TLDR article summary: "Having sex for a while then living together is something you should definitely consider doing before getting married with someone." Not following this advice is a recipe for disaster IMHO
Imagine you just took office as President, you could technically order this to stop. Would you really?
If you do it, you'll piss off everyone in charge of homeland security. The second something bad happens, you know these people will do everything to undermine your authority. US elections are already about who's tough enough to protect the USA, imagine after that! Damn if you do, damn if you don't.
Reality is the people's desire for safety and security is the reason surveillance like this exists. Unless the USA stops doing things that make other people want to kill innocent americans, homeland spying, as unacceptable as it may be, is probably the only way to provide that security.
Not sure what the solution to shit like this is but I doubt it's like-minded representatives in Congress.
Unless the USA stops doing things that make other people want to kill innocent americans
Evil people, or people with evil intentions, exist. Period. Full stop. There will always be people who want to kill innocent Americans. Period. Full stop. Just as there will always be people who want to kill innocent $CITIZENS_OF_COUNTRY_NAME.
Blaming an entire country for the evil actions and intentions of people who kill innocents is a copout of fantastic proportions. The existence of evil (killing innocents) does not excuse more evil (the government of the United States committing unmitigated mass-scale Orwellian spying on the citizens of the United States).
Very true that evil exists and there will always be people with bad intentions. But you just can't dismiss that hatred saying it will always be at the scale it is no matter what you do.
No blame is put on an entire country but on the actions of its military and whoever/whatever drives those actions.
I also agree the existence of evil should not excuse more evil. Unfortunately, it seems it does in many people's mind.
I would expect people on this site to have a slightly more sophisticated understanding than that. There are these things called numbers. It's not a binary question of whether or not the actions of the USA are to blame for reactions against the USA, it's a question of whether the USA's actions cause more frequent aggressive reactions.
That logic is flawed. Some subset of instances of correlation reflect causation. A huge portion of scientific enquiry is based around establishing correlation because prior mechanistic, theoretic and empirical study deems a causative link plausible. Would you wish to do away with the collection of data on correlation? My comment was made in a context in which a causative link is clearly plausible (that American foreign policy makes people angry). Therefore quantitative study of American foreign policy actions and instances of angry foreigners would be a perfectly valid exercise. "Correlation is not causation" is a gentle reminder not to make facile inferences found in undergraduate textbooks -- you appear to be under the impression that it's some sort of death blow to scientific epistemology.
So, as with so many other things, start working to change the cultural narrative that it may inculcate commitments in the People to
(A) update their expectations of security to be in line with reality--namely that bad things happen and will happen, are unpredictable, and often unavoidable;
(2) increase their valuation of basic rights and liberties as provided in the Constitution and its amendments, as well as an expectation of vociferous resistance to any encroachments and weakening of said rights and liberties in light of (A) by any person;
(D) regularly invoke a zero-tolerance policy when elected or appointed political leaders trespass against (2).
That's why I think the outrage over these things unfortunately doesn't last - a majority of Americans want the government to have this power to fight terrorism even if they won't admit it.
The problem with a President who chooses to set aside enforcement or use of a law is that it's temporary and the next President is not bound by that decision. This isn't true of legislation.
Both POST and PUT can be used to create and update info, the difference is idempotence. In other words, making the same PUT request over and over again won't change the result beyond the initial request.
For example:
- Repeat "POST /entries" 5 times with the same request body and you'll have 5 new and identical entries on the server.
- Repeat "PUT /entries" 5 times with the same request body and you'll overwrite the set of entries on the server 5 times.
- Repeat "POST /entries/1234" 5 times and you'll have 5 times whatever the server says it will do when you POST on a given entry (eg. if the server keeps a modify count on that entry, it will end up incremented by 5)
- Repeat "PUT /entries/1234" 5 times and you'll overwrite that entry 5 times on the server. The end-result will be exactly the same as if you did the request 1 or 100 times, including any counters that are part of the entry itself (because those counters would be part of that PUT request body, see below).
Also, a PUT request is usually made on a specific, unique resource unless you want to overwrite a complete set. If the id specified in the URL doesn't yet exist, it will be created. The request body includes the complete resource data to be created/overwritten. Think file uploads.
A POST request can either create a resource or update parts of an existing resource based on the parameters given in the request body. When it creates, the server assigns the id and creates the URL of the newly created resource. Whether it creates or updates depends on the URL you make the POST request to identifies a specific item or not.
[EDIT: clarified a few things about PUT on an id vs a set)
> Well, only if it's good PR. Because if a CEO would rather tell the truth and suffer negative consequences because of it... they're not really qualified to be CEO then.
and herein lies the problem with Corporate America
> I doubt they work any less harder than him either.
Actually, his main gripe is that after visiting the factory, he realized workers only do 3 hours of actual work in a typical 7-hour day. When he brought that up to union reps, they bluntly replied that "it's the French way".
I think he felt it necessary to explain in greater details why buying this distressed factory made no sense. If you can read the comments (http://commentaires.lesechos.fr/commentaires.php?id=02025770...) the vast majority said they're very happy to see someone bluntly tell the government what the majority of French people understood a long time ago but can't say publicly because it's taboo to talk about business, productivity and how the big unions are costing more jobs then they're saving.
> Saying French workers work 3 hours a day is totally stupid. Normal work day is 8 hours for private sector, and 7 hours for public sector (but most public sector workers work 8 hours and then take a day off to compensate over worked days)
He didn't say workers came to the factory for 3 hours then left. What he said was that out of the 7 hours of a work day, 1 is lost in breaks and lunch, 3 are spent chatting instead of working and there's only 3 ours of actual work being done.
If you read the comments on the article the vast majority actually support what that CEO says and disapprove the actions of the CGT.
