I never trust a source that claims to be unbiased. I am much more likely to trust a source when I can previously ascertain their biases, because then I can begin to account for that bias in their reporting. By shielding reporters from the world and pretending their minds are somehow trained by the most elite of Vulcan scholars to have no emotion or bias does more to erode public trust in their information than allowing their reporters to be people.
I don't know who that reporter is ... I don't know what they really think of a topic & how that's going to subconsciously affect their word choice and weighing of fact importance or interpretations of information ... I don't know what their personal credibility is. By allowing reporters to show their biases in their personal space, that will make their professional writing more credible to me (personally), because it will give their point-of-view context that I can measure the trust-o-meter (patent-pending) against.
But then again, they've shown they don't really care what I think. And evidently, they don't want me know what their reporters are thinking either.
"you want the gov't to be able to track down criminals/terrorists/etc. as quickly as possible through the tangled web that is technology"
I don't. I want a government that isn't meddling in the affairs of others creating animosity where a vocal minority wants to attack us.
And as for criminals, considering a majority of criminals are victims of the governments "wars" on various vice crimes, I don't want to see the government needing to use technology to track ANYONE down. You can't murder someone or steal a car through a computer (at least not currently), so they should get on the street and do actual police work. And the government shouldn't be meddling with vice crimes either, as what two consenting adults do with their property and themselves as long as they aren't hindering other people's rights shouldn't be of any interest to the government to begin with.
So, in fact, I DON'T want the gov't to be able to track down ANYONE.
No, I want my cake, the government keeps taking it. So I get no cake, and I'm hungry.
I don't want government leaders making choices for me. How about he leaves A versus B alone, and let me decide for myself which one is more relevant to me in my own life, so long as it doesn't interfere with my neighbor choosing the same for him/herself.
"Those who make their living as an investigative journalists should be afforded privileges that any Joe Blow with a video camera and a pad of paper should not."
How about you answer me why the government needs to be granting certain people special "privileges"? How does the government have the power to give a small group these "privileges" over another group simply out of favoritism? Where in the mandates of our government does it state that one of the purposes of government is to "give some people special privileges at the expense of others"? Why is the government even involved in this situation to begin with?
I guess a professional journalist who sits in an office and reads and reprints press releases and copies & pastes stories from blogs they found through Google needs special "privileges" because they AREN'T out in the communities with "a video camera and a pad of paper". I guess the special "privileges" are designed so that those who are actually doing reporting work can't be protected because a major multi-national company isn't paying corporate taxes for them to be "professional", but those who don't do the real work need their jobs protected because no one's buying what they're reselling anymore. That makes sense.
What about my fiance who isn't on the jury but shares my ISP connection. Should her usage be monitored, too? If she does look up information on the case, but doesn't tell me anything that she read, should I be punished because I COULD have been looking up information or she COULD have told me about what she found? What about all the WiFi access points that I pass by on a daily basis that my iPhone can connect to ... should every public WiFi access point be monitored?
What if I go home and don't look up anything related to the case, but want to unwind watching lots of bukake videos, should the government be allowed to know that about me simply because it's forcing me to participate in its judicial process? Does being a juror mean I'm less trustworthy than the criminal that I'm being trusted to judge?
It's not a strawman, because you're presuming me to be guilty of breaking my agreement without evidence. You presume I'm going to look up information on the case and need to be monitored without any proof that I had any intention on doing so. The government has no need to monitor what I do on my time, and pro-actively doing so would presume me guilty without due process.
And yet, you trust the juror enough to decide the fate of another person.
"In New York, can an employer really ask a bottom rung hourly employee to do any task whatsoever without further compensation?"
If they receive their previously agreed upon hourly wage for the work, yes.
The employee can always refuse, based on job description, and open a dialog for further compensation. But by doing the work without renegotiating the employment contract or creating a new contract, the employee is essentially implicitly agreeing that the work is covered under the previous employment contract.
I'm a programmer, and if I were asked to do a website design for my company, the first thing I would say is "that's not what you hired me to do." Then, I would open talks for an additional contract that covers me working as a graphic designer in addition to my other duties. However, if they asked me to do a design and I just did it, then even though they hired me to program, my graphic design work is still covered under my original contract as a employee and the design is there's.
She was already paid for her work, because she was paid for her time while making it. If she's hourly, then she made her hourly wage while making the design ... if she's salary (highly unlikely) then she gets paid for doing a job. Now, it doesn't matter what her job description is, and if athletic artistic duties were not part of the job description she should have held her ground when asked to do the design and negotiate a freelance contract in addition to her employment contract that covered her creating the design. By doing the work and not negotiating a new contract at that time, she was implicitly performing those duties under the original employee contract with the results of the work going towards her employer.
In essence, she made a poor decision and now wants to go back and get more money for it. Unfortunately, she did it in the wrong order, and should not be expected to be compensated after the fact because her price could have been rejected and NYU could have gone with a different designer that would have charged less or even done it for free for the publicity/experience/portfolio/pride. I'm sure there are hundreds of art students at NYU who would have done the design for free out of school spirit or simply to build a portfolio to get a design job when they graduated.
That's probably why newspapers stopped writing news and started to only printing AP stories & press releases. The only real journalism happening any more seems to be coming from the blogosphere where true investigative reporting is still happening.
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
You are 100% absolutely incorrect in just about every aspect of what you said:
"Either you believe that crime should be punished, or not"
Not true. I believe criminals should pay restitution to the victim or the community, and in the event someone is truly anti-social (not shy, which is unsocial, but truly sociopath anti-social) then they should be removed from society with an attempt at rehabilitation. Not simply lock them up for preset amount of time, and then let them go as they were.
I also believe the first form of retribution should be community service, not prison. I believe prison should be used for only the most violent and anti-social people.
I do not believe fines to a government are at all acceptable. I don't believe putting non-violent drug offenders in prison is at all acceptable. And I don't believe "punishing" "criminals" is at all acceptable. But I believe restitution to victims, community service for community endangerment, and rehabilitation when possible. And in extreme cases where the person cannot play nice with others, move them to an isolated community where they aren't a danger to society at large anymore.
"Increasing length of yellow is similar to telling that stealing less than $100 is OK."
How?!? NO IT'S NOT!
"If I force prisoners to work for profit, does this mean that "jail is bad idea because true goal is profit"?"
Actually, yes. Because jail is not a job. What you are talking about here is slavery, or at the very least indentured servitude. Because now, the prisons need to be filled in order for the prison to keep its profits up. If people aren't arrested & thrown in prison, then the prison can't afford to operate, so people need to be made into criminals so that they can become prisoners so that the prison can gets its "employees". Try putting an ad on Craigslist's job section for "Need Prisoners. Apply TODAY!" and see if that business model holds on its own.
Considering I had no idea who Claire Trevor was (fortunately Google knew the first name was spelled incorrectly), I wouldn't get them. Also, looking through her filmography, I have not seen a single one of the movies she's been in.
And newspapers should shut down their personal ads, because prostitution is rampant there as well. Except newspapers make MONEY off of prostitution ... Craigslist did not.
How about naming them publicly so the artists that DID reach agreements can know who cost them some residual licensing money!
Two artists cost an unknown number of other artists royalty payments. If I were one of the ones that reach an agreement, I'd want to know who kept me from getting a check.
Take a left at Planet Vespa, go 800,000 parsecs, hang a right at Vagitopia (might as well stop there on the way back, if you know what I mean *nudgenudgewinkwink*), then keep going for another 1,200,00 parsecs, and it's the planet behind the 18,000 space billboards.
Be careful, though. I tried to go there and ended up in a wormhole that dropped me off at poop fetish planet ... and I did not have a good time at all.
I absolutely abhor the theme song they had to put in place for the original Married With Children theme song (which wasn't written for the show, but was licensed presumably). Without hearing the phrase "Love and marriage..." at the beginning of an episode, it just doesn't feel the same.
On the post: Is It So Wrong To Admit That Journalists Have Opinions Too?
I don't know who that reporter is ... I don't know what they really think of a topic & how that's going to subconsciously affect their word choice and weighing of fact importance or interpretations of information ... I don't know what their personal credibility is. By allowing reporters to show their biases in their personal space, that will make their professional writing more credible to me (personally), because it will give their point-of-view context that I can measure the trust-o-meter (patent-pending) against.
But then again, they've shown they don't really care what I think. And evidently, they don't want me know what their reporters are thinking either.
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
Re:
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
Re: Uh Oh!
I don't. I want a government that isn't meddling in the affairs of others creating animosity where a vocal minority wants to attack us.
And as for criminals, considering a majority of criminals are victims of the governments "wars" on various vice crimes, I don't want to see the government needing to use technology to track ANYONE down. You can't murder someone or steal a car through a computer (at least not currently), so they should get on the street and do actual police work. And the government shouldn't be meddling with vice crimes either, as what two consenting adults do with their property and themselves as long as they aren't hindering other people's rights shouldn't be of any interest to the government to begin with.
So, in fact, I DON'T want the gov't to be able to track down ANYONE.
On the post: Obama Administration: New State Secrets Rules = Really, You Can Trust Us
Re: Re: Ah, The Who...
I don't want government leaders making choices for me. How about he leaves A versus B alone, and let me decide for myself which one is more relevant to me in my own life, so long as it doesn't interfere with my neighbor choosing the same for him/herself.
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
Re: Re: How to become a "professional" journalist....
On the post: Senate Says Amateur Journalists Don't Deserve Shield Protection
Re: Makes sense.
How about you answer me why the government needs to be granting certain people special "privileges"? How does the government have the power to give a small group these "privileges" over another group simply out of favoritism? Where in the mandates of our government does it state that one of the purposes of government is to "give some people special privileges at the expense of others"? Why is the government even involved in this situation to begin with?
I guess a professional journalist who sits in an office and reads and reprints press releases and copies & pastes stories from blogs they found through Google needs special "privileges" because they AREN'T out in the communities with "a video camera and a pad of paper". I guess the special "privileges" are designed so that those who are actually doing reporting work can't be protected because a major multi-national company isn't paying corporate taxes for them to be "professional", but those who don't do the real work need their jobs protected because no one's buying what they're reselling anymore. That makes sense.
On the post: Jurors Required To Sign Promises Not To Google Details Of Case
Re: Google
But that's it. Everything else you said counts as "opinion, hearsay, and straight lies".
On the post: Jurors Required To Sign Promises Not To Google Details Of Case
Re: Re: Re: Google
What if I go home and don't look up anything related to the case, but want to unwind watching lots of bukake videos, should the government be allowed to know that about me simply because it's forcing me to participate in its judicial process? Does being a juror mean I'm less trustworthy than the criminal that I'm being trusted to judge?
It's not a strawman, because you're presuming me to be guilty of breaking my agreement without evidence. You presume I'm going to look up information on the case and need to be monitored without any proof that I had any intention on doing so. The government has no need to monitor what I do on my time, and pro-actively doing so would presume me guilty without due process.
And yet, you trust the juror enough to decide the fate of another person.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
Re: Re: New York is an At Will Employment State
If they receive their previously agreed upon hourly wage for the work, yes.
The employee can always refuse, based on job description, and open a dialog for further compensation. But by doing the work without renegotiating the employment contract or creating a new contract, the employee is essentially implicitly agreeing that the work is covered under the previous employment contract.
I'm a programmer, and if I were asked to do a website design for my company, the first thing I would say is "that's not what you hired me to do." Then, I would open talks for an additional contract that covers me working as a graphic designer in addition to my other duties. However, if they asked me to do a design and I just did it, then even though they hired me to program, my graphic design work is still covered under my original contract as a employee and the design is there's.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
In essence, she made a poor decision and now wants to go back and get more money for it. Unfortunately, she did it in the wrong order, and should not be expected to be compensated after the fact because her price could have been rejected and NYU could have gone with a different designer that would have charged less or even done it for free for the publicity/experience/portfolio/pride. I'm sure there are hundreds of art students at NYU who would have done the design for free out of school spirit or simply to build a portfolio to get a design job when they graduated.
On the post: Alumnus Sues NYU Over Logo That The School Asked Her To Design
Re: Re: Re: Gray area, maybe, depending
On the post: Is Google Just Toying With Newspapers Now?
Re:
On the post: Arizona Dumping Redflex Cameras... But Giving Redflex An Award For Innovation?
Re: Re: Re: This discussion is demagogy in its best
"Either you believe that crime should be punished, or not"
Not true. I believe criminals should pay restitution to the victim or the community, and in the event someone is truly anti-social (not shy, which is unsocial, but truly sociopath anti-social) then they should be removed from society with an attempt at rehabilitation. Not simply lock them up for preset amount of time, and then let them go as they were.
I also believe the first form of retribution should be community service, not prison. I believe prison should be used for only the most violent and anti-social people.
I do not believe fines to a government are at all acceptable. I don't believe putting non-violent drug offenders in prison is at all acceptable. And I don't believe "punishing" "criminals" is at all acceptable. But I believe restitution to victims, community service for community endangerment, and rehabilitation when possible. And in extreme cases where the person cannot play nice with others, move them to an isolated community where they aren't a danger to society at large anymore.
"Increasing length of yellow is similar to telling that stealing less than $100 is OK."
How?!? NO IT'S NOT!
"If I force prisoners to work for profit, does this mean that "jail is bad idea because true goal is profit"?"
Actually, yes. Because jail is not a job. What you are talking about here is slavery, or at the very least indentured servitude. Because now, the prisons need to be filled in order for the prison to keep its profits up. If people aren't arrested & thrown in prison, then the prison can't afford to operate, so people need to be made into criminals so that they can become prisoners so that the prison can gets its "employees". Try putting an ad on Craigslist's job section for "Need Prisoners. Apply TODAY!" and see if that business model holds on its own.
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 strikes law
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 3 strikes law
Jesus Quintana: You ready to be fucked, man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna fuck you up.
The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
On the post: French Porn Execs: Ignore Piracy, Focus On Quality; Japanese Porn Execs: Sue Everyone
Re: Re: Re: Directions?
I mean ...
Planet Vespa is a DIFFERENT planet than Planet Druidia, obviously.
*shifty eyes*
On the post: Sheriff Uses Craigslist To Arrest Prostitutes... Blames Craigslist
Re: Re: Dumb Pigs
On the post: Werewolf TV Show Blocked From DVD Release Due To Music Licensing
Re: Big Mistake
Two artists cost an unknown number of other artists royalty payments. If I were one of the ones that reach an agreement, I'd want to know who kept me from getting a check.
On the post: French Porn Execs: Ignore Piracy, Focus On Quality; Japanese Porn Execs: Sue Everyone
Re: Directions?
Be careful, though. I tried to go there and ended up in a wormhole that dropped me off at poop fetish planet ... and I did not have a good time at all.
On the post: Werewolf TV Show Blocked From DVD Release Due To Music Licensing
Next >>