Usually It's a cultural rather than religious reason for burial customs. There's nothing in Christian scriptures saying how to deal with the deceased, no prohibitions against cremation and no rules requiring burial. There are some sects or denominations opposed to it however for the reason you give for sort of the reason you gave (though it's more about sending the wrong signal than in believing there is a limit to omnipotence). However early Christian burial practices were borrowed from Jewish culture that often forbids cremation. Islam also forbids cremation in general. Some of this is likely due to similarities to pagan rituals.
Also throw in a lot of laws regulations and history as well. Dead get buried in reserved lots of land rather than in back yards. Tombs for kings versus mass graves for paupers meant that rising middle classes wanted something nicer. Cremation could be impractical in certain places or eras. And so forth.
Cremation possibly takes less energy overall than a burial; when you could the digging of the grave, making the headstone, the metal coffins, the cement liners, etc. However there's a company or two that are trying a new process if dissolving the body in a heated alkaline liquid, leaving onlly the skeleton behind. There is some energy involved but overall a lot less than cremation.
Maybe people don't realize this, but many of the new features that people demand are experimental. That's why this "problem" exists. There is no perfect display. So the manufacturers are trying new things, getting the features they are asked for with technology that is both available in large quantities and without putting the cost out of reach with consumers. OLEDs are definitely in the experimental phase, sure they've been around awhile but the technology keeps changing and being tweaked.
How do you ensure that the general public treats him as a normal citizen, do you forbid the press from reporting on any crime? Also criminal law has a higher standard of proof than the general public will accept. If the person is found not guilty over a technicality, you can't expect the company keep him on as a CEO, or even a janitor. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle, it is not a law that can be enforced on the general public.
Retailers are very often on the hook if the charges are disputed by the customer. It depends on the agreement with the credit company; some big retailers will have a good eal, but smaller stores have no clout. So a disputed charge most likely means the small retailer is the only one losing money. So the smaller retailers should be the ones who are most likely check signatures and ask for photo ID, but it does not always seem that way.
The CC is scanned for authentication. IThe transaction is not fullly processed at the time. They are finding out if the card is good and what amount of credit is remaining. That is taken into account when the cash register determines the total charge. If everything is in order then you're done (the transaction is settled later electronically). If the total you are purchasing exceeds the credit then it will be rejected and you'll be asked for payment method. This does mean that there's a period of time when you can exceed the credit limit, but that's not necessarily good for you, you still have the pay the total amount and it may affect your credit.
Processing and authentication takes time, and most stores are very anxious to speed this all up (one reason they dislike the new chip-only cards because they were taking extra time per customer).
You can always dispute the charge, but it's not always as easy or hard every time. If the signatures seem to match, then it's harder to dispute. If you are taken to small claims court, that signature can be used for or against you. Ie, if you scribble gibberish instead of a signature in an attempt to dispute the charge later, that can be used against you. It is unlikely though, most credit card companies take the loss due to fraud into account; the disputed charges usually end up with the store being the one that loses, and most stores won't bother trying to get the money back from you for a one time fraud.
Credit card companies do allocate a chunk of their budget to losses from fraud. This is apparently cheaper than providing better security.
That said, there is in-person fraud. It's just not as possible to steal as much that way. You have to use the stolen card before the card is reported stolen is all. Wallets do get stolen, and when they are the thief will try to use that card before the cash. Plenty of places won't check the name or signature or ask for ID when a credit card is used. You can even pay for gas without anyone else being present (you may be asked for a zip code, but if you stole the wallet you likely know the zip code or can guess it).
Be careful, Chip and pin are not 100% secure iether. The machines have been hacked, cards can be stolen after learning the PIN, etc. The reason people don't check signature as much in the US anymore is because we've gotten complacent. But you can get just as complacent with PINs as well.
I think some of this complacency by customers is because it's way to easy to dispute card charges. The stores do get penalized though, but they still remain very sloppy, and maybe that's because they just hire the cheapest and least experienced clerks that they can. The whole system is very shaky.
I prefer cash. When I do use the card I can remember making the payment at the end of the month and quickly scan the bill for any unusual activity. If I used the card more casually instead of using cash, there would be too many listings to monitor easily.
They used to look. Even less than 10 years ago it used to be regular to verify signature. Now days it seems to have been changed, and credit cards are treated like cash. Ie, if someone lifts one from your wallet, there's a good chance they can spend up to the limit before you can report and get the card blocked. The rampant fraud also means if there is no signature it's much easier to dispute the charges (which is why cashiers need to be trained to always check it).
It was also used as "proof" if there was a dispute. For the same reason people sign legal documents. A PIN is in no way comparable. It is not intended to be an asbolute authentication, but to prevent or stop casual theft or fraud.
I had a credit card for several years that had my signature and photo on the front, so that it could be compared to my face and signature. I liked using that one, I rarely had to dig out additional forms of ID with my picture.
My friend would not sign his card, but instead write "please ask for photo ID". That way a signature was never used as authentication. Not foolproof, as he said sometimes cashiers never even loook at the back of the card to do any form of verification (probably because people have gotten used to treating these things like cash).
Mid 50s here, and I work in C and embedded systems. So it's hard to find qualified candidates for the jobs, plus I'm good at it, and get a lot of recruiter spam. So I'm not worried about ageism for me. There are people that definitely are dismissive of older workers but I haven't bumped into any for some time.
People say old people don't keep up on the skills, but that will apply to everyone. The problem is not about age or skills, it's about cost. If you're 30 you're NOT old, but even if you know 50 programming language you're still going to be compared to the cheaper worker who only knows the one language that the company wants. Those are dumb companies to be sure, they value quantity over quality, so maybe you're better off not getting a job at those places.
An even bigger concern than ageism, especially for those with moderate skills, is outsourced. No matter what your age in the US, they can find someone that costs less overseas. Not good workers mind you, but if they can hire 5 incompetent people for the price of one qualified person then many companies will do that. And there are countries where it is routine for the manager to lie our their asses about how awesome their workers are and how they can do anything you can possibly ask. Being young won't protect you there.
It's a severance if you have to sign a form saying you're not going to sue in exchange for this extra pay they're giving you. And it is still relatively common when people are laid off (not fired for cause). If you don't plan to sue you may as well sign. Many places you get separate physical checks; the final paycheck, the severance check, the payout of unused vacation, and potentially a few others; sometimes the final pay goes into autometic deposit and the others are physical. I haven't seem them all combined into one check, because the severance check has a chance of begin rejected by the laid off employee.
Sometimes I can help. Ie, right now I think I'm paid very well, and if I change jobs I would like to keep that salary range. If I don't say anything the salary would go down possibly. And I'm a terrible negotiator. If I get a 15% increase when switching jobs instead of a 20% increase by being a hardass negotiator, I don't think I'm really a loser:-) Hopefully it should always be a win-win result.
There used to be requirements for drug testing if you wanted to supply or contract with the government. That was the reason they gave when I applied to a defense contractor. However the person administering the drug test was gone on my first day of work and in three years of working there no one actually administered the test to me. This makes me wonder how rigorous the requirements really are.
I get asked about past salary in half the job applications. Mostly it was with the lower ranking jobs though. One company recruiter actually disagreed with my requested salary range, claiming that it was too much of a "raise" over my current salary. But I got it anyway since I couldn't have afforded to move and live in Silicon Valley with the same low-balled salary I was leaving.
I think a great many products just stick with the default unless someone has a preference. The default suppplied with an eval board, the default that a chip has if you haven't touched the boot time pullups, the default that your board bring up contractors decided to use, etc. And that default is based upon people being used to Intel.
I also think that the Intel and Windows dominance has trained a generation of programmers that portability isn't important, and thus there's rarely any thought paid to byte order, such as protocols or file formats that can deal with both.
Ok, we're talking two things. First, is individual responsibility for security; ie, training and following the training. I was talking about the people actually creating and implementing out a security policy.
Going back to the original topic, you need the company to focus on security. Without that happening, the rank and file won't be coordinated and will be doing their own thing. If you've got only 75% for your rank and file following good security practices then that's not very good.
Everyone's got a different definition of IT. To me, IT isn't intertwined in the daily operations, it is only intertwined in keeping the corporate network and computers running. Most of that type of IT is getting sourced, overseas or to specialized companies or cloud services. They don't have the corporation's best interests in mind; they won't lose their job for very long if there's a breach, their stock options won't vanish, etc. That's not the group you want protecting the company's family jewels.
Of course, other places IT seems to be a catch-all term. Smaller companies, or companies who's main business has nothing to do with computing or technology (law firms, hospitals, etc). But in this case the company should never just assume that IT is taking care of the cyber security without actually making sure that IT knows that task is their responsibility; it's very often the case that the IT people who were hired to keep the computers running know nothing about cyber security beyond installing anti malware applications.
Yes, the head of IT can be an advisor, or IT employees, but just a small part of a broader group of advisors. There is nothing inherent in IT services that makes them the experts in security.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually It's a cultural rather than religious reason for burial customs. There's nothing in Christian scriptures saying how to deal with the deceased, no prohibitions against cremation and no rules requiring burial. There are some sects or denominations opposed to it however for the reason you give for sort of the reason you gave (though it's more about sending the wrong signal than in believing there is a limit to omnipotence). However early Christian burial practices were borrowed from Jewish culture that often forbids cremation. Islam also forbids cremation in general. Some of this is likely due to similarities to pagan rituals.
Also throw in a lot of laws regulations and history as well. Dead get buried in reserved lots of land rather than in back yards. Tombs for kings versus mass graves for paupers meant that rising middle classes wanted something nicer. Cremation could be impractical in certain places or eras. And so forth.
Cremation possibly takes less energy overall than a burial; when you could the digging of the grave, making the headstone, the metal coffins, the cement liners, etc. However there's a company or two that are trying a new process if dissolving the body in a heated alkaline liquid, leaving onlly the skeleton behind. There is some energy involved but overall a lot less than cremation.
Well, there was the guy who contributed the word "meh" to the world, so the circles aren't quite identical.
Get off of my home button's lawn!
Maybe people don't realize this, but many of the new features that people demand are experimental. That's why this "problem" exists. There is no perfect display. So the manufacturers are trying new things, getting the features they are asked for with technology that is both available in large quantities and without putting the cost out of reach with consumers. OLEDs are definitely in the experimental phase, sure they've been around awhile but the technology keeps changing and being tweaked.
It could. Maybe it informs parents of the dangers of letting their children spend alone time with CEOs.
How do you ensure that the general public treats him as a normal citizen, do you forbid the press from reporting on any crime? Also criminal law has a higher standard of proof than the general public will accept. If the person is found not guilty over a technicality, you can't expect the company keep him on as a CEO, or even a janitor. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal principle, it is not a law that can be enforced on the general public.
Shit sandwich with corn, versus shit sandwitch with nuts?
Retailers are very often on the hook if the charges are disputed by the customer. It depends on the agreement with the credit company; some big retailers will have a good eal, but smaller stores have no clout. So a disputed charge most likely means the small retailer is the only one losing money. So the smaller retailers should be the ones who are most likely check signatures and ask for photo ID, but it does not always seem that way.
The CC is scanned for authentication. IThe transaction is not fullly processed at the time. They are finding out if the card is good and what amount of credit is remaining. That is taken into account when the cash register determines the total charge. If everything is in order then you're done (the transaction is settled later electronically). If the total you are purchasing exceeds the credit then it will be rejected and you'll be asked for payment method. This does mean that there's a period of time when you can exceed the credit limit, but that's not necessarily good for you, you still have the pay the total amount and it may affect your credit.
Processing and authentication takes time, and most stores are very anxious to speed this all up (one reason they dislike the new chip-only cards because they were taking extra time per customer).
You can always dispute the charge, but it's not always as easy or hard every time. If the signatures seem to match, then it's harder to dispute. If you are taken to small claims court, that signature can be used for or against you. Ie, if you scribble gibberish instead of a signature in an attempt to dispute the charge later, that can be used against you. It is unlikely though, most credit card companies take the loss due to fraud into account; the disputed charges usually end up with the store being the one that loses, and most stores won't bother trying to get the money back from you for a one time fraud.
Credit card companies do allocate a chunk of their budget to losses from fraud. This is apparently cheaper than providing better security.
That said, there is in-person fraud. It's just not as possible to steal as much that way. You have to use the stolen card before the card is reported stolen is all. Wallets do get stolen, and when they are the thief will try to use that card before the cash. Plenty of places won't check the name or signature or ask for ID when a credit card is used. You can even pay for gas without anyone else being present (you may be asked for a zip code, but if you stole the wallet you likely know the zip code or can guess it).
Be careful, Chip and pin are not 100% secure iether. The machines have been hacked, cards can be stolen after learning the PIN, etc. The reason people don't check signature as much in the US anymore is because we've gotten complacent. But you can get just as complacent with PINs as well.
I think some of this complacency by customers is because it's way to easy to dispute card charges. The stores do get penalized though, but they still remain very sloppy, and maybe that's because they just hire the cheapest and least experienced clerks that they can. The whole system is very shaky.
I prefer cash. When I do use the card I can remember making the payment at the end of the month and quickly scan the bill for any unusual activity. If I used the card more casually instead of using cash, there would be too many listings to monitor easily.
They used to look. Even less than 10 years ago it used to be regular to verify signature. Now days it seems to have been changed, and credit cards are treated like cash. Ie, if someone lifts one from your wallet, there's a good chance they can spend up to the limit before you can report and get the card blocked. The rampant fraud also means if there is no signature it's much easier to dispute the charges (which is why cashiers need to be trained to always check it).
It was also used as "proof" if there was a dispute. For the same reason people sign legal documents. A PIN is in no way comparable. It is not intended to be an asbolute authentication, but to prevent or stop casual theft or fraud.
I had a credit card for several years that had my signature and photo on the front, so that it could be compared to my face and signature. I liked using that one, I rarely had to dig out additional forms of ID with my picture.
My friend would not sign his card, but instead write "please ask for photo ID". That way a signature was never used as authentication. Not foolproof, as he said sometimes cashiers never even loook at the back of the card to do any form of verification (probably because people have gotten used to treating these things like cash).
Mid 50s here, and I work in C and embedded systems. So it's hard to find qualified candidates for the jobs, plus I'm good at it, and get a lot of recruiter spam. So I'm not worried about ageism for me. There are people that definitely are dismissive of older workers but I haven't bumped into any for some time.
People say old people don't keep up on the skills, but that will apply to everyone. The problem is not about age or skills, it's about cost. If you're 30 you're NOT old, but even if you know 50 programming language you're still going to be compared to the cheaper worker who only knows the one language that the company wants. Those are dumb companies to be sure, they value quantity over quality, so maybe you're better off not getting a job at those places.
An even bigger concern than ageism, especially for those with moderate skills, is outsourced. No matter what your age in the US, they can find someone that costs less overseas. Not good workers mind you, but if they can hire 5 incompetent people for the price of one qualified person then many companies will do that. And there are countries where it is routine for the manager to lie our their asses about how awesome their workers are and how they can do anything you can possibly ask. Being young won't protect you there.
It's a severance if you have to sign a form saying you're not going to sue in exchange for this extra pay they're giving you. And it is still relatively common when people are laid off (not fired for cause). If you don't plan to sue you may as well sign. Many places you get separate physical checks; the final paycheck, the severance check, the payout of unused vacation, and potentially a few others; sometimes the final pay goes into autometic deposit and the others are physical. I haven't seem them all combined into one check, because the severance check has a chance of begin rejected by the laid off employee.
Sometimes I can help. Ie, right now I think I'm paid very well, and if I change jobs I would like to keep that salary range. If I don't say anything the salary would go down possibly. And I'm a terrible negotiator. If I get a 15% increase when switching jobs instead of a 20% increase by being a hardass negotiator, I don't think I'm really a loser :-) Hopefully it should always be a win-win result.
There used to be requirements for drug testing if you wanted to supply or contract with the government. That was the reason they gave when I applied to a defense contractor. However the person administering the drug test was gone on my first day of work and in three years of working there no one actually administered the test to me. This makes me wonder how rigorous the requirements really are.
I've seen a lot of code written by people who were actively using at the time.
Possibly the smugness? I don't know about "insufferably" though, as a Californian I have learned to suffer through a lot of smug.
I get asked about past salary in half the job applications. Mostly it was with the lower ranking jobs though. One company recruiter actually disagreed with my requested salary range, claiming that it was too much of a "raise" over my current salary. But I got it anyway since I couldn't have afforded to move and live in Silicon Valley with the same low-balled salary I was leaving.
I think a great many products just stick with the default unless someone has a preference. The default suppplied with an eval board, the default that a chip has if you haven't touched the boot time pullups, the default that your board bring up contractors decided to use, etc. And that default is based upon people being used to Intel.
I also think that the Intel and Windows dominance has trained a generation of programmers that portability isn't important, and thus there's rarely any thought paid to byte order, such as protocols or file formats that can deal with both.
Ok, we're talking two things. First, is individual responsibility for security; ie, training and following the training. I was talking about the people actually creating and implementing out a security policy.
Going back to the original topic, you need the company to focus on security. Without that happening, the rank and file won't be coordinated and will be doing their own thing. If you've got only 75% for your rank and file following good security practices then that's not very good.
Everyone's got a different definition of IT. To me, IT isn't intertwined in the daily operations, it is only intertwined in keeping the corporate network and computers running. Most of that type of IT is getting sourced, overseas or to specialized companies or cloud services. They don't have the corporation's best interests in mind; they won't lose their job for very long if there's a breach, their stock options won't vanish, etc. That's not the group you want protecting the company's family jewels.
Of course, other places IT seems to be a catch-all term. Smaller companies, or companies who's main business has nothing to do with computing or technology (law firms, hospitals, etc). But in this case the company should never just assume that IT is taking care of the cyber security without actually making sure that IT knows that task is their responsibility; it's very often the case that the IT people who were hired to keep the computers running know nothing about cyber security beyond installing anti malware applications.
Yes, the head of IT can be an advisor, or IT employees, but just a small part of a broader group of advisors. There is nothing inherent in IT services that makes them the experts in security.