Forgiveness is required for trust. As a matter of fact, I trust everyone. I trust my enemies to want to cause me harm (If I'm wrong.. sweet!) and other people I know to just be them.
I trust everyone to be human and fallible. When they are, I can forgive. If I do not, then I can not trust them to be honest to me, for fear I may over react. If they can't forgive themselves which implies they first admit they are wrong, then they are going to just abuse my trust and don't deserve more trust which comes with my forgiveness. Can I be wrong, yes and I sometimes am. But you catch way more flies with honey. I would rather an atmosphere of trust based on possible forgiveness, than automatic distrust as that is no real way to live.
As Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."
Agreed, speech is often worth nothing. But sometimes it is, and can tell you what you want to know. When it can't, then you should be suspicious and scrutinize harder. Which in politics is way more often than not, but that is directly related to how we treat situations and react to them in the public.
Negative, it depends. Like I replied below, could it have been a mistake? If so, assume the best, not the worst. (Look at all the evidence... always.) If they do it again, or it was too big to be a mistake or obvious carelessness, then that is the divergence you seek.
In your example, if they didn't pay their taxes, they would be demonstrating they completely don't want to practice what they preach, most likely. Judging can be difficult, but if like you said you just passed this legislation and evade on anything but a small portion it is easy. Like, if they could have slipped up accidentally, then things happen. Give them the benefit, as long as they make it right. If they keep doing it, then there you go. But always look at all the evidence, and again, learn to be forgiving. Only then will you be able to trust anyone, including politicians.
I am all for cracking down on misuse of the Internet... 100%. Just like the misuse of anything! I mean come on, think about it.
Now the question is, "What is misuse of the Internet?" Which means the question is then, "What is the purpose of the Internet?" The purpose, design, and original intent of Internet access was to communicate openly and link to other content. If we have a bunch of individuals working for the Aussie government workings locking down the Internet, abusing privacy and preventing users from linking or being a part of it in some way, then fire them all! They should have more respect for it and the citizens of Australia. But I guess one can't respect something else if they can't respect themselves...
Oh wait, this story is mislabeled and really about the Aussie government (politicians) and 54% of the government workers agree? Well, being that most civil servants do what they are told, at least you still have the majority support there.
If there really is an immediate risk to life, then it was probably built on the wrong foundation to start with if it requires secrecy. While maintaining said secrecy may save a life or few, what is the long term cost? Could it very likely cause more harm or death?
A person is not what they say, it is what they do. (Although speech is an action too.) No one is perfect. No one. I believe in forgiveness therefore. Someone making a mistake, whether it is sleeping with someone when they claim it is immoral, or fudging their taxes in the past even though they want to work for the government is human. But at some point, they show they completely do not want to practice what they preach, and that is when it should matter.
Or they could like, ummmm I dunno shift immediately to catching real criminals like fraudsters and thieves which would also give a little stripped away spunk back to the economy?
Without Ron Paul there would be no Tea Party. I like Ron Paul, but I am not impressed with the Tea Party. He does have sway and influence, even if he indeed never gets elected. He will go down in history, that is for certain. Even if just a footnote that should instead be a small article in the margins of future textbooks on how something like that could happen.
He would rather have zero bearing and give people hope by showing us that yes, a man can play by the original rules, than sell out. Would you rather him sell out? Well then you are happy with the rest of Congress.
FDR said we have nothing to fear except fear itself. I disagree, we should fear most that anyone strips us of our hope. You are right, things must change on a revolutionary scale, but we must not carry on believing it can not or will not happen.
So, are you a "big government" type? Or just against anyone that labels themselves Republican and for small government, with all other parties being for small government fine?
Yea, convenient that in the middle of all of this data being released, they want to limit a man that travels extensively to do what he does to one country.
This sounds like a call for a special website where someone can drop evidence and not have them traced back as a source... hmm if there was only such a place...
That was before he released the volume of data that has been released this year and PO'd said governments to the degree he has now. You think for a second that if the US was willing to take out Saddam for never found WMDs over something that started in Afghanistan costing more lives on both sides than lost on 9/11, they wouldn't be willing to take out this blond guy that exposes their misdeeds? So, the question is, are you gullible, or astro-turfing, or both?
Not treating a woman with respect, "Thanks, that was great! - I know it was, I did it, now go make me a sandwich before I kick you out." That is not illegal, and at the same time not showing respect. Slipping a mickey is illegal.
Would you talk to the police if you were being character assassinated? If they are willing to do it in the first place, they are willing to find holes in your story and later produce fake evidence. Not saying he is innocent, but if he is, I can't blame him.
Thanks xtracto, I am looking into Freenet now, and so far it seems pretty cool. After installing it I feel semi-comfortable with it's security, as you can decide how secure to be. Now I only needs friends I can trust...
All they'd need is 4 wheel drive and some length of copper wire to restore the power. What, then you gonna bomb it again? And again? What about the civilians that may camp out to protest? Sorry, not likely ever gonna happen.
Even if the below poster is true that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, the GP above is 100% correct. Double Dipping. It's the new thing, everyone is doing it, companies, governments (sales tax AND income tax, I mean WTF???)
If what you say is true and you are a small ISP, then you should be for more open competition. I.E., whomever your company gets their bandwidth from giving you a fair amount of usage in order to be able to give customers what they want, as Comcast should. This issue is about money, pure and simple. Comcast is hemorrhaging T.V. subscribers, and they want to sell their piece of the pie, even if it is opverpriced.
So now they offer "protection", just in case one of your customers can't somehow get your service there Netflix. Shame if that were to happen. - Racket, and that is all there is to it.
I loath AT&T and what they have done to their customers and they should be sued out of existence for what they have done to break customers constitutional rights. But it is that or Comcast. Sad thing is, I think I will stick with Comcast as the lessor of two evils and call Netflix and drop them, letting them know I dislike their paying a protection fee that I am sure I will pick up.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgiveness is required for trust. As a matter of fact, I trust everyone. I trust my enemies to want to cause me harm (If I'm wrong.. sweet!) and other people I know to just be them.
I trust everyone to be human and fallible. When they are, I can forgive. If I do not, then I can not trust them to be honest to me, for fear I may over react. If they can't forgive themselves which implies they first admit they are wrong, then they are going to just abuse my trust and don't deserve more trust which comes with my forgiveness. Can I be wrong, yes and I sometimes am. But you catch way more flies with honey. I would rather an atmosphere of trust based on possible forgiveness, than automatic distrust as that is no real way to live.
As Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."
Agreed, speech is often worth nothing. But sometimes it is, and can tell you what you want to know. When it can't, then you should be suspicious and scrutinize harder. Which in politics is way more often than not, but that is directly related to how we treat situations and react to them in the public.
Negative, it depends. Like I replied below, could it have been a mistake? If so, assume the best, not the worst. (Look at all the evidence... always.) If they do it again, or it was too big to be a mistake or obvious carelessness, then that is the divergence you seek.
In your example, if they didn't pay their taxes, they would be demonstrating they completely don't want to practice what they preach, most likely. Judging can be difficult, but if like you said you just passed this legislation and evade on anything but a small portion it is easy. Like, if they could have slipped up accidentally, then things happen. Give them the benefit, as long as they make it right. If they keep doing it, then there you go. But always look at all the evidence, and again, learn to be forgiving. Only then will you be able to trust anyone, including politicians.
I am all for cracking down on misuse of the Internet... 100%. Just like the misuse of anything! I mean come on, think about it.
Now the question is, "What is misuse of the Internet?" Which means the question is then, "What is the purpose of the Internet?" The purpose, design, and original intent of Internet access was to communicate openly and link to other content. If we have a bunch of individuals working for the Aussie government workings locking down the Internet, abusing privacy and preventing users from linking or being a part of it in some way, then fire them all! They should have more respect for it and the citizens of Australia. But I guess one can't respect something else if they can't respect themselves...
Oh wait, this story is mislabeled and really about the Aussie government (politicians) and 54% of the government workers agree? Well, being that most civil servants do what they are told, at least you still have the majority support there.
...
We give you information, don't you get it from somewhere else but us. (How else can we "sanitize" it?)
If there really is an immediate risk to life, then it was probably built on the wrong foundation to start with if it requires secrecy. While maintaining said secrecy may save a life or few, what is the long term cost? Could it very likely cause more harm or death?
A person is not what they say, it is what they do. (Although speech is an action too.) No one is perfect. No one. I believe in forgiveness therefore. Someone making a mistake, whether it is sleeping with someone when they claim it is immoral, or fudging their taxes in the past even though they want to work for the government is human. But at some point, they show they completely do not want to practice what they preach, and that is when it should matter.
Or they could like, ummmm I dunno shift immediately to catching real criminals like fraudsters and thieves which would also give a little stripped away spunk back to the economy?
Without Ron Paul there would be no Tea Party. I like Ron Paul, but I am not impressed with the Tea Party. He does have sway and influence, even if he indeed never gets elected. He will go down in history, that is for certain. Even if just a footnote that should instead be a small article in the margins of future textbooks on how something like that could happen.
He would rather have zero bearing and give people hope by showing us that yes, a man can play by the original rules, than sell out. Would you rather him sell out? Well then you are happy with the rest of Congress.
Will and can exist are two different things. I believe if it can, and if it is desired, it will. The question is what do we truly desire?
FDR said we have nothing to fear except fear itself. I disagree, we should fear most that anyone strips us of our hope. You are right, things must change on a revolutionary scale, but we must not carry on believing it can not or will not happen.
So, are you a "big government" type? Or just against anyone that labels themselves Republican and for small government, with all other parties being for small government fine?
Women have been known to role play, and if she didn't at least try to push him off and fight back, then I say she is full of it.
Yea, convenient that in the middle of all of this data being released, they want to limit a man that travels extensively to do what he does to one country.
This sounds like a call for a special website where someone can drop evidence and not have them traced back as a source... hmm if there was only such a place...
That was before he released the volume of data that has been released this year and PO'd said governments to the degree he has now. You think for a second that if the US was willing to take out Saddam for never found WMDs over something that started in Afghanistan costing more lives on both sides than lost on 9/11, they wouldn't be willing to take out this blond guy that exposes their misdeeds? So, the question is, are you gullible, or astro-turfing, or both?
Not treating a woman with respect, "Thanks, that was great! - I know it was, I did it, now go make me a sandwich before I kick you out." That is not illegal, and at the same time not showing respect. Slipping a mickey is illegal.
Would you talk to the police if you were being character assassinated? If they are willing to do it in the first place, they are willing to find holes in your story and later produce fake evidence. Not saying he is innocent, but if he is, I can't blame him.
Only, huh Moongoose Disciple?
Thanks xtracto, I am looking into Freenet now, and so far it seems pretty cool. After installing it I feel semi-comfortable with it's security, as you can decide how secure to be. Now I only needs friends I can trust...
All they'd need is 4 wheel drive and some length of copper wire to restore the power. What, then you gonna bomb it again? And again? What about the civilians that may camp out to protest? Sorry, not likely ever gonna happen.
Please mod parent up informative or insightful.
Even if the below poster is true that this has nothing to do with Net Neutrality, the GP above is 100% correct. Double Dipping. It's the new thing, everyone is doing it, companies, governments (sales tax AND income tax, I mean WTF???)
Yea, nice try. Hi Mr. Comcast man.
If what you say is true and you are a small ISP, then you should be for more open competition. I.E., whomever your company gets their bandwidth from giving you a fair amount of usage in order to be able to give customers what they want, as Comcast should. This issue is about money, pure and simple. Comcast is hemorrhaging T.V. subscribers, and they want to sell their piece of the pie, even if it is opverpriced.
So now they offer "protection", just in case one of your customers can't somehow get your service there Netflix. Shame if that were to happen. - Racket, and that is all there is to it.
I loath AT&T and what they have done to their customers and they should be sued out of existence for what they have done to break customers constitutional rights. But it is that or Comcast. Sad thing is, I think I will stick with Comcast as the lessor of two evils and call Netflix and drop them, letting them know I dislike their paying a protection fee that I am sure I will pick up.