Shows how even when you do something against the rules / on your own, you still need to remember you're part of a bigger unit.
I agree that people should know when to and how much they can break the rules and it takes experience to know that. But, I feel like you have to make mistakes to get that experience, and that there should be some room for experimentation and failure for those willing to take these risks.
Wow... Embarrassing that this guy was ever charged in the first place. I thought it was some kind of joke when reading the title or that there was more to it, but nope, that pretty much sums it up, chalk. :|
I think the resolution and real-time power of government satellites and the commercial satellites they have access to is debatable unless you've actually seen it. I recently had to look into this and was pretty surprised at the level of sophistication that's commercially available.
It's also sad to see the immediate dismissal of alternate story lines even after this discovery.
A conspiracy was just uncovered... and we're concerned about conspiracy-theorizing? The word itself has been dragged through the mud to the point of becoming a dismissing scare tactic, it basically translates to "crazy person, crazy ideas".
Basically, if your story doesn't match the official conspiracy theory given by the government and the companies that work for it, then you must be a conspiracy theorist...
I've been called a conspiracy theorist enough, I wear it as a badge of honor now. I'm not one of these anti-vaccine, anti-gmo glenn beck style conspiracy theorist.
No, just one that accepts there is most certainly things going on behind closed doors the public is not privy to, which is all the definition a conspiracy is.
People say, "you are a conspiracy theorist" or a "tin foil hat wearer" in an attempt to discredit what you say. The government doesn't need paid goons to sleuth on the internet to defend them, their are armys of people just waiting to comment on how stupid we all are for challenging the government positions/laws. The battle is already lost in the mind of the average american.
This would be fine if many prisons were not privately owned entities and if most inmates were not overly sentenced for minor drug charges.
We also have a growing incarceration rate (U.S), which shows that prison does a pretty poor job of making people "scared absolutely shitless of prison so much that they play exactly by the rules" and don't forget, sometimes the rules are pretty ridiculous.
Also "...individuals that would love to sit around with a bunch of other lazy-asses and be fed 3 meals a day. For free." is already the reality of the situation in many cases.
It's not a choice between the scariest most brutal situation you can imagine or no prison at all. There are other options to make a better system. And in general, a society shouldn't have to be scared into "playing by the rules".
True, some institutions shouldn't be privatized at all even though it might look like it's cheaper or more efficient to do so.
It's not always about money, at least not here in Austria.
I'm glad we have a baseline level of wealth. Do we always need more? Trying to be better, faster, stronger? When do we stop? Does it make sense in the end? Is it even really guaranteed to be the most productive strategy?
Isn't the fact that I can walk through the most "sketchy" Vienna neighborhoods in the middle of the night worth quite a bit? Again I'm not talking about money here.
"All this is to say that the promises execs make on acquisitions are meaningless."
Well yeah, all promises are meaningless. Were any of these promises in writing as part of the acquisition? I mean are they legally bound to comply? If not, why would you expect to have any control over operations and decisions, regardless of your title, after being acquired? It's not your company anymore...
Also there's no detailed information about the meeting itself to show us how you came to that conclusion however true it is. I'm guessing they wouldn't listen to your advice, but again why would you expect them to?
Might not be the age, but the general mystery, undiscovered value and permanent loss of human history.
I mean, yes we tear down and rebuild buildings all the time, but no one is re-building these temples. Once it's gone no one is even thinking about building such a structure again because what purpose would it have? We barely even know the original function of a lot of ancient sites.
This is why I think there's more of an emotional reaction to ancient sites being destroyed, it's an unrecoverable piece of history that possibly hasn't even been fully understood.
It's a loss that can not be restored or studied further.
At the end of the day we don't really know how much value was lost, what was overlooked when the site was first discovered, etc.