News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:07 am

I can' remember the exact figures, but I think that surveys had found that something like 60% of all jobs (edit: Australian jobs) were obtained by nepotism.

Since that was basically self reporting I suspect the figure is higher. I know I tried getting work the legit way with real qualifications and experience. That apparently didn't cut it.

In the end both my jobs were gained by nepotism instead. I'm good at what I do but I don't do it because I'm good at it, I do it because no one else would employ me just for being good at the jobs they wanted filled.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 2:58 am

'If you're using open-sourced stuff and it doesn't work...'

You fix it. If it's proprietary, you're SOL.

Number of companies stranded by license agreements: Many.
Number of companies stranded by open-source: Zero.

I won't bother with the rest of the arguments, they're about as reliable as 'reliableanswers.com'. Without peer review, there's no assurance of reliability.

We're okay with twelve guys growing food for a thousand, because those twelve need things from those other 988 - from machines to fuel to oil to comforts like electricity, television and arts - so we've given those 988 something to do. However, when the money system fails, those 988 starve, without anything of worth to give to the 12 to get food.

-Crissa

NativeJovian · Post by **NativeJovian** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:38 am

Crissa wrote:'If you're using open-sourced stuff and it doesn't work...' You fix it.

That works alright if you have an in-house programming department with nothing better to do. At which point you're actually a software company writing proprietary software! Good times.

Crissa wrote:I won't bother with the rest of the arguments, they're about as reliable as 'reliableanswers.com'. Without peer review, there's no assurance of reliability.

So, wait, we can just ignore arguments that we don't like as long as we announce that we're doing so? Awesome! Why didn't anyone tell me this earlier?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 7:18 am

PhoneLobster wrote:I can' remember the exact figures, but I think that surveys had found that something like 60% of all jobs (edit: Australian jobs) were obtained by nepotism.

It's how I got my last job. And possibly it's how I'll get my next job, as the place my sister works at is going to be looking over resumes as a couple of the newer workers aren't that great.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:39 pm

Crissa wrote:'If you're using open-sourced stuff and it doesn't work...'

You fix it. If it's proprietary, you're SOL.

You fix it? No you don't. If it doesn't work you are in big trouble. That is the catch 22 of corporate logic, which is similar to the old IBM joke. If it is open-sourced "you" own it. All problems are your problems. The fact that it doesn't work is your fault. It goes on your record; it goes against your bonus; it contributes to your chance of being "redundant."

If, on the other hand you use proprietary software, they (the company) is paying for the license and the support. You can call them and tell the boss that they are working on it. The problem is blamed on them, not on you. You can pester them and make yourself look good.

That is the basis for the old IBM joke, "you can find better but IBM is the 'best.'" When you buy better and it breaks your boss asks "why didn't you buy IBM?" When you buy IBM and it breaks in the same way you can say "I bought IBM; I bought the 'best.'" Corporate logic is all about CYA. That is why open source is not popular in corporate environments.

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Sat Sep 26, 2009 6:06 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090925/od_nm/us_castration

http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2009/09/pri ... v-1_va.php

A person with some practical knowledge of HIV appears to have some hope for the technique employed in the previous HIV vaccine news.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:55 pm

Anyone tell the polacks that castration doesn't stop anyone from molesting anyone?

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:17 pm

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Anyone tell the polacks that castration doesn't stop anyone from molesting anyone?

It's not to stop the molesters; it's catharsis for everyone else.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:14 pm

Goddamn it, that's such a bad idea. Someone should invade that country and slap them around a bit.

Oh wait, Germany already tried that once, didn't they?

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Sep 28, 2009 4:25 pm

Everyone invaded poland at one time or another. I think I'm scheduled to next week.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:23 pm

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Everyone invaded poland at one time or another. I think I'm scheduled to next week.

Don't look at me ... did I ever tell you I'm part Lithuanian?

Heath Robinson · Post by **Heath Robinson** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:37 pm

The bigger problem is that now that Poland has passed this, a number of the wacko fringe Conservatives will be calling for similar laws in the UK and US. The more we blow paedophilia out of proportion with its incidence and damage, the worse things are going to get.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:48 pm

Heath Robinson wrote:The bigger problem is that now that Poland has passed this, a number of the wacko fringe Conservatives will be calling for similar laws in the UK and US. The more we blow paedophilia out of proportion with its incidence and damage, the worse things are going to get.

Don't worry, in most of Europe the Catholic Church will be a strong force of opposition to such laws.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:24 am

Speaking of which, I saw a story about how Georgia's sex offender restrictions are so severe that there's an actual camp in the woods where sex offenders stay if they can't find a place that isn't within 1000 feet of a school, church, park, children, etc.

And people are pointing out that this basically means they're unsupervised.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:39 am

IIRC there's a guy here in America that wants to create, basically, Pedo-land. Ie, an apartment complex of sorts for sex offenders when they can't find anywhere else.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:53 am

Under state law in California, no sex offender may live in San Francisco County because of the distance laws. Or any other urban setting.

-Crissa

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:10 am

I remember posting here sarcastically, saying this sort of treatment should be extended to all kinds of criminals.

So traffic violators should not be allowed near cars and roads, thieves should not be allowed in stores and other people's houses, and murderers shouldn't be near people.

Now, I'm afraid nutcases would think it's a good idea.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:33 am

Maxus wrote:I remember posting here sarcastically, saying this sort of treatment should be extended to all kinds of criminals.

So traffic violators should not be allowed near cars and roads, thieves should not be allowed in stores and other people's houses, and murderers shouldn't be near people.

And hackers shouldn't be allowed near computers? Oh wait...

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:34 am

Maxus wrote:Speaking of which, I saw a story about how Georgia's sex offender restrictions are so severe that there's an actual camp in the woods where sex offenders stay if they can't find a place that isn't within 1000 feet of a school, church, park, children, etc.

And people are pointing out that this basically means they're unsupervised.

And apparently, South Florida's sex offender camp of last resort is literally under a bridge....

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:42 am

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:
Maxus wrote:Speaking of which, I saw a story about how Georgia's sex offender restrictions are so severe that there's an actual camp in the woods where sex offenders stay if they can't find a place that isn't within 1000 feet of a school, church, park, children, etc.

And people are pointing out that this basically means they're unsupervised.
And apparently, South Florida's sex offender camp of last resort is literally under a bridge....

So basically they've become folk lore-ish trolls? that's strangely appropriate. Can people perform Billy Goats Gruff style shit to get past them?

Edit: after refreshing my memory, this would mean people would cross the bridge in sets of three, each telling of the larger one to come after, then the third runs the sex offender through and drops him off the bridge. I approve.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:25 am

Unfortunately, most on the sex offenders lists were hit when dating someone within a year of them or had some exposure related offense.

Only a minority of them actually were convicted of a sexual assault.

It's not like rapists are on the list.

-Crissa

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:18 pm

Absentminded_Wizard wrote:And apparently, South Florida's sex offender camp of last resort is literally under a bridge....

As opposed to housing them in trailers where they get to hang out in the local public library along with the school children. Locals rally against Steve Levy's sex offender trailers. Dan's Papers Article. The latest news: Suffolk County is considering other locations for sex offender trailers

Murtak · Post by **Murtak** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:26 pm

1. Prison (or any sentence really) is supposed to be the punishment for a crime, correct? If so, after the punishment, why do you (you = USA, thankfully this hasn't yet carried over) insist on punishing people again? This morally wrong.
2. I assume prisons have psychiatrists who are qualified to deem sex offenders safe to release, or conversely, to keep them in prison, correct? Anyone released from prison should be assumed to be safe, even around children.
3. Not allowing ex-prisoners to integrate into society just creates repeat offenders. A public registry combined with not being able to live in large parts of a city means that you at best turn those people into hobos, at worst into crazed hobos with nothing to lose. That is at the same time dumb, wasteful and evil.
4. Lumping indecent exposure and sex between consenting 17-year-olds into the same category as actual rapists is grossly unjust, wasteful, dumb and evil.

The entire system seems like something taken wholesale from a science fiction novel like 1984. The combination of injustice, cruelty and idiocy is horrifying and I don't get how anyone could defend it, much less enough people to actually make it spread.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:35 pm

Murtak wrote:1. Prison (or any sentence really) is supposed to be the punishment for a crime, correct? If so, after the punishment, why do you (you = USA, thankfully this hasn't yet carried over) insist on punishing people again? This morally wrong.

I think the idea is "preventative measures"

2. I assume prisons have psychiatrists who are qualified to deem sex offenders safe to release, or conversely, to keep them in prison, correct? Anyone released from prison should be assumed to be safe, even around children.

You'd think so, but I'm starting to get the feeling that maybe our prisons aren't doing that. This means our prisons are officially worse than the prisons in comic books that, despite some crafty criminals tricking there way out of, actually do get results. This is kinda sad...

3. Not allowing ex-prisoners to integrate into society just creates repeat offenders. A public registry combined with not being able to live in large parts of a city means that you at best turn those people into hobos, at worst into crazed hobos with nothing to lose. That is at the same time dumb, wasteful and evil.

apparently someone thought we did not have enough hobos... and the kinda odd thing is, I don't think there's anything keeping these sex offender hobos from getting on buses... which will commonly have "children" on them...

4. Lumping indecent exposure and sex between consenting 17-year-olds into the same category as actual rapists is grossly unjust, wasteful, dumb and evil.

Yeah, it's starting to seem that the last time we had any intelligent authors of federal standards was 1776...

The entire system seems like something taken wholesale from a science fiction novel like 1984. The combination of injustice, cruelty and idiocy is horrifying and I don't get how anyone could defend it, much less enough people to actually make it spread.

As much as I love living in America, injustice, cruelty and idiocy are our hallmarks.
People defend the current state of Sex Offender laws because they're afraid and brainwashed. This is what people think of when they think of sex offenders. People seem to think sex offenders (even the indecent exposers and 18 year olds with girlfriends a couple years younger) are literal monsters. And you cannot change a monster. People don't think, they follow. The law says sex offenders are horrible criminals, and does not distinguish between a rapist and some one whose girl friend is a couple years younger than them. People may not realize what all is included.

Now, there may be some cases which are used as evidence that a rapist or child molester cannot be rehabilitated, but if this the case then they should be kept in prison.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:23 pm

Murtak wrote:1. Prison (or any sentence really) is supposed to be the punishment for a crime, correct? If so, after the punishment, why do you (you = USA, thankfully this hasn't yet carried over) insist on punishing people again? This morally wrong.

In general, I agree with you here, the problem is #2

Murtak wrote:2. I assume prisons have psychiatrists who are qualified to deem sex offenders safe to release, or conversely, to keep them in prison, correct? Anyone released from prison should be assumed to be safe, even around children.

Unfortunately, this is not the case; especially when you get to pedophilia which can be almost addictive. Most people who don’t get caught right away are able to easily con others and themselves. Just as it takes a person who is addicted a lot of willpower when near the substance of his earlier abuse, putting them near an environment where there are children present, even for those who do admit their problems, is not in anyone’s best interest. When they are in denial mode, it is a recipe for disaster.

Murtak wrote:3. Not allowing ex-prisoners to integrate into society just creates repeat offenders. A public registry combined with not being able to live in large parts of a city means that you at best turn those people into hobos, at worst into crazed hobos with nothing to lose. That is at the same time dumb, wasteful and evil.

The problem is that this is not a question of “criminal offense” but one of addictive behavior. I’ve seen this system happen with alcohol addiction; the current system fails miserably with these situations. I’m really not sure what the solution is but the current system is unsafe.

Murtak wrote:4. Lumping indecent exposure and sex between consenting 17-year-olds into the same category as actual rapists is grossly unjust, wasteful, dumb and evil.

I would tend to agree. I think we need a better definition of the laws here. Since this becomes a scarlet letter we better make sure we can separate those who have a problem from those who made a mistake.