My first thought was to wonder who would use Facebook to job hunt. My second thought was, "Why does Facebook only want me to log on when I am job hunting?" I only use my LinkedIn account when I am looking for a job, which is not only when I want to change jobs but also when I am curious about other opportunities or about what my market value is.
You would be right if this only affected individual consumers, but as this story illustrates it affects large organizations. Those organizations are large enough to make the manufacturer pay for their loss, maybe not this time but in the long run. If it was not the case here (and it likely was not), this university (and other large organizations) will put clauses in their contracts when they buy such devices making the manufacturer liable for such losses. Once manufacturers fix it for their big customers, they will fix it for the average consumer as well because it will be cheaper to get it right for everyone than to only get it right for some.
If the banks are not currently ALLOWED to collectively negotiate with Apple because of Australia anti-trust laws, I believe that this request for an exemption should be granted. On the other hand, if the banks are actually asking the government to force Apple to only collectively negotiate with the banks, I would say that the request should be denied.
This looks like something very similar to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The difference being that Microsoft put the competing browser out of business, while Apple is attempting to prevent a competing application from coming into existence.
You think the NYT checks sources? Have you ever heard of Jayson Blair? Or Walter Duranty? There were numerous similar "reporters" in between. At the time of the Jayson Blair scandal it was discovered that the National Enquirer checked their reporters sources more thoroughly than the NYT did.
Oh no, the poster is correct, long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems. HOWEVER, the length of time during which a smoker experiences those end-of-life expenses is a lot shorter than the length of time a non-smoker spends dealing with end-of-life health problems (and that is not counting the many more years a non-smoker spends before starting to need end-of-life healthcare).
Studies suggest that despite the additional healthcare expenses incurred by smokers during their lifetimes, the shorter life expectancy for smokers makes their lifetime healthcare expenses total to less than non-smokers.
So, now Apple is admitting that they are a fashion company, not a tech company. The fact that their fashion items are also computing devices does not make them a tech company.
NO, Donald Trump repeatedly reminds people that the "free press" has declared themselves his enemy.
I do not like Trump, but the press repeatedly said things along the lines of, "Anything is acceptable in order to defeat Donald Trump," and then was surprised when large swathes of the U.S. voters did not believe anything they said.
I am not looking for work, but I am interested in any interesting possibilities that may be out there. I have seen several for which I am an almost perfect match for their qualifications. I have those qualifications because I have grown into them in my current job. Yet, these other companies are only willing to pay me what I am currently making.
Why would anyone leave their current job, unless it is a complete hell-hole, for what they are currently making?
Actually, Congresspersons have more power than just proposing and passing laws. They are often able to exert pressure on various members of government departments to change the way those individuals do their jobs.
Which brings me back to my question from my previous post.
Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?
Not necessarily, AGAIN, the OP's claim is that Brianna Wu is running for Congress in order to use the power of that seat to do so. That does not mean that they believe that every Congressperson does so. It just means that they believe that it is Brianna Wu's intention to do so.
Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?
I reviewed this article http://www.nydailynews.com/new... and found not a single mention of a death threat, let alone 180. You are apparently NOT responding to the same article that the person you replied to was.
You need to work on reading comprehension. The OP is claiming that she is running for Congress so that, if she wins, she can use the powers of that office to punish those who have offended her, whether or not their offense is a violation of the law.
NOTE: I do not have an opinion on whether the OP is right or not, but Brianna Wu's tactics during the Gamergate situation resembled those of people in other situations who created fake attacks on themselves...that does not mean they are not true, just that she was either behind those tactics, or she provoked them in order to garner publicity for herself rather than seeking to actually address the problem she claimed to be protesting.
There is indeed a clear reason. The reason was that the Obama Administration felt that people who had VISITED the seven countries it applies to needed greater scrutiny than others and the Trump Administration decided that if VISITORS to those countries needed greater scrutiny then certainly RESIDENTS of those countries did as well. Since a system of greater scrutiny did not currently exist for the residents of those countries, Trump decided to ban everyone until such a time as he could cause one to be created.
I do not agree with the order, but it had a reason (and it was something Trump promised to do during the campaign).
In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.
This is mostly correct, but needs an important qualifier. Who is allowed to enter this country intersects, and, to a degree, overlaps with foreign policy. The Constitution clearly gives the President control over foreign policy (with Congress having an advisory role). This executive order was certainly within the powers granted to the President under the Constitution and under the applicable law (with the possible exception of it applying to green card holders in a blanket manner)
Whether or not the fact that this EO applied to green card holders in a blanket manner was legal or not, I think it was a bad idea (my personal philosophy opposes the entire EO, but my understanding of politics sees some value in it). It is my opinion that those who had already been given permanent residence status in the U.S. should be evaluated on a case by case basis, with the default being that they continue with the status they have already been given.
Actually, I believe that the EO would have been better to make it that everyone from those countries remain with whatever their current status is until a new screening process is put in place (if they have permanent status, they get to keep it. If they have permission to come to this country until a specific date, they keep it until that date. If they do not have permission to come to this country, they cannot get it until further notice.). My personal philosophy would still not support it, but it would make better "law" (perhaps even good "law").
Umm, so you are apparently unaware that the countries Trump's immigration ban apply to was created by Obama. Trump did not come up with these seven countries. He just applied his executive order to the seven countries which the Obama Administration had already designated as countries of special concern relatvie to people coming to the U.S. from those countries.
The current ratings system has made using customer ratings to evaluate products almost useless. You can gain a little bit by reading the comments, but that is about it. It drives me nuts when I am trying to decide if a $50 device is worth it vs the $5 device that lists exactly the exact same functionality (sometimes the price difference is because the more expensive item is prettier, sometimes the price difference is because the more expensive item is more durable...greater durability might be worth that price difference).
Well, I have dealt with several companies which have apparently decided to fix the problem with people not responding to surveys by repeatedly emailing me to piss me off enough to respond to the survey. I usually put in the comments, "I have no idea what the issue was that this ticket was about any more, nor do I remember what the service was like, but you badgered me with emails to fill out this survey often enough to make me angry."
Whenever the people doing the work know what the metric is, and have motivation to increase it, most focus more increasing the metric than doing the job well, in my experience.
If increasing the metric does not result in the job being done better, then you have the wrong metric (or, at least, a metric that you should not be using to evaluate the employee. One company I worked for had a phrase they imprinted on certain tools they gave managers, "What does not get measured does not get done."
Customer satisfaction is a terrible metric for which to hold employees accountable because there are too many variables which the customer facing employee cannot control. I have interacted with a company which gives out these surveys. I always give them poor ratings while emphasizing in my comments that the employees I dealt with went above and beyond to help me, but my experience interacting with customer support for that company had been awful because of the tools company management had given those employees to work with.
Companies should seek to have high customer satisfaction, but they need to find ways to measure what results in good customer satisfaction and measure their employees against that.
The problem is that the government no longer can be reliably trusted to accurately give you the raw data, that is, the numbers upon which things like the unemployment rate are calculated. It was bad enough when they changed the way in which they calculated unemployment and then compared the rates before and after in order to present the picture they wanted you to see. Now, there are times when they make "adjustments" to the raw numbers before releasing them, sometimes without mentioning that they have done so when they release the data (not sure that this has happened with employment numbers, but I remember seeing it with regard to some other numbers).
You make a good point. However, the inability to trust government data goes back to long before Obama. It did get measurably worse under Obama, but that was only possible because the government had gotten away with being progressively more dishonest with its data. At one time, the government intended to be honest with its data. Unfortunately, to some degree, everyone is somewhat dishonest with their data (leaving out data points which appear to be aberrations because they do not fit the gatherer of data's understanding of what is going on, as one example). However, as the government collected more data by more agencies. people discovered they could shape people's actions by which data they released. From there it was a short step to only releasing the data which caused people to act the way those in power wished them to act. Then, there came "normalizing" the data, and making "seasonal" adjustments to the data. Until finally, they just outright changed it to make it fit what they wanted people to believe. What those doing this failed to realize was that at each step on the way more and more people began to distrust the data, until now, people recognize that data released by the government has been carefully chosen to promote the agenda of those who control the government, even if that means making numbers up.
Slashdot Mirror
My first thought was to wonder who would use Facebook to job hunt. My second thought was, "Why does Facebook only want me to log on when I am job hunting?" I only use my LinkedIn account when I am looking for a job, which is not only when I want to change jobs but also when I am curious about other opportunities or about what my market value is.
Well, Google is a monopolist.
If the vending machines are owned by an outside company, they should be on their own VLAN that can only access the Internet and the other machines.
You would be right if this only affected individual consumers, but as this story illustrates it affects large organizations. Those organizations are large enough to make the manufacturer pay for their loss, maybe not this time but in the long run. If it was not the case here (and it likely was not), this university (and other large organizations) will put clauses in their contracts when they buy such devices making the manufacturer liable for such losses. Once manufacturers fix it for their big customers, they will fix it for the average consumer as well because it will be cheaper to get it right for everyone than to only get it right for some.
If the banks are not currently ALLOWED to collectively negotiate with Apple because of Australia anti-trust laws, I believe that this request for an exemption should be granted. On the other hand, if the banks are actually asking the government to force Apple to only collectively negotiate with the banks, I would say that the request should be denied.
This looks like something very similar to Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows. The difference being that Microsoft put the competing browser out of business, while Apple is attempting to prevent a competing application from coming into existence.
You think the NYT checks sources? Have you ever heard of Jayson Blair? Or Walter Duranty? There were numerous similar "reporters" in between. At the time of the Jayson Blair scandal it was discovered that the National Enquirer checked their reporters sources more thoroughly than the NYT did.
Oh no, the poster is correct, long-term smoking causes expensive end-of-life health problems. HOWEVER, the length of time during which a smoker experiences those end-of-life expenses is a lot shorter than the length of time a non-smoker spends dealing with end-of-life health problems (and that is not counting the many more years a non-smoker spends before starting to need end-of-life healthcare).
Studies suggest that despite the additional healthcare expenses incurred by smokers during their lifetimes, the shorter life expectancy for smokers makes their lifetime healthcare expenses total to less than non-smokers.
So, now Apple is admitting that they are a fashion company, not a tech company. The fact that their fashion items are also computing devices does not make them a tech company.
NO, Donald Trump repeatedly reminds people that the "free press" has declared themselves his enemy.
I do not like Trump, but the press repeatedly said things along the lines of, "Anything is acceptable in order to defeat Donald Trump," and then was surprised when large swathes of the U.S. voters did not believe anything they said.
It is not just that.
I am not looking for work, but I am interested in any interesting possibilities that may be out there. I have seen several for which I am an almost perfect match for their qualifications. I have those qualifications because I have grown into them in my current job. Yet, these other companies are only willing to pay me what I am currently making.
Why would anyone leave their current job, unless it is a complete hell-hole, for what they are currently making?
Actually, Congresspersons have more power than just proposing and passing laws. They are often able to exert pressure on various members of government departments to change the way those individuals do their jobs.
Which brings me back to my question from my previous post. Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?
Not necessarily, AGAIN, the OP's claim is that Brianna Wu is running for Congress in order to use the power of that seat to do so. That does not mean that they believe that every Congressperson does so. It just means that they believe that it is Brianna Wu's intention to do so.
Do you attempt to blatantly misconstrue everything everyone says? Or only on this topic?
I reviewed this article http://www.nydailynews.com/new... and found not a single mention of a death threat, let alone 180. You are apparently NOT responding to the same article that the person you replied to was.
You need to work on reading comprehension. The OP is claiming that she is running for Congress so that, if she wins, she can use the powers of that office to punish those who have offended her, whether or not their offense is a violation of the law.
NOTE: I do not have an opinion on whether the OP is right or not, but Brianna Wu's tactics during the Gamergate situation resembled those of people in other situations who created fake attacks on themselves...that does not mean they are not true, just that she was either behind those tactics, or she provoked them in order to garner publicity for herself rather than seeking to actually address the problem she claimed to be protesting.
There is indeed a clear reason. The reason was that the Obama Administration felt that people who had VISITED the seven countries it applies to needed greater scrutiny than others and the Trump Administration decided that if VISITORS to those countries needed greater scrutiny then certainly RESIDENTS of those countries did as well. Since a system of greater scrutiny did not currently exist for the residents of those countries, Trump decided to ban everyone until such a time as he could cause one to be created.
I do not agree with the order, but it had a reason (and it was something Trump promised to do during the campaign).
In the case of immigration, it is Congress who decides the parameters of who enters the country, but it is the Executive's job to interpret and enforce immigration law.
This is mostly correct, but needs an important qualifier. Who is allowed to enter this country intersects, and, to a degree, overlaps with foreign policy. The Constitution clearly gives the President control over foreign policy (with Congress having an advisory role). This executive order was certainly within the powers granted to the President under the Constitution and under the applicable law (with the possible exception of it applying to green card holders in a blanket manner)
Whether or not the fact that this EO applied to green card holders in a blanket manner was legal or not, I think it was a bad idea (my personal philosophy opposes the entire EO, but my understanding of politics sees some value in it). It is my opinion that those who had already been given permanent residence status in the U.S. should be evaluated on a case by case basis, with the default being that they continue with the status they have already been given.
Actually, I believe that the EO would have been better to make it that everyone from those countries remain with whatever their current status is until a new screening process is put in place (if they have permanent status, they get to keep it. If they have permission to come to this country until a specific date, they keep it until that date. If they do not have permission to come to this country, they cannot get it until further notice.). My personal philosophy would still not support it, but it would make better "law" (perhaps even good "law").
Umm, so you are apparently unaware that the countries Trump's immigration ban apply to was created by Obama. Trump did not come up with these seven countries. He just applied his executive order to the seven countries which the Obama Administration had already designated as countries of special concern relatvie to people coming to the U.S. from those countries.
It is not Trump's list. Trump used Obama's list.
The current ratings system has made using customer ratings to evaluate products almost useless. You can gain a little bit by reading the comments, but that is about it. It drives me nuts when I am trying to decide if a $50 device is worth it vs the $5 device that lists exactly the exact same functionality (sometimes the price difference is because the more expensive item is prettier, sometimes the price difference is because the more expensive item is more durable...greater durability might be worth that price difference).
Well, I have dealt with several companies which have apparently decided to fix the problem with people not responding to surveys by repeatedly emailing me to piss me off enough to respond to the survey. I usually put in the comments, "I have no idea what the issue was that this ticket was about any more, nor do I remember what the service was like, but you badgered me with emails to fill out this survey often enough to make me angry."
Whenever the people doing the work know what the metric is, and have motivation to increase it, most focus more increasing the metric than doing the job well, in my experience.
If increasing the metric does not result in the job being done better, then you have the wrong metric (or, at least, a metric that you should not be using to evaluate the employee. One company I worked for had a phrase they imprinted on certain tools they gave managers, "What does not get measured does not get done."
Customer satisfaction is a terrible metric for which to hold employees accountable because there are too many variables which the customer facing employee cannot control. I have interacted with a company which gives out these surveys. I always give them poor ratings while emphasizing in my comments that the employees I dealt with went above and beyond to help me, but my experience interacting with customer support for that company had been awful because of the tools company management had given those employees to work with.
Companies should seek to have high customer satisfaction, but they need to find ways to measure what results in good customer satisfaction and measure their employees against that.
Apparently there were, but the media did not make anything of those: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
The problem is that the government no longer can be reliably trusted to accurately give you the raw data, that is, the numbers upon which things like the unemployment rate are calculated. It was bad enough when they changed the way in which they calculated unemployment and then compared the rates before and after in order to present the picture they wanted you to see. Now, there are times when they make "adjustments" to the raw numbers before releasing them, sometimes without mentioning that they have done so when they release the data (not sure that this has happened with employment numbers, but I remember seeing it with regard to some other numbers).
You make a good point. However, the inability to trust government data goes back to long before Obama. It did get measurably worse under Obama, but that was only possible because the government had gotten away with being progressively more dishonest with its data. At one time, the government intended to be honest with its data. Unfortunately, to some degree, everyone is somewhat dishonest with their data (leaving out data points which appear to be aberrations because they do not fit the gatherer of data's understanding of what is going on, as one example). However, as the government collected more data by more agencies. people discovered they could shape people's actions by which data they released. From there it was a short step to only releasing the data which caused people to act the way those in power wished them to act. Then, there came "normalizing" the data, and making "seasonal" adjustments to the data. Until finally, they just outright changed it to make it fit what they wanted people to believe. What those doing this failed to realize was that at each step on the way more and more people began to distrust the data, until now, people recognize that data released by the government has been carefully chosen to promote the agenda of those who control the government, even if that means making numbers up.