I didn't say anything about forgiveness. You can't forgive people that haven't even been accused other than by a mob. Forgive them for what? For somebody falsely claiming they were convicted, or equivalent? For somebody else claiming they somehow need forgiveness for a mob having formed? Sounds like history class in Salem, MA to me.
The whole idea that forgiveness is involved is the same offensive immoral unethical bullshit as the rest of the mob. And you even try to push it off on me, claiming I talked about forgiveness. No, you did not understand my words; even though they were literal.
And if Steve Jobs murdered a unicorn or something, I'm sure the whole mob would be blaming this guy, or some other random employee who had to write an email promising to kiss his ass. iPhones in hand. I'll bet over 50% of the whiny editors are still actively paying money to the companies responsible for the crimes they believe took place. I guess it helps to resolve their cognitive dissonance to blame this guy, since he doesn't work there anymore. Or maybe, he isn't to blame for the sins of Jobs. And BTW, a mob doesn't form if you say the name Steve Jobs. A crowd of groupies and well-wishers is all that forms. Hmmmm, curious, isn't it?
Let's start at the beginning, shall we?
ME: "The guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder..." and "maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him."
YOU: "No. If there isn't a clear condition of his release that prohibits him from flying an airplane, and you're worried about it, the thing to do would be to agree to make a new rule that people convicted of that crime can't be airline pilots."
There is no mob. You made it up. There's an individual who was tried, convicted, and did his time for a crime. There's my assertion that said individual is not the ideal candidate for certain positions. There's you disagreeing with that being correct.
That's it. That's where I'm getting a sense that you're arguing for forgiveness from. I don't think you need a law forbidding people with criminal records from being pilots. If the crime was drug-trafficking or robbery or even assault, it may not be a big deal. I made the example of mass-murder. Someone who's deliberately killed several people. Giving such a person a position where they're enabled to do the same again... unwise. That's it. That's all I've ever been saying. The specific crime and the specific job don't mesh well. It's a judgement call, and it should be made by the employer, not congress. At least I think so.
So again, I'm still not talking about the single, specific example this story was about. I was trying to set the stage that discrimination based on previous wrongdoing isn't universally a bad thing. It may - in some cases - be sensible. Of course, I'd have to study the hell out of the specific case in question to be able to have an (rational, informed) opinion on its merits, but I haven't, and thus I haven't (an opinion).
I did reply to what you said; you didn't address the response, or even begin to. You did not show that you understood my position, and yet you seem to be requesting that I change my view, or claiming my position is incorrect.
It is clear you cannot comprehend the words that I have said, and are not willing to even consider the ethical issues involved in the situation. Too bad.
What? Something, somewhere is failing to get communicated.
"You're not going to convince the majority of educated modern humans that unproven accusations of something horrible counts as a proof of something horrible. And when that type of accusation exists, it is irrational to expect people who demand a trial before the sentencing to suddenly drop their demand.
The mob is just screaming and wailing, and won't stop soon, but wikipedia's board has to respond in a way that is actually ethical, using the ethical principles that human societies agree to. That includes things like being innocent until proven guilty. Ultimately, there is no ethical dilemma in letting editors quit over it; they have that right. But giving the protesters what they ask for in this case would be illegal; and ironically it would violate employment ethics in a well-established way. Serious analysis does not land this protest on the side of supporting workers rights. It is where you want to be, but it isn't where you are."
ALL of this stuff is in regards to two things: 1) "accusations", and 2) this specific case. As I said in my prior reply, I'm discussing 1) convicted individuals where there is no sign of wrongful conviction or special circumstances and 2) the concept of universal forgiveness you're espousing, not the specific case. So that's why I didn't reply to any of it. It's not what I'm discussing. It's what I'm not not discussing. So I remain in the dark what your views actually are on the topics that I've been engaging.
See, if there's no grounds for agreement on the general principle, then there's no grounds for agreement on the specific case. No point arguing the specific without establishing the general. Shrug.
You disbelieve that we won't agree to what you say, but you offer no reason for me to change my view. Seems highly irrational to me.
I've clarified. I've quantified. I've made explicit provision for questionable or wrong convictions. I've also been abundantly clear that I'm sparring with you over the principle and concept here, not the specific case that has inspired the debate.
That's not enough for you to even reply to what I've said.
I remain unconvinced that you'd unflinchingly hire someone convicted of elder-abuse to provide care for say... your mother. Because that's what I'm engaging you on here. Your professed standpoint that once someone has done time, all must be forgotten and forgiven. That's what I'm engaging. That's what I fail to believe.
Why? Because the word recidivist exists for a reason. Given the choice between two candidates, it's statistically foolish, unwise, and silly to not prefer the candidate who does not have a history of being irresponsible in the position you are considering them for. The math dictates your correct choice. Sure, it may be Jesus-like to turn the other cheek, but it's the dumb choice, and your statistically-averaged-mother won't thank you for it statistically-averaged-more of the time than she would if you hadn't made it.
I'm not trying to be a knob... I'm genuinely interested in a} where our communication is falling down or b} if it isn't, what makes you tick.
No, we won't agree to that.
I'm sorry. I don't believe you. I'm sure you mean well, but I don't buy it.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a surgeon convicted of gross negligence back at the operating table.
You're trying to tell us you'd put someone convicted of elder-abuse back as a care-giver in a resting-home.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted pedo back at the principal's desk in a grade-school.
You're trying to tell us you'd put a convicted terrorist back at the chemical research lab.
Yes, there are edge-cases, where there are wrongful, or questionable convictions. Personally I'd hire Snowden to do my IT any day (aside from that I'm already an IT guy.) Personally, I think Manning is employable in any position he's capable of. Young hackers getting security jobs as white-hats, fine. I'll compromise on that sort of thing.
But some things are disqualifiers for some jobs. In this case, once you're outed as a corporate scumbag, you shouldn't be given another opportunity to be a corporate scumbag. You're a great candidate for an airline pilot, surgeon, care-giver, principal, or chemist though.
Our society is supposed to believe that people can improve themselves and we should (eventually) forgive people.
Sure. They guy who just got out of jail for mass-murder can cut my lawn. He can manage the local Wal-Mart. He can teach English-as-a-Second-Language classes to orphan refugees. Just... maybe let's all agree that "passenger airline pilot" isn't the job for him.
Point I'm trying to make is that while second chances are a Good Thing, it's also very reasonable that some bridges are forever burned, and a different way to cross the gorge needs be found.
The summary suggests that POE is a "ubiquitous power source", but the suggests that we have to go to [redacted] to take a chance on getting one. Which is it?
Just because someone names one possible place a thing can be bought doesn't preclude it being massively available via other channels.
But you knew that. You just wanted to spew a buzz-word you made up. Twice in one thread. Well, sorry, you're getting called on it.
A treaty just to talk to a guy in a room in London? A "framework"? This is Ecuador simultaneously trolling and puffing itself up.
I do not know this to be the case, but I suspect this is more a matter of formally establishing paperwork that get signed, wherein Sweden agrees explicitly that they know and agree to obey Ecuador's laws. While in that embassy, Ecuadoran law prevails, and while it's fine to say "I agree to that fact", it's another thing to agree to the specific laws that might come into play.
"Oh, I didn't know I can't wear blue on Wednesdays."
The form and content of the questions asked etc, may have restrictions because of Ecuadoran laws on how questioning/interrogation work. Ecuador has a duty to protect a person they've granted asylum to, and that extends to making sure the Swedes don't illegally (for Ecuador) badger, harass, or insult that person.
My point is that this can't be a casual off-the-record conversation between two buds. And you know how police are sometimes known to manipulate people into confessions/self-incrimination? Yeah, well, not when you've granted asylum.
The cops drove Lucan to school
Wait. These cops invited a child they don't know into their car? And the kid accepted? Yeah... no. If the kid isn't in overt danger, I can't say I'm okay with this.
It's still a mystery as to how the missile reached Cuba
On a plane. Says so in the summary.
Why it went to Cuba is the mystery.
Pretty sure why is answered too. It went to Cuba because it was aboard an a plane that went there.
Huh, the 1994-2002 gap corresponds to when North Korea was in the grip of a severe famine and lack of resources. I wonder if that had anything to do with their sudden willingness to negotiate. Let's not investigate this any further, and give all credit to the Clinton administration that was the author of so many successful international adventures such as Blackhawk Down.
This is a textbook example of selection-bias. Let's rewind and condense the conversation that happened.
OP: "Democrats caused this. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Reply: "Here are some facts.. Republicans were always in power when NK did nuclear, Democrats never. Conclusion: Republicans bad, Democrats good."
You: "Only replying to one aspect of your post, ignoring unpleasant correlation between NK nukes and Republican presidency, dismissing correlation between lack-of-NK nukes and Democrat presidency. Conclusion: Republicans good, Democrats bad."
Me: "I'm not American and this is too complicated for trivial cause & effect analysis. Conclusion: Republicans, Democrats, NK government, OP, Reply, and You all bad, Me awesome."
Witcher 3 was announced for SteamOS two years ago.
I guess all I can say that is:
1} It hasn't happened.
2} It shows no sign it's going to happen, ever.
3} Caught up, thanks.
If you were trying to be sarcastic, I apologize in advance, for not detecting it. Not sure.
Games actually work surprisingly well on Linux by now.
Anecdotal evidence time; let's see what's installed that runs on Linux...
Elite Dangerous? No.
Witcher 3? No.
Mass Effect 3? Yes!
Divinity: Original Sin? No.
Borderlands 2? Yes!
I guess two out of five ain't bad. I mean... unless you want to play them. Looks like the trick is "like games that are 3+ years old".
Ah, yes, a common error of homophone substitution. So...do you have anything useful or interesting to say, or is playing grammar-checker your only skill?
Wait, what? Mute rhymes with "cute" and moot rhymes with "boot". So, no, not a common error of homophone substitution. An error of not-knowing-what-the-correct-word-is, followed by doubling-down and making like someone else is to blame.
Mathematics is the only science where one never knows what one is talking about nor whether what is said is true. -- Russell