Nope. I grew up in a rural area where people would routinely ignore the town's one traffic light. I've seen far too many people hit by drivers who just really didn't give a damn about the law.
Working people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support them.
That's begging the question. We could all just agree to live in a society together, where those who can will do, and those who can't will do whatever they can with the rest of society all helps to ensure that everyone, collectively, has a good life.
Of course, that's looking suspiciously like Communism, and that doesn't mesh well with politicians' us-vs-them polarized view of the world.
If the road is slippery, you should be driving slower, period. In all conditions, you should know your ability to control your car (including stopping), and maintain a speed that is slow enough that you can maneuver appropriately for all likely situations. In residential areas, expect people to cross the street. In a forest, expect deer. Near a city, expect traffic. Approaching a traffic light, expect red.
I think you mean "there is no obvious construction". There could be an open hole there that someone's about to climb out of, or there could be a hidden tire hazard, or that area could be needed to accommodate moving equipment that can't avoid cars easily. At normal speed, the driver has only a few seconds with a clear view, and likely won't see the abnormal hazards. When slowing down they're forced to pay attention. That's why the barrels are a nice bright orange.
I once lived in a city in Ohio that did the "all red" thing long before cameras were around. Drivers often ran through red lights, to the point where traffic would just wait a few seconds into their green light before moving, just to be sure that the opposing traffic would actually stop. The worst intersections were the first to get cameras when they came out, and they helped. Once the lights were clearly being enforced 24/7, people actually stopped on time. It annoys me now that Ohio wants to ban the cameras.
EFI is designed to eliminate the need for any more hacks. Everything is modularized and defined, so everything fits in EFI's framework regardless of what future capabilities are. When I'm rebooting my interstellar spaceship, the FTL radio will need drivers so it can boot the latest OS transmitted from Earth. Of course, that will require cryptographic keys, which means the hardware entanglement device will also need drivers and software, and that's so complex that it really needs to be stored in glowing holographic crystals, so of course we need the drivers for those.
Of course without reading TFA, I'm thinking the "BIOS attack" is just a regular virus using the BIOS as storage. Updating the OS to prevent writing to BIOS would close the attack vector, and working with motherboard manufacturers would keep it closed permanently.
Ironically, American labor unions have the legal ability to override other entities' freedom of association. As a matter of course, union contracts stipulate that employers must employ certain ratios and numbers of positions, regardless of demand. Union members often cannot legally seek non-union work in the union's area, and union shops often cannot hire anyone who is not a member of the applicable union. Even within one company, certain tools and actions are reserved for union members, again with no regard for the overall goal.
Unions are allowed to hijack the organization of a company at will, and any resistance to their rule is greeted with protests and sanctions. Thanks to the various laws enacted over the last century, businesses have no choice but to accept union presence, and once it starts, that's a slippery slope toward ever-increasing union control of the business.
Another Slashdotter said it well: "The best union is the one you're threatening to form". I feel that's accurate. Unions are a way to assert that the workers have power, and businesses should negotiate with that in mind. What I object to is that there are effectively no limits on that power today. I think that's pretty ridiculous.
GMP is part of AFL-CIO. So is UAW. Indirectly, your GMP membership was supporting those "criminals". That's exactly and intentionally how unions work: Members are all together and operating collectively. Like any collective, it is often for the benefit of its constituents, but it must act as a group, sacrificing individuality.
Yes, some union groups can make different decisions, and as long as nobody higher up in the hierarchy complains, it's fine. Of course, if you as an employee ever want something other than what the rest of the union wants, you're screwed. Thanks to exclusive contracts, you often can't negotiate on your own behalf.
They fired them all individually denied them unemployment...
...And that's bad.
That's what I think should be strengthened in worker councils and interest groups. Once an employee becomes part of such a group, I think they should get a certain amount of time during which they can't be denied unemployment benefits, without an exceptional reason. As an employer, if you start to renegotiate with an employee, you shouldn't have firing as an inexpensive bargaining chip, because the employee quitting is likely expensive for them already.
They take the low-end jobs that are still around. The world still needs telephone sanitizers.
Of course, there are few folks who actually "can't" graduate, given a good enough support structure. University becomes a lot easier when you don't have to also work full-time to pay for the classes.
I've seen many cases where collective bargaining is unfair, both towards the business and towards the workers. Like I said, it's an adversarial relationship. Neither side can back down, because the other will take advantage of their apparent weakness. The end result is that tiny offenses are escalated to be major conflicts, with each side throwing in ever-increasing penalties until each side thinks they've hurt the other enough.
It's never a question of what's right any more. What the workers want or what the business needs are just afterthoughts to strengthening or weakening the overall bargaining positions.
Not a source, but the theory is that by emphasizing high-end and high-paying jobs, and making a business environment that supports those higher wages, there is tax money available for education and social services that support the skills needed for those high-end jobs. Eventually, the society settles into a pattern where people live with little personal risk early in their careers (when they can't afford a catastrophe), and they're secure enough later on that they can help pay for others' security.
As an example case, I recently heard about a friend-of-a-friend who lives in Denmark (I think), and got free education, healthcare, and various other support services while he was a student. After entering the work force as an engineer, he now makes enough to live comfortably while gladly paying 60% in taxes.
I chuckled, but when replying I wasn't sure whether you were actually intending it as humor or not. Given Slashdot's usual pro-union and anti-corporate stance, I figured you were making a statement about unions not being strong enough.
That makes sense. From the union's perspective, the workers are doing mail-order work, filling orders to be shipped. From the company's perspective, the workers are just one step in a global distribution network, which is clearly a logistics position.
Now, I'd have phrased it with the last word being "Amazon"... and that's my biggest problem with unions.
Unions are ridiculously powerful in the US, and even more so in Europe. Employers who deal with unions have to have union approval for practically anything they do, so every business decision turns into an adversarial conflict. Businesses often just avoid changes, just to avoid having the unions add more requirements.
Personally, I prefer smaller negotiating groups like worker councils and interest groups, and I think those should be strengthened in some ways similar to unions (regarding leaving an unacceptable job). That gives the individuals the freedom to make agreements suitable for their situation, and it's actually possible to get everybody in the group into one meeting to work out a decision quickly.
"They" is the Treasury, instructed by the publicly-elected Congress to purchase stocks using federal funds, so really "they" is referring to the public at large.
Indirectly (as the United States isn't a direct democracy), the public spent the public's money to keep jobs for the public. When the public realized that meant the public owned stock, the public complained, so the public pushed to sell the stock quickly, and now the public is complaining that the stock was sold at a loss.
Directed energy also has the advantages of a high rate of fire, easier reloading, and no recoil, and it travels at light speed. It's a better replacement for bullets in many situations, effectively firing as long as there's electricity, and burning a hole through practically anything, without needing to worry about travel time.
I'm involved in a Venture program emphasizing STEM careers. A major focus of our program is "thinking like an engineer". We want the kids to realize that everything complicated is just a collection of simpler parts (until you get small enough), and those simpler parts are generally designed by humans, so there's no good reason why they can't be the ones designing in the future.
I work on automated servers, doing various things with Windows and Powershell that Microsoft doesn't even think are possible. I could bore you with the list of components I have detailed knowledge of, but that'd make this post too long to bother reading.
I knew none of it when I started this job. In a few weeks, I'd picked up enough of the system knowledge to start leading my own projects, and within six months I was teaching my almost-boss how the components work.
Nobody else has your exact skill set, that's true, but ultimately your skill set doesn't actually matter when looking for a replacement. What matters is whether the person you bring in can do the job. That might mean they have to learn your skills quickly, or maybe they just have to learn how to copy an existing setup, or perhaps they just have to learn how to properly panic when a status light turns red.
As business changes, the required skill set will change, as well. The people who will survive are the ones who learn, not the ones who know.
Because HTML entities disrupt the train of thought with every &, interrupting creativity. That's why I didn't properly terminate and reopen the initial tag every time I changed voices. I figured I was inventing a tag anyway; I may as well let it nest.
My day job puts me working with Server 2012 pretty much constantly.
Yeah, the Modern thing sucks as an OS interface. The Modern UI is designed for something like a phone or tablet, where you're doing exactly one thing at a time. Run an app, then when you're done with it, you go back to the main screen and pick a new thing to do. It's horrible for multitasking, but who's really going to multitask much on a phone, anyway?
It turns out I don't multitask much on a server, either. Generally, I connect via RDP, hit the super key, type the name of what I want (either the real name or enough of an abbreviation that it works), and do whatever I need to do. When I'm done, I'll usually just leave the program open because I'll come back to it later, but I'm rarely actually switching between programs. When I do need something, I'd rather just type to get it, rather than go through a menu. Windows 7/Server 2008 allowed that, but the "grab everything from the Start Menu" approach didn't seem to really give useful results for an abbreviation.
I've only really gotten annoyed at the start screen on a server with a few too many roles with a bit too much third-party software on it. That just got messy. On the whole, though, Modern makes more sense on a server than a desktop. Of course I'd still prefer bash, but that's beside the point. No, Powershell is not a suitable substitute.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. I grew up in a rural area where people would routinely ignore the town's one traffic light. I've seen far too many people hit by drivers who just really didn't give a damn about the law.
Working people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support them.
That's begging the question. We could all just agree to live in a society together, where those who can will do, and those who can't will do whatever they can with the rest of society all helps to ensure that everyone, collectively, has a good life.
Of course, that's looking suspiciously like Communism, and that doesn't mesh well with politicians' us-vs-them polarized view of the world.
If the road is slippery, you should be driving slower, period. In all conditions, you should know your ability to control your car (including stopping), and maintain a speed that is slow enough that you can maneuver appropriately for all likely situations. In residential areas, expect people to cross the street. In a forest, expect deer. Near a city, expect traffic. Approaching a traffic light, expect red.
there is obviously no construction
I think you mean "there is no obvious construction". There could be an open hole there that someone's about to climb out of, or there could be a hidden tire hazard, or that area could be needed to accommodate moving equipment that can't avoid cars easily. At normal speed, the driver has only a few seconds with a clear view, and likely won't see the abnormal hazards. When slowing down they're forced to pay attention. That's why the barrels are a nice bright orange.
There is no excuse for careless driving.
My thoughts exactly. Pay attention and check the signs.
I once lived in a city in Ohio that did the "all red" thing long before cameras were around. Drivers often ran through red lights, to the point where traffic would just wait a few seconds into their green light before moving, just to be sure that the opposing traffic would actually stop. The worst intersections were the first to get cameras when they came out, and they helped. Once the lights were clearly being enforced 24/7, people actually stopped on time. It annoys me now that Ohio wants to ban the cameras.
Now, are those your definitions, or the German courts' definitions?
EFI is designed to eliminate the need for any more hacks. Everything is modularized and defined, so everything fits in EFI's framework regardless of what future capabilities are. When I'm rebooting my interstellar spaceship, the FTL radio will need drivers so it can boot the latest OS transmitted from Earth. Of course, that will require cryptographic keys, which means the hardware entanglement device will also need drivers and software, and that's so complex that it really needs to be stored in glowing holographic crystals, so of course we need the drivers for those.
EFI can do that.
Of course without reading TFA, I'm thinking the "BIOS attack" is just a regular virus using the BIOS as storage. Updating the OS to prevent writing to BIOS would close the attack vector, and working with motherboard manufacturers would keep it closed permanently.
Ironically, American labor unions have the legal ability to override other entities' freedom of association. As a matter of course, union contracts stipulate that employers must employ certain ratios and numbers of positions, regardless of demand. Union members often cannot legally seek non-union work in the union's area, and union shops often cannot hire anyone who is not a member of the applicable union. Even within one company, certain tools and actions are reserved for union members, again with no regard for the overall goal.
Unions are allowed to hijack the organization of a company at will, and any resistance to their rule is greeted with protests and sanctions. Thanks to the various laws enacted over the last century, businesses have no choice but to accept union presence, and once it starts, that's a slippery slope toward ever-increasing union control of the business.
Another Slashdotter said it well: "The best union is the one you're threatening to form". I feel that's accurate. Unions are a way to assert that the workers have power, and businesses should negotiate with that in mind. What I object to is that there are effectively no limits on that power today. I think that's pretty ridiculous.
GMP is part of AFL-CIO. So is UAW. Indirectly, your GMP membership was supporting those "criminals". That's exactly and intentionally how unions work: Members are all together and operating collectively. Like any collective, it is often for the benefit of its constituents, but it must act as a group, sacrificing individuality.
Yes, some union groups can make different decisions, and as long as nobody higher up in the hierarchy complains, it's fine. Of course, if you as an employee ever want something other than what the rest of the union wants, you're screwed. Thanks to exclusive contracts, you often can't negotiate on your own behalf.
They fired them all individually denied them unemployment...
...And that's bad.
That's what I think should be strengthened in worker councils and interest groups. Once an employee becomes part of such a group, I think they should get a certain amount of time during which they can't be denied unemployment benefits, without an exceptional reason. As an employer, if you start to renegotiate with an employee, you shouldn't have firing as an inexpensive bargaining chip, because the employee quitting is likely expensive for them already.
They take the low-end jobs that are still around. The world still needs telephone sanitizers.
Of course, there are few folks who actually "can't" graduate, given a good enough support structure. University becomes a lot easier when you don't have to also work full-time to pay for the classes.
I've seen many cases where collective bargaining is unfair, both towards the business and towards the workers. Like I said, it's an adversarial relationship. Neither side can back down, because the other will take advantage of their apparent weakness. The end result is that tiny offenses are escalated to be major conflicts, with each side throwing in ever-increasing penalties until each side thinks they've hurt the other enough.
It's never a question of what's right any more. What the workers want or what the business needs are just afterthoughts to strengthening or weakening the overall bargaining positions.
Not a source, but the theory is that by emphasizing high-end and high-paying jobs, and making a business environment that supports those higher wages, there is tax money available for education and social services that support the skills needed for those high-end jobs. Eventually, the society settles into a pattern where people live with little personal risk early in their careers (when they can't afford a catastrophe), and they're secure enough later on that they can help pay for others' security.
As an example case, I recently heard about a friend-of-a-friend who lives in Denmark (I think), and got free education, healthcare, and various other support services while he was a student. After entering the work force as an engineer, he now makes enough to live comfortably while gladly paying 60% in taxes.
I chuckled, but when replying I wasn't sure whether you were actually intending it as humor or not. Given Slashdot's usual pro-union and anti-corporate stance, I figured you were making a statement about unions not being strong enough.
That makes sense. From the union's perspective, the workers are doing mail-order work, filling orders to be shipped. From the company's perspective, the workers are just one step in a global distribution network, which is clearly a logistics position.
Now, I'd have phrased it with the last word being "Amazon"... and that's my biggest problem with unions.
Unions are ridiculously powerful in the US, and even more so in Europe. Employers who deal with unions have to have union approval for practically anything they do, so every business decision turns into an adversarial conflict. Businesses often just avoid changes, just to avoid having the unions add more requirements.
Personally, I prefer smaller negotiating groups like worker councils and interest groups, and I think those should be strengthened in some ways similar to unions (regarding leaving an unacceptable job). That gives the individuals the freedom to make agreements suitable for their situation, and it's actually possible to get everybody in the group into one meeting to work out a decision quickly.
"They" is the Treasury, instructed by the publicly-elected Congress to purchase stocks using federal funds, so really "they" is referring to the public at large.
Indirectly (as the United States isn't a direct democracy), the public spent the public's money to keep jobs for the public. When the public realized that meant the public owned stock, the public complained, so the public pushed to sell the stock quickly, and now the public is complaining that the stock was sold at a loss.
I'm currently drafting a tabletop game based on the exciting life of a cubicle-dwelling software developer... does that count?
No, really! Caffeine gives +1 to rolls, managers are unpredictable, and calls from customers are a thing to be dreaded!
Directed energy also has the advantages of a high rate of fire, easier reloading, and no recoil, and it travels at light speed. It's a better replacement for bullets in many situations, effectively firing as long as there's electricity, and burning a hole through practically anything, without needing to worry about travel time.
Exactly.
I'm involved in a Venture program emphasizing STEM careers. A major focus of our program is "thinking like an engineer". We want the kids to realize that everything complicated is just a collection of simpler parts (until you get small enough), and those simpler parts are generally designed by humans, so there's no good reason why they can't be the ones designing in the future.
I work on automated servers, doing various things with Windows and Powershell that Microsoft doesn't even think are possible. I could bore you with the list of components I have detailed knowledge of, but that'd make this post too long to bother reading.
I knew none of it when I started this job. In a few weeks, I'd picked up enough of the system knowledge to start leading my own projects, and within six months I was teaching my almost-boss how the components work.
Nobody else has your exact skill set, that's true, but ultimately your skill set doesn't actually matter when looking for a replacement. What matters is whether the person you bring in can do the job. That might mean they have to learn your skills quickly, or maybe they just have to learn how to copy an existing setup, or perhaps they just have to learn how to properly panic when a status light turns red.
As business changes, the required skill set will change, as well. The people who will survive are the ones who learn, not the ones who know.
Because HTML entities disrupt the train of thought with every &, interrupting creativity. That's why I didn't properly terminate and reopen the initial tag every time I changed voices. I figured I was inventing a tag anyway; I may as well let it nest.
My day job puts me working with Server 2012 pretty much constantly.
Yeah, the Modern thing sucks as an OS interface. The Modern UI is designed for something like a phone or tablet, where you're doing exactly one thing at a time. Run an app, then when you're done with it, you go back to the main screen and pick a new thing to do. It's horrible for multitasking, but who's really going to multitask much on a phone, anyway?
It turns out I don't multitask much on a server, either. Generally, I connect via RDP, hit the super key, type the name of what I want (either the real name or enough of an abbreviation that it works), and do whatever I need to do. When I'm done, I'll usually just leave the program open because I'll come back to it later, but I'm rarely actually switching between programs. When I do need something, I'd rather just type to get it, rather than go through a menu. Windows 7/Server 2008 allowed that, but the "grab everything from the Start Menu" approach didn't seem to really give useful results for an abbreviation.
I've only really gotten annoyed at the start screen on a server with a few too many roles with a bit too much third-party software on it. That just got messy. On the whole, though, Modern makes more sense on a server than a desktop. Of course I'd still prefer bash, but that's beside the point. No, Powershell is not a suitable substitute.