There are probably most debauched cities. Unless you consider being gay and faithful to be worse than being straight with a different partner every day. But some people are fine associating with people who break the ten commandments regularly but as soon as someone is gay they freak out. Sure there are bible verses suggesting it is a sin, however there are other verses pointing out many other things that can be sins, such as remarriage after divorce or calling someone a fool. If someone really truly believes this is a religious issue then remember let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Anyone who accuses others of sin while pretending to be better than them is a hypocrite, even if anonymous.
That sounds like bad attitude though. Generally this improvement plan isn't being given to someone who is already doing all they can. It does happen sometimes but I don't believe it's the majority of cases. The worker isn't being identified at random as the fall guy, but is most likely being chosen as the person who's performing the worst or is least reliable (maybe someone coasting on past successes). Someone who is doing exceptional work will be kept around as opposed to being replaced by someone who's average.
Of course, a good manager should be giving the warnings BEFORE needing to put someone on an improvement plan. Getting the improvement plan means getting HR involved, probably getting flack from other people about why projects are late or defective, and so forth. A bad manager however might just let someone slack off until it's too late (maybe the person is best friends with someone high up in the company). I have had the boss call me in to say that I'm not pulling my weight which did do the job of putting me on track.
No, I think managers do take it seriously. It is hard to get a replacement worker, unless you're in a job where anyone in the field can do the same job with no additional training. New employee has to learn the new company, learn the new products that are built, learn how to work with the team, learn the new tools, etc. Company has to spend time finding someone who has the skills and is looking for a job, willing to relocate, can start soon before the project goes off the rails for not having enough workers, etc.
Now it's true that for some workers the company may just have given up, they know that Bozo won't ever manage get the job done without hand holding, but they have to do the PIP, EIP, or whatever process before they can fire someone. But there are indeed cases where they want the employee to improve and stick around. These decisions are being made most of the time by direct managers, not by some top level bean counter, and the direct managers know these workers personally (and it's a pain in the ass for the manager to deal with also).
Hmm, in California I've never heard to being told not to file for unemployment. It costs the company nothing I think (could be wrong), the cost is paid for by unemployment insurance paid for by every worker. The reason for the severance is to not sue the company for wrongful termination or other hassles that would cost more money than the severance costs.
It's expensive to fire someone. You have to find a replacement, train the replacement, etc. So instead you tell the employee that things aren't working about but there's a second chance to improve performance and turn things around in 60 days or so. Of course some workers may take the opportunity to use that time to work on the resume...
But it's certainly better than 100 streaming services for $10 each. If the $35 covers a good variety of shows, it could be a viable cable replacement. Netflix is for me, but not for a lot of people ever since content holders started yanking the content away hoping to have their own streaming service or a bigger fee. True, I don't want to pay $10 for one single show (still missing Doctor Who ever since it was yanked). But I can wait too, there's so much on netflix that I can't watch all I want there anyway.
And yet many more than 4 votes probably stolen by the other side, no? We know, your side is pure and angelic, never cheating, never stooping low, and the other side is the definition of evil, and so cunning they can corrupt the system without it ever being detected.
Politics is easy if you can just divide it all up into good versus evil. No need to think about complex issues or learn how to get along with friends and family with differing viewpoints.
China and India have grudging exemptions, because it's better than nothing. We can't wait until everyone is in unanimous agreement It's like when teachers try to break up a fight on the playground and all the students say "I won't let go until he lets go first!", it never gets anywhere that way. Everyone wants China and India to comply, we're not offering them a free waiver instead they are demanding one for themselves. So either we halt all attempts to solving the problem until China and India are more enlightened or else we move ahead anyway and hope they can catch up.
Freedom here is a red herring. Everyone has to give up freedoms to live with other people, it is necessary. We give up our freedom to dig holes in the next dor neighbor's yard without their permission, we give up our freedom to dump pollution into rivers, and so forth. Giving up freedoms is necessary to exist as a society.
Yes, global warming is treated as an absolute lie by a huge chunk of the country. They treat anyone falling for it as either a fool or a part of the conspiracy, internal sabateurs trying to destroy America.
Every good patriotic defense contractor runs wings around Elon Musk when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's money. But that's ok, they make big weapons to appease the warhawks and bring the pork to their districts, whereas working with renewable energy is a serious sin in the culture wars.
There is a lot of evidence that it is encouraged at the very least by the Russian government even if it not directly controlled by the Kremlin. There are a lot of Putin followers hoping to make their leader happy by hacking his enemies. Whether it be Estonia, Ukraine, or America, there's a pro-Putin hacking community that springs into action to defend Putin's stances. And they're not just a dictator oriented variant of Anonymous doing DDoS attacks, some of them are quite skilled.
The snag is proving a direct connection. After all we had actual Russian soldiers in good standing invading Ukraine, but apparently they were technically on vacation according to Putin, never mind that they were doing exactly the actions that he wished happened ("who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"), so there was never "proof" even though Crimea ended up being stolen. It is very likely that something similar is happening in cyberspace even if Putin is not giving direct orders.
I've been on a jury for a trial where intent was necessary to be proven. And who is in jail for exactly the same thing? Generally this isn't prosecuted unless there are other factors to take into effect. Yes, breaking security regulations will get you fired. But the FBI doesn't go out of their way to prosecute everyone who screwed up. Petraeus was a different matter, he knowingly shared the info with someone he knew did not have clearance. Yes, she screwed it up but it wasn't a jail-time felony by itself.
Right, no one bothered to vote. BOTH candidates were awful. Voters stayed home rather than be forced to hold their nose. Which is a stupid idea because they could still have voted for senators, congress, local offices, propositions. But we've trained Americans to think that only the president matters, whereas they have relatively little importance compared to their visibility.
Having a trustworthy election is of highest important to country, no matter what 2 people think. (and the election is not about the president, it is about every candidate and issues on those ballots) We already know that electronic voting machines are suspect and should not be trusted. The hard part is getting anyone in power to do anything about this known problem.
How can you possibly believe this? Either no one tampers, or everyone tampers. The Democrats have a shady history, but the Republicans also have an extremely shady history. By implying that Republicans could never stoop so low you expose yourself as a partisan and thus a part of the problem called "politics".
The applying part can be hard. Remember, no handy libraries to fall back on, no frameworks, no pre-built hardware components, no idea what was possible or even plausible. After all, physics is just mathematics applied to the real world.
This is just basic human nature here. Get a set of results randomly with out any particular bias. Those far on the right will perceive a left wing bias. Those far on the left will perceive a right wing bias. Of course, that is also very wrong since there is no clearly defined "center" anyway. It's silly to lump all of politics into left versus right.
Politicians will always act like politicians. That means they hate Tump up until the time that he gets elected. Then there is a short moment of internal conflict where they balance their dislike of him with the realization that their party is in charge. Then they call him up and say "Donald, how's it going old buddy, how can I help?"
The entity that protects networks from cyber attacks is not involved with either political party's computers. The political parties hire their own staff and do not rely upon federal workers to set up their computers. That's like saying the democrats on my block were hacked but not the republicans, therefore the republican internet plan is superior. Please, if you're going to show up on slashdot at least know a little bit about technology before you pretend to be one of us.
It accomplishes nothing. Do the protests BEFORE the election. In fact, forget the protests, just get people to vote. 40% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote (even if they hate the presidential candidates there is so much more to vote on). If you get people to vote you can change an election, if you go and protest then nothing changes.
Slashdot Mirror
There are probably most debauched cities. Unless you consider being gay and faithful to be worse than being straight with a different partner every day. But some people are fine associating with people who break the ten commandments regularly but as soon as someone is gay they freak out. Sure there are bible verses suggesting it is a sin, however there are other verses pointing out many other things that can be sins, such as remarriage after divorce or calling someone a fool. If someone really truly believes this is a religious issue then remember let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Anyone who accuses others of sin while pretending to be better than them is a hypocrite, even if anonymous.
That sounds like bad attitude though. Generally this improvement plan isn't being given to someone who is already doing all they can. It does happen sometimes but I don't believe it's the majority of cases. The worker isn't being identified at random as the fall guy, but is most likely being chosen as the person who's performing the worst or is least reliable (maybe someone coasting on past successes). Someone who is doing exceptional work will be kept around as opposed to being replaced by someone who's average.
Of course, a good manager should be giving the warnings BEFORE needing to put someone on an improvement plan. Getting the improvement plan means getting HR involved, probably getting flack from other people about why projects are late or defective, and so forth. A bad manager however might just let someone slack off until it's too late (maybe the person is best friends with someone high up in the company). I have had the boss call me in to say that I'm not pulling my weight which did do the job of putting me on track.
No, I think managers do take it seriously. It is hard to get a replacement worker, unless you're in a job where anyone in the field can do the same job with no additional training. New employee has to learn the new company, learn the new products that are built, learn how to work with the team, learn the new tools, etc. Company has to spend time finding someone who has the skills and is looking for a job, willing to relocate, can start soon before the project goes off the rails for not having enough workers, etc.
Now it's true that for some workers the company may just have given up, they know that Bozo won't ever manage get the job done without hand holding, but they have to do the PIP, EIP, or whatever process before they can fire someone. But there are indeed cases where they want the employee to improve and stick around. These decisions are being made most of the time by direct managers, not by some top level bean counter, and the direct managers know these workers personally (and it's a pain in the ass for the manager to deal with also).
And then do they replace the worker? Do they get someone new and untrained and unable to also meet the high standard the first year?
Hmm, in California I've never heard to being told not to file for unemployment. It costs the company nothing I think (could be wrong), the cost is paid for by unemployment insurance paid for by every worker. The reason for the severance is to not sue the company for wrongful termination or other hassles that would cost more money than the severance costs.
It's expensive to fire someone. You have to find a replacement, train the replacement, etc. So instead you tell the employee that things aren't working about but there's a second chance to improve performance and turn things around in 60 days or so. Of course some workers may take the opportunity to use that time to work on the resume...
The alternative though is just to get fired outright without a chance to improve performance.
But it's certainly better than 100 streaming services for $10 each. If the $35 covers a good variety of shows, it could be a viable cable replacement. Netflix is for me, but not for a lot of people ever since content holders started yanking the content away hoping to have their own streaming service or a bigger fee. True, I don't want to pay $10 for one single show (still missing Doctor Who ever since it was yanked). But I can wait too, there's so much on netflix that I can't watch all I want there anyway.
And yet many more than 4 votes probably stolen by the other side, no? We know, your side is pure and angelic, never cheating, never stooping low, and the other side is the definition of evil, and so cunning they can corrupt the system without it ever being detected.
Politics is easy if you can just divide it all up into good versus evil. No need to think about complex issues or learn how to get along with friends and family with differing viewpoints.
China and India have grudging exemptions, because it's better than nothing. We can't wait until everyone is in unanimous agreement It's like when teachers try to break up a fight on the playground and all the students say "I won't let go until he lets go first!", it never gets anywhere that way. Everyone wants China and India to comply, we're not offering them a free waiver instead they are demanding one for themselves. So either we halt all attempts to solving the problem until China and India are more enlightened or else we move ahead anyway and hope they can catch up.
Freedom here is a red herring. Everyone has to give up freedoms to live with other people, it is necessary. We give up our freedom to dig holes in the next dor neighbor's yard without their permission, we give up our freedom to dump pollution into rivers, and so forth. Giving up freedoms is necessary to exist as a society.
Yes, global warming is treated as an absolute lie by a huge chunk of the country. They treat anyone falling for it as either a fool or a part of the conspiracy, internal sabateurs trying to destroy America.
Every good patriotic defense contractor runs wings around Elon Musk when it comes to wasting the taxpayer's money. But that's ok, they make big weapons to appease the warhawks and bring the pork to their districts, whereas working with renewable energy is a serious sin in the culture wars.
There is a lot of evidence that it is encouraged at the very least by the Russian government even if it not directly controlled by the Kremlin. There are a lot of Putin followers hoping to make their leader happy by hacking his enemies. Whether it be Estonia, Ukraine, or America, there's a pro-Putin hacking community that springs into action to defend Putin's stances. And they're not just a dictator oriented variant of Anonymous doing DDoS attacks, some of them are quite skilled.
The snag is proving a direct connection. After all we had actual Russian soldiers in good standing invading Ukraine, but apparently they were technically on vacation according to Putin, never mind that they were doing exactly the actions that he wished happened ("who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"), so there was never "proof" even though Crimea ended up being stolen. It is very likely that something similar is happening in cyberspace even if Putin is not giving direct orders.
I've been on a jury for a trial where intent was necessary to be proven. And who is in jail for exactly the same thing? Generally this isn't prosecuted unless there are other factors to take into effect. Yes, breaking security regulations will get you fired. But the FBI doesn't go out of their way to prosecute everyone who screwed up. Petraeus was a different matter, he knowingly shared the info with someone he knew did not have clearance. Yes, she screwed it up but it wasn't a jail-time felony by itself.
Right, no one bothered to vote. BOTH candidates were awful. Voters stayed home rather than be forced to hold their nose. Which is a stupid idea because they could still have voted for senators, congress, local offices, propositions. But we've trained Americans to think that only the president matters, whereas they have relatively little importance compared to their visibility.
The first point is not a fact. Once you assign motivations you are engaging in supposition and are no longer dealing with facts.
Having a trustworthy election is of highest important to country, no matter what 2 people think. (and the election is not about the president, it is about every candidate and issues on those ballots) We already know that electronic voting machines are suspect and should not be trusted. The hard part is getting anyone in power to do anything about this known problem.
How can you possibly believe this? Either no one tampers, or everyone tampers. The Democrats have a shady history, but the Republicans also have an extremely shady history. By implying that Republicans could never stoop so low you expose yourself as a partisan and thus a part of the problem called "politics".
The applying part can be hard. Remember, no handy libraries to fall back on, no frameworks, no pre-built hardware components, no idea what was possible or even plausible. After all, physics is just mathematics applied to the real world.
This is just basic human nature here. Get a set of results randomly with out any particular bias. Those far on the right will perceive a left wing bias. Those far on the left will perceive a right wing bias.
Of course, that is also very wrong since there is no clearly defined "center" anyway. It's silly to lump all of politics into left versus right.
I seriously doubt he managed to scare 46% of the voters away.
Politicians will always act like politicians. That means they hate Tump up until the time that he gets elected. Then there is a short moment of internal conflict where they balance their dislike of him with the realization that their party is in charge. Then they call him up and say "Donald, how's it going old buddy, how can I help?"
The entity that protects networks from cyber attacks is not involved with either political party's computers. The political parties hire their own staff and do not rely upon federal workers to set up their computers. That's like saying the democrats on my block were hacked but not the republicans, therefore the republican internet plan is superior. Please, if you're going to show up on slashdot at least know a little bit about technology before you pretend to be one of us.
It accomplishes nothing. Do the protests BEFORE the election. In fact, forget the protests, just get people to vote. 40% of the eligible voters didn't even bother to vote (even if they hate the presidential candidates there is so much more to vote on). If you get people to vote you can change an election, if you go and protest then nothing changes.