The parent a few level up said that they can get away with incompetence because they work for the government and thus implied that government accepts incompetence and private sector doesn't.
It's not exactly that. The government and private sector both employ the incompetent, this is fact, cannot be (reasonably) denied. The private sector, however, is motivated to weed out the incompetent whenever they become known. Motivated by survival, because in the private sector, the company can fail (companies that are too-big-to-fail are arguably closer to government then the private-sector and are not included), and incompetence leads to failure. The government, on the other hand, cannot fail. They do not have this intrinsic motivation to remove the incompetent at every opportunity in which they are revealed. In fact, they go so far as to protect the incompetent rather than remove them.
I don't disagree with anything you have said above. All I am saying is that the punishment has to come from outside the police department.
Not necessarily. It only has to come from above whoever instituted the policy and apply to everyone involved with it; its creator, its supporters and all of its followers. Everyone, all the way down, who should of done/said something but didn't should be hit by this. That way, next time, there will be a well established reason for arguing against policies that violate the law because otherwise it is your ass on the line.
However there is nothing about this that breaks neutrality, which is all about them not LIMITING other services.
They are limiting other services by enforcing a bandwidth cap on them (a limit) while excluding their own (comparable) service from this cap. Since they are in control of the cap they could, effectively, force all of their users to use their service over any competitors simply by reducing the cap to a low enough limit. It becomes a "you can get unlimited video from us but only 10-20hrs worth from them".
It doesn't override the law, which is why Glik won. But it does make it hard for the police department to punish them. How does this sound: "Yes, we know we told you to do this, but it was illegal and so now we are going to punish you?"
It sounds a lot like personal responsibility to me. The officers took an oath to uphold the law not the police department's policy on the law. That is an oath they should expect to be held to and should, in fact, actually be held to. They should have known that the policy was against the law and should have fought with the superiors over being required to follow it, or at very least, chosen not to and force their superiors to punish them for following the law over policy.
The bottom is this (something America, and perhaps the world, has forgotten): Regardless of what anyone else tells you to do, you are in full control of and therefore responsible for your own actions. All of them.
But anyone thinking any unknown comedian/musician could just start putting out their own stuff and make a ton of money is pretty naive about the way the industry works.
Yeah, cuz videos made from unknowns uploaded to YouTube have never gone viral or anything before. Riiight. There is no guarantee (there never is) but it is more than possible. Hell, if you are really talented, it is likely.
Revenue - Expenses = Income Or the IRS Definition - Corporate Profit
The same could be say when you buy an iPhone, or a car... yet there are taxes.
No, it could not. The car/iphone was manufactured for a cost and sold for more than that cost. The difference is income. The piece of junk I sold had a cost (when I bought it) and I sold it for it's original price or less (most likely as it's used). I lost money on the deal, there was no income. Yet, the government (given the chance) would say that every dollar was new income. It's not new income, it's old money (that I already paid tax on) converted into an asset and then converted back into money. It's like there being a tax every time someone converts change into cash or cash into change.
So basically you agree but you condone people not paying taxes.
Agree with what? I condone private transactions between individuals being private and not subject to government intervention of any sort, including taxes. If I sell someone my junk I should not be taxed as I made no income. I converted an asset into cash - at the end of the day I'm even. However, the government doesn't see it this way (they are wrong of course), they want to take a piece every time money changes hands. Eliminating cash only makes this assured.
I agree there are many advantages to a cashless society but one weakness has bothered me for a while.
It's not the only weakness. Try paying some kid to mow your lawn, shovel your driveway, dig a ditch without cash. Not to mention the real reasons Citizens want cash (easily accessible, accepted everywhere and untrackable) - so they can loan money, barter/trade goods without tax burden (yard sales, craigslist, etc), gamble/wager or anything else you can imagine.
Yes, obviously but that wasn't the question. The question was why? Are the things bought with the dollar intrinsically worth more now? No. So if the value of the object has not changed but it's price in dollars has, then what changed? The value of the dollar obviously. It is now worth less and has been devalued.
Things cost more over time in dollar terms. But guess what. Income goes up in dollar terms as well.
Yes, but not as fast which is why the middle-class is shrinking and merging with the lower-class.
Now go take some economic classes and stop getting your education from conspiracy theory websites.
I suggest you get some information from somewhere other than past bankers. Also, remember what you studies was Economic theory not economic fact.
AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.
They sell Unlimited Data Plans . Reading comprehension time - The entire plan was advertised and sold as unlimited, meaning without limits (namely artificial limits) of any kind. Capping the total amount data is limiting the plan. Capping the speed (at any time, for any reason) is a limiting the plan.
Nothing like watching a beautiful women talking about video games to start the morning off right. Although, I'm thinking it may also be a subliminal advertisement for FireFall because that is what is most stuck in my mind, lol:)
Heroin is definitely NOT legal in the Netherlands.
Yet, they have free heroin clinics for the addicted. Selling heroin may be illegal but they treat users as a medical problem not a legal one. And, you know what, it works a lot better for everyone. And since the clinics are there for anyone to see, kids can see what happens to people who use illegal drugs, not that they go to jail but their life is reuined.
I Agree. There were a number of times when I was at the theater where if I was given the option upon leaving to buy the DVD/BluRay of the movie I just watched, I would of. Note that I did not got back and pay to see it in the theater again. I figured instead of cutting out the theater, you include them. Give them the rights to sell the DVD's first (movie only), while they are in theaters, then do the normal black-out while it's between Theater and Store (in which no one is selling) and then have the stores get them with all the extras/special features.
Yes, to say 230% efficient is really a false statement.
Depends on your perspective. If you are selling these as LED light bulbs that output twice as much energy then they take from the wall plug, then yes, they are 200% efficient. They don't output more energy than what is put into the system, but they do output more energy than you put into the system and since we are all (as a species) self-centered egomaniacs, that is all that matters and the terminology is correct (for the audience).
That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.
Not to mention all of the information the hiring manager can get that they are legally not allowed to ask - like your martial status, whether you have kids, your religion or political views. This is why I would refuse, and I would tell them so, basically, it's illegal and I would report it immediately.
Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?
I would of thought of it beforehand and decided before I got involved. "Don't do the crime if it is not worth the time" is the mantra. Once you have decided to do the crime, you should have already accepted doing the time and it should be easy to exercise your right to remain silent. The fact that no one seems to have any honor anymore is very depressing.
yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer. They'd just be fucking snitches.
Let's get one thing straight and that is the definition of a snitch which I believe to be very different than a tattle-tale. If you witness a stranger or acquaintance commit a crime and you report it, you are not a snitch, you are a responsible citizen.
If you witness a friend, family-member, partner or anyone else who you've established a basis of trust with commit a crime* and you report it, you probably could be considered a snitch. The fact you may never have agreed to be involved in any illegal activity and your knowledge now implicates you and it is their fault that you know (not yours) makes it a gray area
If you partner with one or more people in a criminal enterprise, knowing full well what everyone is doing is illegal and you rat on them, rather than staying silent, you are a snitch. The lowest of the low, the worst form of scum imaginable and you deserve anything you receive in return as punishment (but only you, people you know should not be included).
So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.
For all things except Murder and Treason - that is correct. For Murder and Treason, it is up to you who holds more of your allegiance, your country, or your friend/family/Siamese-twin.
I know this is an AC troll but: You know you can fire a bullet without a gun. Vice-grips, tape, pin and a hammer will work well too. But again, the bullet won't do anything on its own without outside intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
The parent a few level up said that they can get away with incompetence because they work for the government and thus implied that government accepts incompetence and private sector doesn't.
It's not exactly that. The government and private sector both employ the incompetent, this is fact, cannot be (reasonably) denied. The private sector, however, is motivated to weed out the incompetent whenever they become known. Motivated by survival, because in the private sector, the company can fail (companies that are too-big-to-fail are arguably closer to government then the private-sector and are not included), and incompetence leads to failure. The government, on the other hand, cannot fail. They do not have this intrinsic motivation to remove the incompetent at every opportunity in which they are revealed. In fact, they go so far as to protect the incompetent rather than remove them.
I don't disagree with anything you have said above. All I am saying is that the punishment has to come from outside the police department.
Not necessarily. It only has to come from above whoever instituted the policy and apply to everyone involved with it; its creator, its supporters and all of its followers. Everyone, all the way down, who should of done/said something but didn't should be hit by this. That way, next time, there will be a well established reason for arguing against policies that violate the law because otherwise it is your ass on the line.
However there is nothing about this that breaks neutrality, which is all about them not LIMITING other services.
They are limiting other services by enforcing a bandwidth cap on them (a limit) while excluding their own (comparable) service from this cap. Since they are in control of the cap they could, effectively, force all of their users to use their service over any competitors simply by reducing the cap to a low enough limit. It becomes a "you can get unlimited video from us but only 10-20hrs worth from them".
It doesn't override the law, which is why Glik won. But it does make it hard for the police department to punish them. How does this sound: "Yes, we know we told you to do this, but it was illegal and so now we are going to punish you?"
It sounds a lot like personal responsibility to me. The officers took an oath to uphold the law not the police department's policy on the law. That is an oath they should expect to be held to and should, in fact, actually be held to. They should have known that the policy was against the law and should have fought with the superiors over being required to follow it, or at very least, chosen not to and force their superiors to punish them for following the law over policy.
The bottom is this (something America, and perhaps the world, has forgotten): Regardless of what anyone else tells you to do, you are in full control of and therefore responsible for your own actions. All of them.
You are holding up rare anomalies as examples of how people make it?
Yeah and so were you. There are many, many artists trying to be successfully that never get picked up and promoted by a "middleman".
But anyone thinking any unknown comedian/musician could just start putting out their own stuff and make a ton of money is pretty naive about the way the industry works.
Yeah, cuz videos made from unknowns uploaded to YouTube have never gone viral or anything before. Riiight. There is no guarantee (there never is) but it is more than possible. Hell, if you are really talented, it is likely.
Duh? Revise your definition of "income", please.
Revenue - Expenses = Income
Or the IRS Definition - Corporate Profit
The same could be say when you buy an iPhone, or a car... yet there are taxes.
No, it could not. The car/iphone was manufactured for a cost and sold for more than that cost. The difference is income. The piece of junk I sold had a cost (when I bought it) and I sold it for it's original price or less (most likely as it's used). I lost money on the deal, there was no income. Yet, the government (given the chance) would say that every dollar was new income. It's not new income, it's old money (that I already paid tax on) converted into an asset and then converted back into money. It's like there being a tax every time someone converts change into cash or cash into change.
So basically you agree but you condone people not paying taxes.
Agree with what? I condone private transactions between individuals being private and not subject to government intervention of any sort, including taxes. If I sell someone my junk I should not be taxed as I made no income. I converted an asset into cash - at the end of the day I'm even. However, the government doesn't see it this way (they are wrong of course), they want to take a piece every time money changes hands. Eliminating cash only makes this assured.
Star Trek utopia with no money at all, and the economy is based on, um, well, I guess that's in one of the tech manuals somewhere.
I believe that would be the Honor System. We'd have to start relearning the meaning of Honor before we could go that route though.
I agree there are many advantages to a cashless society but one weakness has bothered me for a while.
It's not the only weakness. Try paying some kid to mow your lawn, shovel your driveway, dig a ditch without cash. Not to mention the real reasons Citizens want cash (easily accessible, accepted everywhere and untrackable) - so they can loan money, barter/trade goods without tax burden (yard sales, craigslist, etc), gamble/wager or anything else you can imagine.
Things cost more over time in dollar terms.
Yes, obviously but that wasn't the question. The question was why? Are the things bought with the dollar intrinsically worth more now? No. So if the value of the object has not changed but it's price in dollars has, then what changed? The value of the dollar obviously. It is now worth less and has been devalued.
Things cost more over time in dollar terms. But guess what. Income goes up in dollar terms as well.
Yes, but not as fast which is why the middle-class is shrinking and merging with the lower-class.
Now go take some economic classes and stop getting your education from conspiracy theory websites.
I suggest you get some information from somewhere other than past bankers. Also, remember what you studies was Economic theory not economic fact.
She's not ugly but I wouldn't exactly call her out as "a beautiful woman"
Beauty is not skin deep, my friend.
AT&T isn't really advertising falsely, the data is unlimited. The speeds are limited.
They sell Unlimited Data Plans . Reading comprehension time - The entire plan was advertised and sold as unlimited, meaning without limits (namely artificial limits) of any kind. Capping the total amount data is limiting the plan. Capping the speed (at any time, for any reason) is a limiting the plan.
Nothing like watching a beautiful women talking about video games to start the morning off right. Although, I'm thinking it may also be a subliminal advertisement for FireFall because that is what is most stuck in my mind, lol :)
Heroin is definitely NOT legal in the Netherlands.
Yet, they have free heroin clinics for the addicted. Selling heroin may be illegal but they treat users as a medical problem not a legal one. And, you know what, it works a lot better for everyone. And since the clinics are there for anyone to see, kids can see what happens to people who use illegal drugs, not that they go to jail but their life is reuined.
I Agree. There were a number of times when I was at the theater where if I was given the option upon leaving to buy the DVD/BluRay of the movie I just watched, I would of. Note that I did not got back and pay to see it in the theater again. I figured instead of cutting out the theater, you include them. Give them the rights to sell the DVD's first (movie only), while they are in theaters, then do the normal black-out while it's between Theater and Store (in which no one is selling) and then have the stores get them with all the extras/special features.
It sounds like it violates the 2nd and 3rd laws of thermodynamics if not the first.
The first law of thermodynamic is...you do not talk about thermodynamics :)
Yes, to say 230% efficient is really a false statement.
Depends on your perspective. If you are selling these as LED light bulbs that output twice as much energy then they take from the wall plug, then yes, they are 200% efficient. They don't output more energy than what is put into the system, but they do output more energy than you put into the system and since we are all (as a species) self-centered egomaniacs, that is all that matters and the terminology is correct (for the audience).
That said, I've held a security clearance, and known people with even higher security ratings; and even the Feds don't go demanding to see your Facebook profile. This shit is ridiculous.
Not to mention all of the information the hiring manager can get that they are legally not allowed to ask - like your martial status, whether you have kids, your religion or political views. This is why I would refuse, and I would tell them so, basically, it's illegal and I would report it immediately.
Think about this seriously, don't try and play Internet Toughguy and say "Of course I'd do it! Fuck da' police!" Would you really? Or would you act in your own interests?
I would of thought of it beforehand and decided before I got involved. "Don't do the crime if it is not worth the time" is the mantra. Once you have decided to do the crime, you should have already accepted doing the time and it should be easy to exercise your right to remain silent. The fact that no one seems to have any honor anymore is very depressing.
yeah heaven forbid someone turn in a murderer or meth dealer. They'd just be fucking snitches.
Let's get one thing straight and that is the definition of a snitch which I believe to be very different than a tattle-tale. If you witness a stranger or acquaintance commit a crime and you report it, you are not a snitch, you are a responsible citizen.
If you witness a friend, family-member, partner or anyone else who you've established a basis of trust with commit a crime* and you report it, you probably could be considered a snitch. The fact you may never have agreed to be involved in any illegal activity and your knowledge now implicates you and it is their fault that you know (not yours) makes it a gray area
If you partner with one or more people in a criminal enterprise, knowing full well what everyone is doing is illegal and you rat on them, rather than staying silent, you are a snitch. The lowest of the low, the worst form of scum imaginable and you deserve anything you receive in return as punishment (but only you, people you know should not be included).
* Murder and treason excluded.
So, if a friend of mine murders your , robs your house, kills your dog, trashes your car, or other such things, and then tells me about it, I should just keep my mouth shut. Got it.
For all things except Murder and Treason - that is correct. For Murder and Treason, it is up to you who holds more of your allegiance, your country, or your friend/family/Siamese-twin.
I know this is an AC troll but: You know you can fire a bullet without a gun. Vice-grips, tape, pin and a hammer will work well too. But again, the bullet won't do anything on its own without outside intervention.
Guilty of what? Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
You are assumed guilty of attempting to operate an vehicle under the influence and are forced to prove your innocence.
"For the record, anyone that pays $1100 for an HDMI cable should be buying them from me :)