It's sad, but true, that a huge percentage of the population would be criminals of opportunity if we made it easier. However, there are a lot of actual criminals that look specifically for those opportunities. So yes, locks keep out a lot of criminals who only commit "easy" crimes, which is actually most of them.
As the other response said - there's a reasonable amount of precaution one should take. A lock on your door is reasonable. More than 2 or 3 is probably starting to fall in the unreasonable category. I would never chastise the victim in any event... in an ideal society, people shouldn't have to lock their doors, there should be the expectation that other human beings could somehow find a way to not violate your rights. We shouldn't need passwords, we shouldn't need antivirus software. Unfortunately, people are a#@holes, so it's expected and reasonable that you lock your door, that you password protect your data.
When people post here that they shouldn't have posed nude to begin with, it's exactly as a precautionary statement - I doubt those women read slashdot. It's something we should heed, tell our kids, spread the word.
Ahh... that, too. My open concept spot is less than half the size of my previous cubicle. I have two laptops and a full size desktop tower that I can't put on the floor. The actual desk space was purposely limited because they wanted a nice, uniform appearance with everybody with one monitor and one keyboard, and they actually started with a policy of one monitor on the desk until we told them (we all work in graphics) that it's simply not going to work... some of us even need TV preview monitors. Now I've gotten a number of people to join me in asking for returns so that we can increase desk space. At the moment, I just end up working from home most of the time.
That's exactly what they said where I work - it's all about collaboration. Yes, we collaborate. Maybe 10 or 15 whole minutes.... they we need peace and quiet to work at our desks. I've been working from home around 80-90% of the time since I was forced to move into the open concept area.
They did this where I work. It's unbelievable to me how, today, someone can decide to do this to their employees when a simple google search for "open concept office" returns page after page about how terrible and anti-productive it is.
But I told my manager to expect to see me less. I've worked at home at least four times more than I've been at my desk... probably more. And when I do go in to the office because I have to be there for a meeting or something, I go in and leave after.
It's not about victim blaming, it's about prevention - you can make yourself NOT be a victim if you're not comfortable with the world seeing you nude by NOT POSING NUDE. That doesn't mean the people that violate your trust aren't guilty (of at least violating your trust, if not something illegal).
Hey, if I leave my car unlocked and someone steals something inside it, the scumbag who stole my stuff is still guilty - but I could have limited my chances of being a victim if I'd have locked my doors. It's an unfortunate side of society that we need to expend resources keeping people from violating our rights, but it is the way it is.
There are more random stops of minorities, though, and sometimes they lead to conflicts and arrests because people are irate at being pulled over for nothing, so instead of just doing what the officers ask (as long as it's constitutional), they push back. I've been randomly pulled over (I'm white); it was late at night - about 1:30am, the officer asked if I'd had any alcohol (no, I didn't, and I wasn't driving badly), I said "no." He waved the flashlight around, peeking in the passenger and back seat... asked to see my license, and then cut me loose. If he'd have asked me if I had any alcohol and I said "none of you're f#@king business, pig!" I suspect the outcome would have been very different.
Meh.... he'll get to write a book, do lectures, make the rounds on Hannity and other conservative shows, maybe even some liberal ones. I seriously doubt he's going to have much financial difficulty in his life.
Exactly... step 1: get people to admit animals impact their environments. If you can't get that, then you've got a flat earther, so move on and skip the fringe.
The way I see, both sides have valid points: the earth is in a warming trend, and would be with or without us. But this warming trend is accelerated because of the impact of humankind - our emissions are acting as a catalyst. People like simple explanations.... why did some guy shoot up a daycare center? The answers are not simple, they are complicated and intricately woven through myriads of factors... so when one side shouts "the earth is in a warming trend," the other side turns their brains off and says "no, it's humankind!" And when that side says "but the warming trend in unprecedented," the former side says "no! It's all natural!"
If you can admit that both may true, you can start to move on from there.
The bulk of us won't agree entirely, but you can at least nudge people together... like most politics, on most important issues, we actually largely agree on what we want: we don't want homeless people, we don't want people to go without necessary healthcare, we don't want people to without food/shelter/clothing, we don't want people to go without education. The disagreement is on how to solve these issues. Instead, we let the politicians and the media divide us to keep the conflict going... maybe it's human nature? After all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other over the "right way" to worship God for thousands of years.
But that's not what I'm talking about -I'm talking about that, even if you accept AGW, what do you do about it? If humans completely disappeared from the planet this very second, the temperature still rises (according to the article) 0.5c. They also say if we do nothing it rises 2.0c. So what do you do? They suggest future emissions are going to cause an additional 1.5c rise, so even if you cut our emissions in half, we still rise a total of 1.25c (maybe - I'm doing math using a direct correlation, but that may not be how it works). What people are discussing now is like 10 or 20% reductions... even 25%... that means we STILL need to prepare for what's coming, because you can't stop it.
As far as "deniers" go - first of all, questioning the science isn't "denying." But take the first step - admit that animals influence the environment they live in, and move on from there. If they can't acknowledge that, then it is pointless.
And Disney's got the ABC content, and whatever it is they're calling the family channel now (I cut the cord, so I know they changed it, but can't remember to what). They've also got ESPN, which they'll do live sports with the same way HULU's got some live content now.... oh, and Marvel and Star Wars movies. Oh well. I would rather live without than to subscribe to a separate Disney service.
Actually, while I'm not some rabid environmentalist (not that they are all like that), I think there's a lot to both sides of the equation, here - the earth has trends - it's been a lot warmer than it is now (without humankind), and it's been a lot colder. But I certainly do think we're at least acting as a catalyst, and that our presence is certainly having some effect, even if the overall temperature increases are not entirely human made.
But here's the rub - as the article points out, we can completely stop emitting greenhouse gasses (no we can't, but as the story goes) and we're still getting a 0.5c increase in temperature. What do people want? They are talking about 10% here, maybe 20% there... in other words, you're still talking like 1.75c increase in temperature. Instead of inflicting trillions of dollars in economic damage making the world stop producing, stop progressing, putting millions, if not billions out of work, we should be focusing on dealing with it rather than stopping it, because it's coming even if we cut emissions in half.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue "green" technology, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not for companies getting government grants of our tax dollars, then having the CEOs cut and run and the company goes bankrupt, but there's definitely the need for research, and the practical application of that research. I cannot afford to cover my roof with solar panels even though I wish I could. I can't afford it, and I wouldn't recoup my investment because I certainly won't own the house long enough. Maybe there should be more incentives there....too bad we let the monopolies manipulate legislation that makes it harder for homeowners to do things like that instead of easier (In Sunshine State, Big Energy Blocks Solar Power).
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle instead of allowing the politicians and media divide and conquer us. Anyone with a brain can admit humans have an impact on their environment; anyone with a brain can admit that we can't completely stop greenhouse emissions (unless you can "cure" farting, or the need to eat in general). So let's stop the hyperbole and have some reasonable discourse about how to deal with it instead of pointing fingers and name calling.
It can be informative, but it can also be damn annoying.
A lot of these you-tubers make videos as if they're getting paid by the minute instead of by the views. The "how to such-and-such" video goes something like "Hi, I'm so-and-so, and welcome to my youtube channel where I talk about how to upgrade your computer and other electronic devices." [insert long pauses between some words] "Today I'm going to show you how to do such-and-such; such-and-such is useful if you want to [insert long list of things with long pauses in between them while the speaker thinks about it]."
5 minutes in, and maybe you're finally getting to the useful part. Hey, newsflash, I wouldn't have looked up your video if I didn't already know what I was looking for and why I was looking for it!
I can understand the "more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote" issue, as I assume people don't magically fall off the registration when the move or die. Of course, we need to either vote (which keeps you registered) or re-register after some time, and a 44% surplus seems quite high... as does 99% voter turnout, so I'm not suggesting there's nothing fishy going on.
I'm not naive - I fully expected this guy to get fired, and I'd expect to be fired for posting any sort of dissenting view; I'm pointing out how hypocritical Google is being on the subject. It doesn't matter how you feel about what this guy wrote, Google is clearly saying they value diverse opinions, and don't want people with a minority viewpoint to feel "threatened," and claim "it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions," and then show what f#@king liars they are by firing this guy.
If you do not let this guy's opinions cloud your judgement, the point of discussion today is that the memo states:
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
And yet the fired the guy for writing his personal blog.
So perhaps, in general, you're not entitled to free speech in the work place. In fact, I'd even agree that the company is as "free" to fire you for writing something against the company as you are "free" to write it, even on your own time on your own blog.
However, they clearly say "People must feel free to express dissent" while saying it's "not OK" for those people to feel under threat, and "... it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions." And then they fire this guy.
Conservative, liberal, neocon, neolib... it doesn't matter what you're political leanings are, or if you agree or not with what he wrote. Clearly the execs at Google are being hypocritical.
There's nothing unfair when you sign up for a service and agree to the terms and conditions. If you have a complaint about monopolies, then great - I agree with you.
No - you take what I said too far. Money can't buy happiness, but having enough of it can alleviate the worries of whether or not you can put food on the table for your families. It was a study a while back that showed people making $75k/year or more were, in fact, happier (on average) because of it. But when people say money can't buy happiness they mean that possessions are not what makes you truly happy - a big screen TV might give you some temporary elation, but it's not true happiness. Having a Telsa instead of a Prius might make you feel superior, but it doesn't give you true happiness. Money can buy sex, but it can't buy love or friendship. I defined success as being able to support yourself and your family - being able to provide for your family is something that brings happiness. Education and working hard are your best chance to attain that.
So wealth - yes, but the latter day neo-libs claim the "American Dream" is unattainable anymore - but only because they've redefined it as being ostentatiously wealthy. Blame "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" if you want - but people are too preoccupied with what other people have, and have decided (wrongly) that in order to be "happy," they must have more.
Actually, I'm not a neo-lib at all, so I don't know where that came from. I am exactly arguing what you are arguing. But what I am saying is it's not some kid's fault (and that it IS a matter of some luck) when that child is born into a loser family that raises them to play the victim instead of work hard. But I am also saying that there are parents, even in the ghetto, that encourage their kids to succeed and make it out of the ghetto - that the single biggest influence is the parents/guardians.
It IS easier to "succeed," or "live the American dream," which I believe is to be able to support yourself and family and live a comfortable life (not live some ostentatiously lavish rich lifestyle), it's easier when you are born into that lifestyle, where your parent(s) or guardian(s) work hard and provide for their family, and encourage those they are raising to do the same. It's far more difficult (but certainly nowhere near impossible) for people born in the ghetto to achieve that lifestyle. And it all boils down to the parents. Unless you're one of those nutjobs that believes you choose your family, you must admit it's a matter of "luck" (good ro bad) who your parents are.
Slashdot Mirror
You're wrong on two counts, but I don't feel like being trolled today.
It's sad, but true, that a huge percentage of the population would be criminals of opportunity if we made it easier. However, there are a lot of actual criminals that look specifically for those opportunities. So yes, locks keep out a lot of criminals who only commit "easy" crimes, which is actually most of them.
As the other response said - there's a reasonable amount of precaution one should take. A lock on your door is reasonable. More than 2 or 3 is probably starting to fall in the unreasonable category. I would never chastise the victim in any event... in an ideal society, people shouldn't have to lock their doors, there should be the expectation that other human beings could somehow find a way to not violate your rights. We shouldn't need passwords, we shouldn't need antivirus software. Unfortunately, people are a#@holes, so it's expected and reasonable that you lock your door, that you password protect your data.
When people post here that they shouldn't have posed nude to begin with, it's exactly as a precautionary statement - I doubt those women read slashdot. It's something we should heed, tell our kids, spread the word.
Ahh... that, too. My open concept spot is less than half the size of my previous cubicle. I have two laptops and a full size desktop tower that I can't put on the floor. The actual desk space was purposely limited because they wanted a nice, uniform appearance with everybody with one monitor and one keyboard, and they actually started with a policy of one monitor on the desk until we told them (we all work in graphics) that it's simply not going to work... some of us even need TV preview monitors. Now I've gotten a number of people to join me in asking for returns so that we can increase desk space. At the moment, I just end up working from home most of the time.
That's exactly what they said where I work - it's all about collaboration. Yes, we collaborate. Maybe 10 or 15 whole minutes.... they we need peace and quiet to work at our desks. I've been working from home around 80-90% of the time since I was forced to move into the open concept area.
They did this where I work. It's unbelievable to me how, today, someone can decide to do this to their employees when a simple google search for "open concept office" returns page after page about how terrible and anti-productive it is.
But I told my manager to expect to see me less. I've worked at home at least four times more than I've been at my desk... probably more. And when I do go in to the office because I have to be there for a meeting or something, I go in and leave after.
It's not about victim blaming, it's about prevention - you can make yourself NOT be a victim if you're not comfortable with the world seeing you nude by NOT POSING NUDE. That doesn't mean the people that violate your trust aren't guilty (of at least violating your trust, if not something illegal).
Hey, if I leave my car unlocked and someone steals something inside it, the scumbag who stole my stuff is still guilty - but I could have limited my chances of being a victim if I'd have locked my doors. It's an unfortunate side of society that we need to expend resources keeping people from violating our rights, but it is the way it is.
It's true, I admit it.... I'm addicted to food. I've tried to quit cold turkey, but the withdrawal symptoms are terrible.
There are more random stops of minorities, though, and sometimes they lead to conflicts and arrests because people are irate at being pulled over for nothing, so instead of just doing what the officers ask (as long as it's constitutional), they push back. I've been randomly pulled over (I'm white); it was late at night - about 1:30am, the officer asked if I'd had any alcohol (no, I didn't, and I wasn't driving badly), I said "no." He waved the flashlight around, peeking in the passenger and back seat... asked to see my license, and then cut me loose. If he'd have asked me if I had any alcohol and I said "none of you're f#@king business, pig!" I suspect the outcome would have been very different.
Meh.... he'll get to write a book, do lectures, make the rounds on Hannity and other conservative shows, maybe even some liberal ones. I seriously doubt he's going to have much financial difficulty in his life.
Exactly... step 1: get people to admit animals impact their environments. If you can't get that, then you've got a flat earther, so move on and skip the fringe.
The way I see, both sides have valid points: the earth is in a warming trend, and would be with or without us. But this warming trend is accelerated because of the impact of humankind - our emissions are acting as a catalyst. People like simple explanations.... why did some guy shoot up a daycare center? The answers are not simple, they are complicated and intricately woven through myriads of factors... so when one side shouts "the earth is in a warming trend," the other side turns their brains off and says "no, it's humankind!" And when that side says "but the warming trend in unprecedented," the former side says "no! It's all natural!" If you can admit that both may true, you can start to move on from there.
The bulk of us won't agree entirely, but you can at least nudge people together... like most politics, on most important issues, we actually largely agree on what we want: we don't want homeless people, we don't want people to go without necessary healthcare, we don't want people to without food/shelter/clothing, we don't want people to go without education. The disagreement is on how to solve these issues. Instead, we let the politicians and the media divide us to keep the conflict going... maybe it's human nature? After all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other over the "right way" to worship God for thousands of years.
But that's not what I'm talking about -I'm talking about that, even if you accept AGW, what do you do about it? If humans completely disappeared from the planet this very second, the temperature still rises (according to the article) 0.5c. They also say if we do nothing it rises 2.0c. So what do you do? They suggest future emissions are going to cause an additional 1.5c rise, so even if you cut our emissions in half, we still rise a total of 1.25c (maybe - I'm doing math using a direct correlation, but that may not be how it works). What people are discussing now is like 10 or 20% reductions... even 25%... that means we STILL need to prepare for what's coming, because you can't stop it.
As far as "deniers" go - first of all, questioning the science isn't "denying." But take the first step - admit that animals influence the environment they live in, and move on from there. If they can't acknowledge that, then it is pointless.
And Disney's got the ABC content, and whatever it is they're calling the family channel now (I cut the cord, so I know they changed it, but can't remember to what). They've also got ESPN, which they'll do live sports with the same way HULU's got some live content now.... oh, and Marvel and Star Wars movies. Oh well. I would rather live without than to subscribe to a separate Disney service.
WTF would I add Disney? (or any other service out there).
Agree - I'm in a similar situation. Luckily my kids don't give a crap about Disney anymore (both late teens). But if you had young kids...
When you need to pay $15 bucks each for twenty different services, I stop wasting time watching TV.
And for the record - they got Bambi's mom, but they're going to pay.... deerly. (Disney's live action Bambi movie).
So because it happens in other states proves it's not suspicious?
Actually, while I'm not some rabid environmentalist (not that they are all like that), I think there's a lot to both sides of the equation, here - the earth has trends - it's been a lot warmer than it is now (without humankind), and it's been a lot colder. But I certainly do think we're at least acting as a catalyst, and that our presence is certainly having some effect, even if the overall temperature increases are not entirely human made.
But here's the rub - as the article points out, we can completely stop emitting greenhouse gasses (no we can't, but as the story goes) and we're still getting a 0.5c increase in temperature. What do people want? They are talking about 10% here, maybe 20% there... in other words, you're still talking like 1.75c increase in temperature. Instead of inflicting trillions of dollars in economic damage making the world stop producing, stop progressing, putting millions, if not billions out of work, we should be focusing on dealing with it rather than stopping it, because it's coming even if we cut emissions in half.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue "green" technology, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not for companies getting government grants of our tax dollars, then having the CEOs cut and run and the company goes bankrupt, but there's definitely the need for research, and the practical application of that research. I cannot afford to cover my roof with solar panels even though I wish I could. I can't afford it, and I wouldn't recoup my investment because I certainly won't own the house long enough. Maybe there should be more incentives there... .too bad we let the monopolies manipulate legislation that makes it harder for homeowners to do things like that instead of easier (In Sunshine State, Big Energy Blocks Solar Power).
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle instead of allowing the politicians and media divide and conquer us. Anyone with a brain can admit humans have an impact on their environment; anyone with a brain can admit that we can't completely stop greenhouse emissions (unless you can "cure" farting, or the need to eat in general). So let's stop the hyperbole and have some reasonable discourse about how to deal with it instead of pointing fingers and name calling.
I stand corrected. Fortunately, you can skip ahead to the thirty seconds you need.
It can be informative, but it can also be damn annoying.
A lot of these you-tubers make videos as if they're getting paid by the minute instead of by the views. The "how to such-and-such" video goes something like "Hi, I'm so-and-so, and welcome to my youtube channel where I talk about how to upgrade your computer and other electronic devices." [insert long pauses between some words] "Today I'm going to show you how to do such-and-such; such-and-such is useful if you want to [insert long list of things with long pauses in between them while the speaker thinks about it]."
5 minutes in, and maybe you're finally getting to the useful part. Hey, newsflash, I wouldn't have looked up your video if I didn't already know what I was looking for and why I was looking for it!
I can understand the "more registered voters than citizens eligible to vote" issue, as I assume people don't magically fall off the registration when the move or die. Of course, we need to either vote (which keeps you registered) or re-register after some time, and a 44% surplus seems quite high... as does 99% voter turnout, so I'm not suggesting there's nothing fishy going on.
I'm not naive - I fully expected this guy to get fired, and I'd expect to be fired for posting any sort of dissenting view; I'm pointing out how hypocritical Google is being on the subject. It doesn't matter how you feel about what this guy wrote, Google is clearly saying they value diverse opinions, and don't want people with a minority viewpoint to feel "threatened," and claim "it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions," and then show what f#@king liars they are by firing this guy.
If you do not let this guy's opinions cloud your judgement, the point of discussion today is that the memo states:
At the same time, there are co-workers who are questioning whether they can safely express their views in the workplace (especially those with a minority viewpoint). They too feel under threat, and that is also not OK. People must feel free to express dissent. So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics — we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions.
And yet the fired the guy for writing his personal blog.
So perhaps, in general, you're not entitled to free speech in the work place. In fact, I'd even agree that the company is as "free" to fire you for writing something against the company as you are "free" to write it, even on your own time on your own blog.
However, they clearly say "People must feel free to express dissent" while saying it's "not OK" for those people to feel under threat, and "... it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions." And then they fire this guy.
Conservative, liberal, neocon, neolib... it doesn't matter what you're political leanings are, or if you agree or not with what he wrote. Clearly the execs at Google are being hypocritical.
There's nothing unfair when you sign up for a service and agree to the terms and conditions. If you have a complaint about monopolies, then great - I agree with you.
No - you take what I said too far. Money can't buy happiness, but having enough of it can alleviate the worries of whether or not you can put food on the table for your families. It was a study a while back that showed people making $75k/year or more were, in fact, happier (on average) because of it. But when people say money can't buy happiness they mean that possessions are not what makes you truly happy - a big screen TV might give you some temporary elation, but it's not true happiness. Having a Telsa instead of a Prius might make you feel superior, but it doesn't give you true happiness. Money can buy sex, but it can't buy love or friendship. I defined success as being able to support yourself and your family - being able to provide for your family is something that brings happiness. Education and working hard are your best chance to attain that.
So wealth - yes, but the latter day neo-libs claim the "American Dream" is unattainable anymore - but only because they've redefined it as being ostentatiously wealthy. Blame "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" if you want - but people are too preoccupied with what other people have, and have decided (wrongly) that in order to be "happy," they must have more.
Actually, I'm not a neo-lib at all, so I don't know where that came from. I am exactly arguing what you are arguing. But what I am saying is it's not some kid's fault (and that it IS a matter of some luck) when that child is born into a loser family that raises them to play the victim instead of work hard. But I am also saying that there are parents, even in the ghetto, that encourage their kids to succeed and make it out of the ghetto - that the single biggest influence is the parents/guardians.
It IS easier to "succeed," or "live the American dream," which I believe is to be able to support yourself and family and live a comfortable life (not live some ostentatiously lavish rich lifestyle), it's easier when you are born into that lifestyle, where your parent(s) or guardian(s) work hard and provide for their family, and encourage those they are raising to do the same. It's far more difficult (but certainly nowhere near impossible) for people born in the ghetto to achieve that lifestyle. And it all boils down to the parents. Unless you're one of those nutjobs that believes you choose your family, you must admit it's a matter of "luck" (good ro bad) who your parents are.