Jesus Christ, Himself, explained to His apostles that he spoke in parables, which can be interpreted as figuratively.
Do we, as humans, remember plain, vanilla facts as easily as something that is cleverly worded? To literals translate as easily as figuratives?
That being said, it is completely ignorant to assume that in all this vast universe, whether God created it or not, we alone were created in His image to serve Him. Its certainly plausible that more than one 'world' was created.
What about, "...and there were giants in those days..." and any evidence of them? Some interpret this to be really big people who got flooded out. Some interpret this as proof that the dinosaurs, or at least fossils of the dinosaurs, were recorded in that time. What if this was really a reference to extra terrestrials on Earth at the time? What if it was the Titans?
That particular passage about flesh and spirit was Jesus' way of showing that he HAS flesh and is not a ghost, as His disciples feared. He did not say that spirits have no genitalia or gender; only that they do not have flesh and bones as humans do.
The Bible does insinuate that we who will enter into heaven will have no gender, but I don't recall any portion which says that outright. What I do recall is that we are referred to as the Bride of Christ and He is the Bridegroom. I guess that could be literally interpreted to say that not only is Christ, and therefore His Father male, but that He is bisexual and we are all his 'bitches.'
As for creation or evolution, does it really matter? Really? We're here already. Or are we not?
My big concern is with the end. There's some scary stuff coming, according to John in the Book of Revelation. Part of the reason I left the church was because of the doctrine of the Rapture. Baptists will teach that because John was called up in chapter 4 that we will all be caught up in the sky. But if you cross reference as I did in my study bible, the references will refer to those whom are already dead being called up, and at no point does the bible say that it will happen BEFORE the Time of Tribulation.
Timelines in the bible are all very contradictory. We are certain that Man's history predates the biblical calendar and we also know that when information is passed via litany and further translated to all tongues, that units of measurement (including time) can get goofed up.
As for a possible figurative interpretation, Jesus Christ could have been an alien from a race that planted us here and He was telling our ancestors that He and His Father will return for us when Earth dies, and he'll take all our remains from Earth so that when later races settle here, that there won't be any trace of us left.
I don't mean to say that I believe that. My last paragraph was a work of complete fiction. I'm just pointing out that there are so many ways to interpret the same facts, and the fact is that the bible does contain words that can be interpreted any number of ways to make my next point.
It is never pointless to re-examine old data and observations of such, because as we learn new facts about our existence, we can see how those previous observations COULD have been slightly colored by opinions and limited data at the time.
@ Chronno S. Trigger (#3) and Hephaestus (#4): Everyone knows that this planet exploded into YELLOW JELLY, not silly green crystals, and she's gonna be far too ugly for any of us to want anything to do with when she gets here.
@ Bible Thumpers and Evolutionists: Old Testament and New Testament prove the evolution of humans, Earth itself, faith, and religion. How so? Bible scholars teach that humans didn't eat meat, but now we can/do/need to unless we get our nutritional requirements from sources we didn't have before Adam and Eve committed the first sin. Christians eat pork. Christian men have sex with their wives when she is in her menstrual cycle. The Apostle Paul wrote that all things were lawful, though not expedient, so as long as it doesn't hinder your brother's walk with God, you can do it, understanding that it may still hinder your own walk, and therefore not necessarily a good idea.
@ John Doe (#8) and Dark Helemt (#20):
Come on, we all know it was just a Death Star!
Maybe it was a giant mirror? Maybe it was a hoax? If you've never watched the Big Bang Theory, you might not get the visual I have, but I remember an episode when Leonard, Raj, and Howard taught Sheldon how to pull a prank and the crap that Kripke and Sheldon did to each other was just hilarious.
Hey Mike, I think you should adapt your law to state that the only people who really make any money by in copyright or trademark lawsuits that the lawyers themselves.
I've been a fan of Techdirt since about the time you covered the story of the Second Life lawsuits where an individual's avatar was 'raped' another avatar or avatars and when a Second Life 'home' was broken into and the merchandise was 'stolen' and in both cases the virtual victims sought real monetary compensation.
Since then, I've seen quite a few articles that insinuate this little tidbit, if not declare it outright. I think you're on the right track, here.
You have a knack for pointing out just how crooked these people are; playing up a threat and selling a solution. These lawyers are like playground bullies beating kids up for milk money and offering 'protection' for payment in advance.
There should be a fine plaintiffs pay for crap lawsuits that waste time and don't have any positive effect on our society.
The way things are now, what do law firms really have to lose when a case is dismissed or when they fight each other like this? They pay filing fees, and documentation fees, sure, but who pays for the rest of it? The firms taking cases for Intellectual Property suits still get paid by the parties they represent, right?
If I was the judge hearing this case, I'd throw the case out and fine both of these parties for wasting the Court's time. I'd set the fines at actual cost to the government of the proceedings and multiply by 1.5. Then I'd order that all funds be directed to an ad campaign dissuading the misuse of government resources for something so petty as using such generic terms as a name for which to conduct business, and expecting anything less than the confusion of uninformed consumers.
I think that NO ONE should be allowed to copyright or patent anything that uses generic terms.
I don't think encryption will make a marked difference
I don't know the technology that governments use to conduct these alleged taps, but I can say with a certain degree of confidence that increasing personal security on the internet by using encryption IS the way to go, but governments will ALWAYS find a way to make that happen.
Its not exactly the same thing, but does anyone remember the capabilities of the pre-ban Steganos Security Suite? As I understand things, NSA couldn't crack it so the software is banned in the US without some sort of key that NSA can use to see exactly what's in a file.
Consider an adaptation of Newton's Third Law; To every security measure taken, there is always an equal and opposite measure will be fabricated. Without a lock, who would have created a pick, or better yet; the bolt cutters?
I do agree, but I'm only posting so in the hopes that if I don't check the, "Email me when there are new comments on this thread," box I won't get email chirps on my phone all night again. :P
A great follow-up article would be the families or the school board filing suit on the cell phone manufacturer and/or service provider to child-proof the cellphone cameras, calling for legislation that all photos taken by a cellphone cameras are automatically shared with the adult legal guardian paying for the phone.
Of course, prepaid, no-contract phones, and phones paid for by 18-years-or-older significant others still in school would slip through.
I seriously doubt any such case would fly, but I'll keep my eyes out for just such an article.
Lets not assume that the teacher in question had the motive to, "get his jollies off," prematurely.
What he did was wrong, but its best to try to understand the potential thought processes.
He COULD have been informed that there were nude pictures on the phone and he COULD have been simply trying to confirm the presence in order to have her 'properly' charged for having pornography, self created or not, on school grounds.
Assuming that this is a public school, it is a state government institution, right? Does the State of Pennsylvania authorize its officials, including the teachers themselves, to seize and search? If the state does not authorize this, and the teacher in fact did believe that the cell phone contained nude pictures of that minor student, or any other minor, he should have simply seized it and turned it over to proper authorities for THEM to search, but only if he truly believed that the student was placing herself in some sort of danger in this.
The charges brought against the student should have been limited to bringing pornography or simply lewd content onto state government property.
In any case, I don't think that the state of Pennsylvania employs, licenses, and authorizes computer forensic scientists as teachers, and in my opinion only one who is properly trained and licensed to do so, should 'pry.'
Now, if this teacher was the parent or legal guardian of any of the students 'exposed' I might change my opinion slightly.
If the teacher has a photographic memory and revisits the images mentally, i
MAN do I hate Push and Patch! Oh, wait, that's not the problem. Much of open source is that way too. The problem is more, "Push This and Don't Let Anyone Else Patch So We Can Get More Money."
At least with Open Source Software, anyone who IS competent, can reasonably obtain the code and patch it themselves.
Yes, mostly this is true, no matter how sad it is.
While you can't survive being only nice, a fair balance is key.
To quote one of my favorite bands; The Offspring, "There's more to livin' than only surving..." though I really don't think that is an excuse to lie, cheat, and steal. As long as we LET our leaders get away with this, we're guilty as well.
Some of us in the Army, frustrated with the last few Presidential elections came up with an idea; Vote of No Confidence. That would mostly prevent a vote for 'the lesser of two evils' when the only two candidates are unsatisfactory to the American Public. If the Popular Vote fails to provide a candidate with at least 51%, the Electoral College will NOT be able to appoint either candidate on the ballot and will instead send the parties back to the drawing board for a new campaign; one in which the previous cadidates would NOT be allowed to participate in, or even speak publicly in regard to. Perhaps then we won't get Democrats putting Clinton and Obama against each other for the sole purpose of seeming 'progressive' and perhaps the Republicans won't sit on their laurels and think too confidently of themselves.
I'm not saying that I supported either presidential candidate wholeheartedly in the last two elections, but I certainly would have supported a vote of No Confidence in either.
Oh, and has anyone noticed that politics and entertainment are synonymous these days? For the last 40 years, our entire entertainment industry has made crazy, unseen millions in promoting political agendas. Has anyone seen Star Wars or Star Trek? I love them both but WOW are they a political machine!
Hind sight is 20/20, yes, but my military career WAS big picture analysis. I'm sure that the former Lieutenant/Captain whatever if he is still in the Army, sees how his actions that day were wrong. That commander was later relieved for similar decisions. I saw the threat as it happened and tried to warn them.
My story was to illustrate just how stupid leaders can be. They rely too much on their subordinates to make decisions without providing the proper mentorship (good Army word) and when its time to pay up, the junior person suffers. That commanding officer should have taken the Lieutenant and the Specialist, as well as anyone else involved, and counseled us all that it was a stupid thing to do, and it was very dangerous. If he had, maybe my buddy would still be alive.
Anonymous Coward @ 10:18 AM, you seem to come from a Survival of the Fittest frame of mind. People like you are the source of the problem here. Please, get right.
And I hope I never see you in charge of a damned thing, seeing as how you see failure in compassion and success in stepping all over people to get what you want.
I was in the US Army and I would qualify my former position as middle management. No I'm a new employee at the bottom of the food chain in a company that has, for many years, seen both the good and the bad with regard to hasty decision-making and I'm certainly not proud of one of those recent decisions my leaderhsip here made.
The great thing is; neither are many of the ones who made that particular decision and the truth is that while the consequences of that decision were miniscule, they regret certain aspects, and certainly didn't like how a hasty decision was required from on high.
That being said, while I was in the Army, I saw many hasty decisions being made that with a light application of empathy, the situation could have been favorably resolved and the careers of certain soldiers could have been saved.
I've seen good, empathetic leaders either be pushed aside because empathy takes too long on a battlefield (or in a training environment) and those who even in training will make such terrible decisions and even though junior personnel will speak up, they aren't heard over the ego pumping that the senior personnel and these lobbyists use to psych each other up.
This one Army exercise I participated in several years ago speaks to my point. I was a Specialist (E-4) in a unit where another Specialist (E-4) was flagged as a simulated casualty of an Improvised Explosive Device and he was the driver of his utility truck. There was another Specialist in the vehicle cab with him and a 1st Lieutenant (O-2) as well. The Lieutenant was the senior soldier on the ground. The Observer/Controller of the exercise informed them that they were taking small arms fire as well, and that the vehicle was not disabled.
The Lieutenant pushed the Specialist with the simulated injuries out of the truck and started driving off. The Specialist, laughing his ass off, got up and ran to the back of the moving truck to climb in.
I called a cease fire. They wouldn't listen. I complained to everyone of authority on the ground. They wouldn't listen. Back in the living areas, I told my Captains, (O-3) that if that particular Lieutenant deployed with us to Iraq the next year, that he would not work in the same building with me. I promised them that one of us two would not com home.
We deployed and his office was placed in another building.
The other Specialist deployed with us and stayed safe for that deployment and another, as did that Liuetenant, who made Captain. Just before I made Staff Sergeant (E-6) I saw an Army times issue where that same former Specialist, a Sergeant (E-5) died in a training incident.
His senior leadership there failed him as well. He died because his 'leaders' made the wrong snap decisions and made those decisions without empathy.
The difference is, in the 4 years of these bad leaders making these decisions I've portrayed, only one person actually lost his life and countless others were saved. I support snap decisions in conflict, but not in training, and certainly not in the business world.
I too am a big picture planner. But I do my absolute best to know everyone on the team personally and address their issues before I address my own. I will gladly fail to meet a timeline because my people are being taken care of.
I miss my buddy, too. The last time we saw each other, we weren't on good terms, either.
1) I am not a troll and I did not post as any representative of the government other than as a patriot and as a voter.
I love wikipedia. Even though its largely unreliable as a source of information for papers because 'anyone can edit' the content, it is stil laccurate enough for me.
I assume you didn't mean that I was any other kind of troll, but I did not post anything intended to be inflammatory. I don't see where I posted anything that was extraneous. And I certainly did not post with the intent to post anything that would invoke any emotional response other than possibly a mild jocular reaction.
Further, I did not conceal my identity. This is in fact my name!
Of course, you could easily argue that voters are members of the government too, but that's getting off topic.
2) I do like a great deal of what Mike posts and I didn't mean to defend this or any company, but rather the US Government. The government is flawed, yes. The government representatives have, in my experiences while I was a soldier in the US Army, bought crap from these companies who promised a whole lot but delivered none. Now there are other, more honorable contract companies who have to clean up that mess.
3) As I understand the format of this website, its SUPPOSED to be opinion based and I enjoy opinions whether I agree with them or not.
And FYI, this wasn't my first post here. I've posted several times anonymously and at least once using my name but I don't recall whether it was a network error but my post still came back anonymous.
Mike, thank you for responding to me directly. I truly appreciated that. And for what its worth, I am a big fan of your posts regarding intellectual property and the govenrments' reactions the cases brought into our court systems.
And finally, because you cannot prove something exists, nor that it does not exist, does not prove the opposite. The potential threat may be mitigated in many ways and the contract should likely go to the company that bids the lowest yet still meets the criteria specified by a government person who is (hopefully) knowledgeable enough about the threat and has analyzed the likelihood of that threat becoming a reality.
If you don't like that we taxpayers pay contractors all kinds of money to help us better prepare our government "from all threats, foriegn and domestic" then you can propose a better solution and take less money on the bid for that contract.
Your opinion here, as well as on many other posts, is sadly represented as equally unfounded.
I do not know that this alleged fear mongering is in fact fear mongering, and neither do you.
As government contractors, these employees are privy to information the public is not, but contractors in this arena have earned public trust, as well as the security clearance to support the claim on this trust.
If I was a part of Booz Hamilton, and I knew of evidence to support the claim, I would not be allowed to disclose that proof to the general public. I wouldn't be able to prove it to you, or Singel.
That being said, we have the choice to bash companies like this, or simply trust that they have our best interests in mind and don't intend to throw us to the wolves for a shiny gold dollar.
Cyber Terrorism COULD be exploited to attack our nations' interests. To what end, I don't know, but to simply ignore that possibility would be asinine.
I, for one, hope that the government does NOT monitor absolutely everything on the internet out of sheer paranoia, but who am I besides a taxpayer and a constituent?
But keep writing. Your opinions are usually entertaining to say the least.
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
Do we, as humans, remember plain, vanilla facts as easily as something that is cleverly worded? To literals translate as easily as figuratives?
That being said, it is completely ignorant to assume that in all this vast universe, whether God created it or not, we alone were created in His image to serve Him. Its certainly plausible that more than one 'world' was created.
What about, "...and there were giants in those days..." and any evidence of them? Some interpret this to be really big people who got flooded out. Some interpret this as proof that the dinosaurs, or at least fossils of the dinosaurs, were recorded in that time. What if this was really a reference to extra terrestrials on Earth at the time? What if it was the Titans?
That particular passage about flesh and spirit was Jesus' way of showing that he HAS flesh and is not a ghost, as His disciples feared. He did not say that spirits have no genitalia or gender; only that they do not have flesh and bones as humans do.
The Bible does insinuate that we who will enter into heaven will have no gender, but I don't recall any portion which says that outright. What I do recall is that we are referred to as the Bride of Christ and He is the Bridegroom. I guess that could be literally interpreted to say that not only is Christ, and therefore His Father male, but that He is bisexual and we are all his 'bitches.'
As for creation or evolution, does it really matter? Really? We're here already. Or are we not?
My big concern is with the end. There's some scary stuff coming, according to John in the Book of Revelation. Part of the reason I left the church was because of the doctrine of the Rapture. Baptists will teach that because John was called up in chapter 4 that we will all be caught up in the sky. But if you cross reference as I did in my study bible, the references will refer to those whom are already dead being called up, and at no point does the bible say that it will happen BEFORE the Time of Tribulation.
Timelines in the bible are all very contradictory. We are certain that Man's history predates the biblical calendar and we also know that when information is passed via litany and further translated to all tongues, that units of measurement (including time) can get goofed up.
As for a possible figurative interpretation, Jesus Christ could have been an alien from a race that planted us here and He was telling our ancestors that He and His Father will return for us when Earth dies, and he'll take all our remains from Earth so that when later races settle here, that there won't be any trace of us left.
I don't mean to say that I believe that. My last paragraph was a work of complete fiction. I'm just pointing out that there are so many ways to interpret the same facts, and the fact is that the bible does contain words that can be interpreted any number of ways to make my next point.
It is never pointless to re-examine old data and observations of such, because as we learn new facts about our existence, we can see how those previous observations COULD have been slightly colored by opinions and limited data at the time.
Oh, and how can a flat world flood, anyway?
On the post: Planet Declared As 100% Likely To Have Life... Now Can't Even Be Found
@ Bible Thumpers and Evolutionists: Old Testament and New Testament prove the evolution of humans, Earth itself, faith, and religion. How so? Bible scholars teach that humans didn't eat meat, but now we can/do/need to unless we get our nutritional requirements from sources we didn't have before Adam and Eve committed the first sin. Christians eat pork. Christian men have sex with their wives when she is in her menstrual cycle. The Apostle Paul wrote that all things were lawful, though not expedient, so as long as it doesn't hinder your brother's walk with God, you can do it, understanding that it may still hinder your own walk, and therefore not necessarily a good idea.
@ John Doe (#8) and Dark Helemt (#20):
Come on, we all know it was just a Death Star!
Maybe it was a giant mirror? Maybe it was a hoax? If you've never watched the Big Bang Theory, you might not get the visual I have, but I remember an episode when Leonard, Raj, and Howard taught Sheldon how to pull a prank and the crap that Kripke and Sheldon did to each other was just hilarious.
On the post: Spying School District Pays Out $610,000 To Settle Lawsuit -- Mostly To The Lawyers
Re: Hello?
Why do Lawyers get so damned much money?
On the post: Kevin Smith, Once Again, Demonstrates How Connecting With Fans Leads To Something Special (And Profitable)
Masnick's Law
I've been a fan of Techdirt since about the time you covered the story of the Second Life lawsuits where an individual's avatar was 'raped' another avatar or avatars and when a Second Life 'home' was broken into and the merchandise was 'stolen' and in both cases the virtual victims sought real monetary compensation.
Since then, I've seen quite a few articles that insinuate this little tidbit, if not declare it outright. I think you're on the right track, here.
You have a knack for pointing out just how crooked these people are; playing up a threat and selling a solution. These lawyers are like playground bullies beating kids up for milk money and offering 'protection' for payment in advance.
On the post: Media Copyright Group Sues US Copyright Group Over Trademark Threat
The way things are now, what do law firms really have to lose when a case is dismissed or when they fight each other like this? They pay filing fees, and documentation fees, sure, but who pays for the rest of it? The firms taking cases for Intellectual Property suits still get paid by the parties they represent, right?
If I was the judge hearing this case, I'd throw the case out and fine both of these parties for wasting the Court's time. I'd set the fines at actual cost to the government of the proceedings and multiply by 1.5. Then I'd order that all funds be directed to an ad campaign dissuading the misuse of government resources for something so petty as using such generic terms as a name for which to conduct business, and expecting anything less than the confusion of uninformed consumers.
I think that NO ONE should be allowed to copyright or patent anything that uses generic terms.
On the post: US Intelligence Agencies Angry At France Over Three Strikes; Worried It Will Drive Encryption Usage
I don't think encryption will make a marked difference
Its not exactly the same thing, but does anyone remember the capabilities of the pre-ban Steganos Security Suite? As I understand things, NSA couldn't crack it so the software is banned in the US without some sort of key that NSA can use to see exactly what's in a file.
Consider an adaptation of Newton's Third Law; To every security measure taken, there is always an equal and opposite measure will be fabricated. Without a lock, who would have created a pick, or better yet; the bolt cutters?
On the post: Microsoft Exec Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'
I agree with you, NotAnExpert...
On the post: School Agrees To Pay Student $33,000 After Teacher Dug Through Her Phone To Find Private Nude Photos
An afterthought...
Of course, prepaid, no-contract phones, and phones paid for by 18-years-or-older significant others still in school would slip through.
I seriously doubt any such case would fly, but I'll keep my eyes out for just such an article.
On the post: School Agrees To Pay Student $33,000 After Teacher Dug Through Her Phone To Find Private Nude Photos
Re: Re: Re: ZOMG NAKED BOOBIES!!
On the post: School Agrees To Pay Student $33,000 After Teacher Dug Through Her Phone To Find Private Nude Photos
An Alternate Point of View
What he did was wrong, but its best to try to understand the potential thought processes.
He COULD have been informed that there were nude pictures on the phone and he COULD have been simply trying to confirm the presence in order to have her 'properly' charged for having pornography, self created or not, on school grounds.
Assuming that this is a public school, it is a state government institution, right? Does the State of Pennsylvania authorize its officials, including the teachers themselves, to seize and search? If the state does not authorize this, and the teacher in fact did believe that the cell phone contained nude pictures of that minor student, or any other minor, he should have simply seized it and turned it over to proper authorities for THEM to search, but only if he truly believed that the student was placing herself in some sort of danger in this.
The charges brought against the student should have been limited to bringing pornography or simply lewd content onto state government property.
In any case, I don't think that the state of Pennsylvania employs, licenses, and authorizes computer forensic scientists as teachers, and in my opinion only one who is properly trained and licensed to do so, should 'pry.'
Now, if this teacher was the parent or legal guardian of any of the students 'exposed' I might change my opinion slightly.
If the teacher has a photographic memory and revisits the images mentally, i
On the post: Microsoft Exec Says 'Open' Means 'Incompetent'
Push and Patch
At least with Open Source Software, anyone who IS competent, can reasonably obtain the code and patch it themselves.
On the post: It's Official: People In Power Act As If They Have Brain Damage
Sad, But True
While you can't survive being only nice, a fair balance is key.
To quote one of my favorite bands; The Offspring, "There's more to livin' than only surving..." though I really don't think that is an excuse to lie, cheat, and steal. As long as we LET our leaders get away with this, we're guilty as well.
Some of us in the Army, frustrated with the last few Presidential elections came up with an idea; Vote of No Confidence. That would mostly prevent a vote for 'the lesser of two evils' when the only two candidates are unsatisfactory to the American Public. If the Popular Vote fails to provide a candidate with at least 51%, the Electoral College will NOT be able to appoint either candidate on the ballot and will instead send the parties back to the drawing board for a new campaign; one in which the previous cadidates would NOT be allowed to participate in, or even speak publicly in regard to. Perhaps then we won't get Democrats putting Clinton and Obama against each other for the sole purpose of seeming 'progressive' and perhaps the Republicans won't sit on their laurels and think too confidently of themselves.
I'm not saying that I supported either presidential candidate wholeheartedly in the last two elections, but I certainly would have supported a vote of No Confidence in either.
Oh, and has anyone noticed that politics and entertainment are synonymous these days? For the last 40 years, our entire entertainment industry has made crazy, unseen millions in promoting political agendas. Has anyone seen Star Wars or Star Trek? I love them both but WOW are they a political machine!
On the post: It's Official: People In Power Act As If They Have Brain Damage
My story was to illustrate just how stupid leaders can be. They rely too much on their subordinates to make decisions without providing the proper mentorship (good Army word) and when its time to pay up, the junior person suffers. That commanding officer should have taken the Lieutenant and the Specialist, as well as anyone else involved, and counseled us all that it was a stupid thing to do, and it was very dangerous. If he had, maybe my buddy would still be alive.
Anonymous Coward @ 10:18 AM, you seem to come from a Survival of the Fittest frame of mind. People like you are the source of the problem here. Please, get right.
On the post: It's Official: People In Power Act As If They Have Brain Damage
Re:
On the post: It's Official: People In Power Act As If They Have Brain Damage
I'm with Sneeje, to a degree.
The great thing is; neither are many of the ones who made that particular decision and the truth is that while the consequences of that decision were miniscule, they regret certain aspects, and certainly didn't like how a hasty decision was required from on high.
That being said, while I was in the Army, I saw many hasty decisions being made that with a light application of empathy, the situation could have been favorably resolved and the careers of certain soldiers could have been saved.
I've seen good, empathetic leaders either be pushed aside because empathy takes too long on a battlefield (or in a training environment) and those who even in training will make such terrible decisions and even though junior personnel will speak up, they aren't heard over the ego pumping that the senior personnel and these lobbyists use to psych each other up.
This one Army exercise I participated in several years ago speaks to my point. I was a Specialist (E-4) in a unit where another Specialist (E-4) was flagged as a simulated casualty of an Improvised Explosive Device and he was the driver of his utility truck. There was another Specialist in the vehicle cab with him and a 1st Lieutenant (O-2) as well. The Lieutenant was the senior soldier on the ground. The Observer/Controller of the exercise informed them that they were taking small arms fire as well, and that the vehicle was not disabled.
The Lieutenant pushed the Specialist with the simulated injuries out of the truck and started driving off. The Specialist, laughing his ass off, got up and ran to the back of the moving truck to climb in.
I called a cease fire. They wouldn't listen. I complained to everyone of authority on the ground. They wouldn't listen. Back in the living areas, I told my Captains, (O-3) that if that particular Lieutenant deployed with us to Iraq the next year, that he would not work in the same building with me. I promised them that one of us two would not com home.
We deployed and his office was placed in another building.
The other Specialist deployed with us and stayed safe for that deployment and another, as did that Liuetenant, who made Captain. Just before I made Staff Sergeant (E-6) I saw an Army times issue where that same former Specialist, a Sergeant (E-5) died in a training incident.
His senior leadership there failed him as well. He died because his 'leaders' made the wrong snap decisions and made those decisions without empathy.
The difference is, in the 4 years of these bad leaders making these decisions I've portrayed, only one person actually lost his life and countless others were saved. I support snap decisions in conflict, but not in training, and certainly not in the business world.
I too am a big picture planner. But I do my absolute best to know everyone on the team personally and address their issues before I address my own. I will gladly fail to meet a timeline because my people are being taken care of.
I miss my buddy, too. The last time we saw each other, we weren't on good terms, either.
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
I want to naively hope that Oracle didn't know this was happening....
On the post: Now That Booz Allen Scared The Gov't Into Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Contracts, It's Time To Cash Out
I love wikipedia. Even though its largely unreliable as a source of information for papers because 'anyone can edit' the content, it is stil laccurate enough for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
I assume you didn't mean that I was any other kind of troll, but I did not post anything intended to be inflammatory. I don't see where I posted anything that was extraneous. And I certainly did not post with the intent to post anything that would invoke any emotional response other than possibly a mild jocular reaction.
Further, I did not conceal my identity. This is in fact my name!
Of course, you could easily argue that voters are members of the government too, but that's getting off topic.
2) I do like a great deal of what Mike posts and I didn't mean to defend this or any company, but rather the US Government. The government is flawed, yes. The government representatives have, in my experiences while I was a soldier in the US Army, bought crap from these companies who promised a whole lot but delivered none. Now there are other, more honorable contract companies who have to clean up that mess.
3) As I understand the format of this website, its SUPPOSED to be opinion based and I enjoy opinions whether I agree with them or not.
And FYI, this wasn't my first post here. I've posted several times anonymously and at least once using my name but I don't recall whether it was a network error but my post still came back anonymous.
Mike, thank you for responding to me directly. I truly appreciated that. And for what its worth, I am a big fan of your posts regarding intellectual property and the govenrments' reactions the cases brought into our court systems.
And finally, because you cannot prove something exists, nor that it does not exist, does not prove the opposite. The potential threat may be mitigated in many ways and the contract should likely go to the company that bids the lowest yet still meets the criteria specified by a government person who is (hopefully) knowledgeable enough about the threat and has analyzed the likelihood of that threat becoming a reality.
If you don't like that we taxpayers pay contractors all kinds of money to help us better prepare our government "from all threats, foriegn and domestic" then you can propose a better solution and take less money on the bid for that contract.
On the post: Now That Booz Allen Scared The Gov't Into Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars In Contracts, It's Time To Cash Out
A Word of Advice
I do not know that this alleged fear mongering is in fact fear mongering, and neither do you.
As government contractors, these employees are privy to information the public is not, but contractors in this arena have earned public trust, as well as the security clearance to support the claim on this trust.
If I was a part of Booz Hamilton, and I knew of evidence to support the claim, I would not be allowed to disclose that proof to the general public. I wouldn't be able to prove it to you, or Singel.
That being said, we have the choice to bash companies like this, or simply trust that they have our best interests in mind and don't intend to throw us to the wolves for a shiny gold dollar.
Cyber Terrorism COULD be exploited to attack our nations' interests. To what end, I don't know, but to simply ignore that possibility would be asinine.
I, for one, hope that the government does NOT monitor absolutely everything on the internet out of sheer paranoia, but who am I besides a taxpayer and a constituent?
But keep writing. Your opinions are usually entertaining to say the least.
Next >>