the local community college. As a contractor, you're in charge. If you're not, you're doing it wrong.
_everybody_ does this.
For the past 30+ years, all the local manufacturing jobs use "temp agencies" for new workers. They do get hired on as real employees after 90 days. But it is generally not possible in many trades to participate in the economy as an employee without first being a contractor. And you might have to stand out as a great and loyal worker while merely a contractor to even get considered as an employee.
The game fails though if you're allowed to say "gig economy" but not "union."
No, you being an asshole doesn't mean somebody else loses. It just means you already lost.
Well, he didn't scream, he only blathered. So he didn't quite get all of them.
SJW is the abusive narcissist's derogatory term for "person stands on the side of decency making me look bad so I must retaliate to avoid confronting my own inner demons"
I'm not convinced they're moral enough to be defending a misplaced sense of decency. Maybe they're just assholes, and they know they're on the internet??
I always assume they're the same people who, face-to-face, say shit like, "I'll bet you're fun at parties."
I would have thought Vader would just wave his hand, and the characters would obey! Why the heck would he need to instantiate a process?!
That's why I map meta to left-win; the default setting to overload the alt key is just too much of a stretch.
You can also reduce finger strain by mapping caps-lock to super.
If you do not know how to act like a responsible adult, perhaps you should try harder.
Sounds like a perfect Code of Conflict to me.
NSA, maybe, I'm like 50/50 on that as I can't see a good angle for why they would lie about it one way or the other.
***ROFLCOPTER***
Like, spy agencies need a special occasion to find benefit in the public having incorrect information about them?!
I wouldn't trust them to take an office poll about everybody's favorite flavor of ice cream. They'd lie for sure, out of fear of accidentally leaking some aspect of their process.
An organization that only recently started even admitting that it exists, and people already treat them like some do-goody nun who would never lie unless it was for a really good reason like protecting refugees hidden in the basement. I wonder though, what sort of thing would the NSA hide in the basement? Probably just some leftover one-time pads from WWII, or something like that. Right?!
Uh, where did the words "that many" come from? Maybe it wasn't "that many," maybe it was only a few out of millions?
News flash: We have no idea if the NSA modifies actual hardware. As far as we know, they do, and they were the ones who modified the hardware in this story. Or they weren't, but they want people to think that they do. Or they don't, but they're worried somebody will leak that they don't, so they leaked a fake story that they did. Or they do, and they were worried about a leak, so they leaked that they don't. Or they do, and they were worried about a leak, so they leaked that they do, so that they can control the story. Like the Air Force did with the "weather balloon" when their experimental aircraft crashed off-base.
Spy chips create no physical evidence that is knowable over the internet. Same as every other story about everything. The physical evidence is not mailed out to all Earthlings. The most you'll get access to is picture from a news source that purports to be evidence of whatever conclusion is published nearby. Information itself is difficult to "prove," but information about what secretive government agencies are doing is clearly not trustable, no matter what it says. It could always be misinformation from the very agency you think you learned something about! There is no way to trust anybody, after all.
As for "plausible deniability," I can understand the theory when it is a cop pretending to use a "confidential informant," or when it is a carefully prepared public statement that somebody's lawyer wrote. But why would the NSA need that? The only people they "answer" to are sworn to secrecy! Even if we assume that they follow all the rules, then Senator Wyden knows the truth, but can't tell us. But he doesn't tell us to just trust them, either. The NSA doesn't even have to confirm or deny anything, and you can't sue them to make them talk. If they don't even have a need for deniability, why would they need it to be plausible?!?
Wow, even Ray Morris got confused by this story! He's not sure anymore which is provable, positive statements, or negative statements? If it happened and people who didn't know actually didn't know, does that mean they did know?!
You have no idea if the executives would be in jeopardy or not, because there are no public facts about if they're being directed to make the statements by the government. It is quite obvious that any public knowledge of the necessary information will only come out at a much later stage.
It doesn't matter how strong the denials are; making a negative statement using stronger language doesn't somehow make the negative statement provable; it doesn't somehow imply that if it didn't happen, they would know that.
If it did happen, people with knowledge of it have knowledge of it. If it didn't happen, nobody has any knowledge of it! Their strong statements prove themselves to be lies, because if it didn't happen then they have no evidence one way or the other! They would only be able to make a very weak denial if they want to still be truthful. They're claiming to have absolute knowledge of something not even knowable.
They have 17 sources, so that's one heck of a conspiracy theory once you fit that in. ;)
What surprises me is how many people, even here at slashdot, hear a few executives making strong statements and they forget all about which is provable, positive statements, or negative statements?
If it happened, and not everybody knew about it, do people who tried to find out about it but found nothing have evidence that nothing happened? Or do they only have no information?
The way I see it, Bloomberg is making statements they haven't shown the proof to. But they claim they do have that proof. As these things normally go, the details would get dribbled out later. But the deniers, they're saying they don't have any proof at all. So they're claiming that they are ignorant of if it is true. And yet, they're also claiming that their ignorance means it didn't happen, which is clearly specious.
Even the NSA, who doesn't make public statements even in situations where the country is known to have been attacked, is claiming that they're ignorant and their ignorance means something. Wowsers, people. Just wowsers. If that's what it takes to convince people you can prove a negative, they've been naive to be so quiet about so many important things for so long!
You seem confused. Bloomberg has 17 anonymous sources, not 1.
You wouldn't know if I had been to a gun show or not from what I said, you're just spewing.
Facts don't change depending one your policy opinions.
The whudubut you point at doesn't even have the implications you think it does. For one thing, what if most gun shows are monitored by the government and foreigners who attend are likely under surveillance? It isn't hard to imagine reasonably possible circumstances that would mitigate the threat you identified, but not the one under discussion here. But regardless, so what? If gunshows have some sort of regulatory loophole, that does not imply that all regulation is therefore useless, or that all other regulation would disappear, or that other concerns would disappear, or that policy discussion would somehow stop.
My assumption is you were triggered by the words "freeze peach."
Legitimate concerns are not undermined by additional concerns, or by concluding that you're against taking any action.
"broad unsupported claim" followed by "whudabut."
You don't even seem to understand the concept that places exist, on planet earth, and that the places are not all in the same place. So a government having weapons, does not automatically teleport those weapons under the beds of their foreign agents, to use untraced. Instead they have to transport them around, without knowing if they've been tracked or not. So even hostile governments don't normally do it that way. Instead they send money, which is used to attempt to buy weapons locally. Or in the case of explosives, they often send a large amount of money through a network of agents other countries, to eventually get a smaller amount of money into the target country undetected, and then they use that money to rent property and buy equipment to make the explosives. Sometimes that works, sometimes they accidentally blow themselves up just trying to make the explosives. But still, it is more effective than if they just hand over some weapons from their national arsenal as if there were no counter-terrorism efforts being made by other countries. Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
The simple truth is that the people actually engaging directly in the final stage of the attack are often intended not to survive the attack, but the people who organized it try really hard to keep their involvement secret. So a sucky weapon that risks injury to the attacker isn't really even relevant to the legitimate interests involved.
Facts don't care about Freeze Peaches or people's cold dead hands, or any of that sort of stuff. What the rules should be is a totally different matter than what people's concerns actually are, or what the known dangers or uses of a technology are.