|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
ability for robots to be sabotaged
will robots in the future be able to be sabotaged? Another proferred origin, from European railway technology:
- The word sabot means "wooden shoe" in French, and sabotage was originally just the word for the manufacturing of wooden shoes. However (so I understand) the wooden keys used to hold rails in chairs in the English fashion, which were widely used in France, are also called sabots. If you have a hammer, you can knock the keys out fairly easily and displace the rails...This was done by saboteurs, and now the word, especially in English, refers to malicious tampering and destruction, usually as a clandestine act of war, or figuratively.
Sabotage is often said to come from the word for wooden shoe, but there is, as far as I know no real evidence of anyone actually destroying looms by putting a wooden shoe in it. The word "saboter" has many meanings, one of which is roughly equivalent to "do shoddy work, screw up" and it seems much more reasonable that this is the origin. I take the liberty of editing the ethymology. If anyone has a real source for a time (roughly contemporary with the origin of the word) and a place were a wooden-shoe sabotage actually took place, please correct me and add a link or reference.
- For what it's worth, the French article refers to workers throwing wooden shoes into machines when they wanted to go on strike, damaging the machine but not irreperably. It also offers a more complex explanation of people carrying out the dangerous operation of slowing down train carriages in classification yards by placing chunks of metal in front of the wheels. Stevage 11:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Online Etymology Dictionary  says that the term originates "from [French] saboter "to sabotage, bungle," lit. "walk noisily," from sabot "wooden shoe" (13c.)", and goes on to state that "it was not meant as a literal image" and that the clogs-in-the-machinery-theory "is not supported by the etymology". - Quirk 08:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know where to put this
In the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Nelson Mandela wrote in his autobiography how he turned to Arthur Goldreich as one of the few in the ANC's nascent guerrilla army who knew how to fight. "In the 1940s, Arthur had fought with the Palmach, the military wing of the Jewish National Movement in Palestine. He was knowledgeable about guerrilla warfare and helped fill in many gaps in my understanding."
In July 1963, the police raided the Goldreich farm and captured a slew of wanted men, including Walter Sisulu, the ANC leader, and Goldreich. Five of the 17 arrested at Rivonia were white, all of them Jewish. The captured men and Mandela, who was already in detention, were charged with SABOTAGE and plotting violent revolution, which carried the death penalty.
It was basically shoved into the article at the section between Origins and Sabotage in War. It doesn't belong there, but it might have some use elsewhere. Ideas? Wally 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think an entry on justified, or "rightous" sabotage, which I considered this to be, has a place on this page. Hank chapot 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Heh! Thanks, I've made a redirect. Stevage 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Removed some IWW content
Please let me hasten to add, I did not do so because it's poor content, just because it is so grossly unbalanced to refer to workplace sabotage just i terms of a single organization, when we all know it's much wider than that. Happy to have someone put parts of this content back when and if we have additional material, to make it clear that "IWW" is just a tiny subset of "workplace sabotage", NOT a synonym.NuclearWinner 21:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Today's New York Times claims that the word originates with a previous French rail strike:
- The sabotage — a distinctively French word coined in railway strike of 1910, when workers destroyed the wooden shoes, or sabots, that held rails in place — took place at the start of the morning commute. 
- I find this very interesting. Please see this.
- However, i couldn't find the above info at the NYT link. Google found it there at least once, so i'm not in any doubt. But i'm perplexed about where the info is, or where it might have gone...
- That link is here, since footnotes are not activated on this talk page:
- Also see http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/saboter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrownp (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed spurious definition
I removed the following spurious definition from the top of the article
"Sabotage is the ancient Dutch art of deliberately screwing up your own team."
What is sabotage from the top down?
Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or destruction. In a workplace setting, sabotage is the conscious withdrawal of efficiency generally directed at causing some change in workplace conditions. One who engages in sabotage is a saboteur. As a rule, saboteurs try to conceal their identities because of the consequences of their actions. For example, whereas an environmental pressure group might be happy to be identified with an act of sabotage, it would not want the individual identities of the perpetrators known.
From the definition I have several question.
- What is sabotage from the top down?
- What is sabotage from the top down and it is not deliberate?
For those of you who rated this page a "1" for objectivity, can I ask which portions specifically do not seem objective?
Sabotage and Terrorism
Hey friends, I was just reading through the article and came upon this sentence:
"Unlike acts of terrorism, acts of sabotage do not always have a primary objective of inflicting casualties."
I take issue with this statement, because it declare to me, a misunderstanding of terrorism vs sabotage. Terrorism is defined by Dr. Todd Sandler as:
"The premeditated use or threat to use violence by individuals or sub-national groups in order to obtain a political or social objective through the intimidation of a large audience beyond that of the immediate victims."
Now, you'll note that "in an effort to kill or wound people" (cause casualties) is not listed in the definition. Minor variations exist on this definition, but they're all quite similar.
Only modern terrorism, that of religious extremists, has specifically made injuring civilians one of the methods of their actions. Again, this isn't a goal, it's just a method. The goal is still to affect political or social change. One can also clearly see that the sentence in the article is false because of historical groups like the RAF, which announced their attacks, specifically to avoid injuring innocents. The RAF was most certainly a terrorist organization.
In closing, I think to maintain the integrity of this article, the aforementioned sentence needs to be removed.
วงร็อคหน้าใหม่ที่แฝงกลิ่นอายแห่งความ metal ด้วยความที่พวกเขาต้องการที่จะทำเพลงของตัวเองออกขาย ทำให้พวกเขาริเริ่มทำเพลงของตัวเองอย่างจริงจังและกำลังจะออกขายเพลง single แรกชื่อว่า ล่องลอย — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Sabotage in the workplace
Sabotage in the workplace is mentioned in the introduction (it takes up about a quarter of the intro paragraph), but does not appear at all in the article.Originalname37 (Talk?) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)