There is a lot to be said for this train of thought. To someone who's knowledge is high enough, nearly anything in a given room can be used to advantage, be it exfiltration of data using a custom binary on a smart phone to read RFID cards, or psychological tricks and manipulation to get information that would normally be guarded (cousins of what evolved into phishing).
Using a popular example, admins like Edward Snowden are necessary to make the advanced systems run. With his knowledge, yes, he was always capable of doing what he eventually did, but he was essential, and was trusted. The breakdown occurred when the ethics of group didn't match the ethics of the one. He was highly skilled, and some would argue more ethical than the group he was serving, and this dichotomy drove him to use his skill and position against the group.
Corporations are similar, but lower stakes. A pivotal admin of security ops can easily wreck any organization who either handles finances or uses a distributed (work from home) workforce. They're not known for this potential because for the most part, it's a pay check and something fun in the career, but if one of these admins stumbled on message content that revealed top level institutionalized overt criminal activity? Now there may be an ethical dichotomy that they care about.
In the end, if the organization loses trust of people pivotal to their operations in such a way as to incur attempts at sabotage or espionage (regardless of success rate) as opposed to resignation? There is something deeply wrong in the human dimension of the structure, not the security dimension.
Agreed about the professionalism. Eventually your figures will speak for themselves and you'll lose the position to someone who can perform even one and a half times as well as the luke-warm corpse. Working from home does provide opportunities to flex hours, but those hours should still be made up, and the projects still completed.
Given the popularity of the propensity away from this standard, employers are generally not willing to give just anyone a chance. It's their numbers that you impact as well. Basically, if you treat working from home as a free ticket to shirk work, then you are the very reason why the option has a bad reputation. The rest of us start feeling pressure against the option that we've had experience setting up and working before because someone in their past had a shameful work ethic.
It's a valid option as far as I'm concerned for IT work, but it takes the right culture, people, and infrastructure.
Safe Zones are no more than explicit response of organized free speech and labor to protect those who would try to use the same to harm those they don't like. Trigger Warnings are no more than content warnings seen on movies and TV taken to lecture level where the audience can thereby exercise informed consent to attend. Shouting lecturers down is yet another form of the whole free speech paradigm you hold so highly. Pulling fire alarms to end speeches is no different than a democratized version of taking a speaker off-air when their opinion is unpopular with the executives of a new network, it's also a crime to falsely pull one, but it's one hell of an uphill fight to find that person.
Examining our own biases is a good exercise to ensure the principles we're trying to talk about aren't marred by our own dislikes of other people using their rights in different ways than we do ourselves.
Which is exactly why this thread has 400+ comments in an age of Slashdot where typical stories get less than 100. It's a debate of principles and biases. Ultimately whether one agrees or not, there are going to be future events like this.
Agreed. While their thinking behind the cell service is likely the distance factor of offender from scene, there are a host of technologies involving radio frequencies that could be used. Hell, a home automation switch-flipper that you have within distance of WiFi coverage, and the offender could be in China before activating it in England or the USA. The other thing is, if the cell service towers go down, that doesn't prevent rogue transmitters, so a frequency jammer would be needed, of sufficient power to get past whatever transmitters are in use in the area they're interested in. Once the detonation happens, you think locking down cell service is going to prevent another one? Why would the offender ever need to space out the execution by more than 3 seconds? You're only harming potential emergency calls from people who need help.
Sorry DoSH, you missed too many details for this to be viable. Also, get off your police state rhetoric.
Read the abstract of the actual study. The abstract results summarize that the telomere length issue was not correlated with non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverages, or carbonated non-sugar-sweetened beverages. It's only when both traits are present that this happens.
Sadly there are no more detailed results to look at HFCS or Sucrose. My guess is the study used HFCS pops, but bear in mind that numerous juice brands use HFCS as a sweetening additive, which would count here as a non-carbonated sugar-sweetened beverage. The next question is what's the interaction that causes this from these two traits?