It's not. It's taking one sentence out of the brief and out of context. It's also a rather pointless sentence with relation to the actual issues being viewed by the court.
As far as the ruling is concerned and tracking and privacy is concerned... they defined working as "on a campus equipped with sensors". The school is not capable of tracking a student that is off campus therefore they do not work off campus.
The whole case is basically a religious freedom case and has very little to do with privacy or tracking other than what Slashdot is reading into it.
The TL;DR would be basically that the student believes the RFID chip to be the mark of the beast. School offers an ID badge without the chip. She refuses and parent demands the problem be removed because wearing chipless ID badge constitutes supporting the program which means supporting the mark of the beast.
The question to ask is why iodine isn't more commonly used. I know iodine is used when a rupture in the GI is suspected since the barium would cause irritation.
The targeted advertising is also a bit creepy. I'm guessing it will mainly be seeing which bathroom kids go into, and then they'll know whether to blast "Buzz Lightyear" or whatever it is their marketing staff tells them girls like. Ponies and ribbons or something like that. But considering how exceptionally greedy and efficient Disney already is about getting into your wallet through your kids, I can't imagine this will work out well for me.
Many times, employees that do not have a phone are performing more physical tasks. Tasks where distractions can be safety hazards. Calling the main work phone number is the best and safest course to get a hold of such a work during an emergency situation since someone WILL answer the phone immediately and the person can get away from their work safely in order to answer the call.
It's the same thing with someone who does have a desk phone. They may or may not be at their desk. Calling the work number ensures that you get an immediate answer by someone.
Most of our employees do not have a desk. They have toolboxes on wheels, as you put. Those types of employees should not be carrying smartphones on them anyway for multiple reasons.
They're more likely to damage their property throughout the course of the workday and having it ring or vibrate while they're working on equipment could be distracting and consequently a safety hazard.
Because progressives hate any sort of fee or taxation that isn't progressive. If the tax is flat, then they will cry about it be regressive and hurting the poor.
Most teenagers have school in the morning. Medical science shows that there is a certain amount of sleep that is desirable for a growing individual to have each night. A curfew is a very reasonable thing for teenagers to make sure they are getting the proper amount of rest each night.
The problem is the mental wiring. A nerd-loser isn't wired to like sports, in the same way a jock isn't wired to like Dungeons and Dragons. A jock *enjoys* sports, a nerd-loser doesn't - So it's much harder to get them into it.
I laugh. I really do. It's not "wired to like sports" or "wired to like pen and paper games". I can get my jock friends to play Paranoia easy. I can get my jock friends to play Dungeons and Dragons if I have them play a campaign where they compete against each other and my antagonist. I can't get them to play Dungeons and Dragons when I don't have them compete against the antagonist. I'm possibly a nerd-loser. I like sports. I like the strategy that is involved with professional football regarding clock and time management, and deciding on whether to run or pass to try to get the 1st down.
It has nothing to do with whether something is A or B. It has everything to do with how A or B is presented and viewed by the subject. If you present D&D to a jock in a way they connect with, they will play it, if they have fun. You might have to "bro it up" or do some other unusual angles to make it work, but it will work.
Right to work means the employee is no longer required to pay union dues as a requirement for employment. That employee will, in fact, be represented by the union (join the union) if the union has an exclusive bargaining agreement with the company since the individual would not be able to bargain with the employer on terms of compensation or other factors without the company violating the bargaining agreement it has with the union for that work.
If the union does not have an exclusive bargaining agreement then the employee is not considered part of a union and does not become part of it automatically and the employee can bargain with the employer on terms of compensation. The employee would also be free to form another union for the line of work (a second auto-workers union for example) and two unions would exist in the same business representing the same type of worker.
Ideally, this is what we should strive for. If a union isn't adequately representing employees they should be free to break from the union and form another one but business and the unions conspire with these "exclusive bargaining agreements" to prevent that from happening so they both maintain their power. Fortunately, the United States courts actually made a smart decision for once and said that unions that have those agreements must represent all employees that would be covered under it regardless of whether the employee is a dues paying union member or not.
They're deposing two former HP managers of the 18 total employees that went from HP to GM. They're deposing those two managers to find out if they had violated a contract agreement where they agreed that they would not poach HP employees if they ever left. The remaining 16 employees, as far as the article is concerned, won't need to give a deposition.
That's a load of bull. What part of "employment at will" don't you understand? The laws in "at will" states are very clear on this point: either party can terminate the agreement at any time without reason or prior notice. The corporations themselves have long since dispensed with any nonsense illusions of "loyalty" and so we workers have learned to be ruthless too. It's their fault that there's no loyalty anymore, so I say turnabout's fair play, "contract" (which is unenforceable anyway) be damned.
Either party can break employment at any time for any reason. That much is true. However if you agreed to a contract as part of the terms of your employment you are still liable for breaking the terms of the contract. Employment at will doesn't provide a magical "get out of the contract free" card.
And theoretically private citizens are allowed guns partly to protect them from the government and invasion.
No, government does not allow its citizens to protect themselves against them. That is a misinterpretation of the constitution.
Indiana has outright stated that it is perfectly legal to use lethal force against a police officer that is entering your home uninvited or without a warrant. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as protecting yourself from the government.
Entitled to having something rather than the opportunity to have it is likely a better way to express it. I was at a loss for the proper words when I wrote it.
It's been a part of the USians culture since the beginning of our time. Our ability to own guns stems from our fight with England for independence. Yes, it is largely symbolic. No we can't really fight the government and win. But we have the option to do so, if we so choose. It would be going down in a blaze of glory. We would probably be utterly annihilated. But maybe not. I know a lot of soldiers. They wouldn't fire on the American people.
It's not about whether they would win or lose. It's about having the opportunity to actually do it rather than sit by idly. Somehow, at some point which I am not sure, people stopped perceiving America as a nation of opportunity and started perceiving it as a nation of will-have.
I've heard that line tossed many times, but I think you and those who ask that are extremely foolish and do not understand in the slightest that the odds of obtaining victory are not what matters.
Guns are the best easily accessible means. Knives are even more available and people even do go on rampages with them. The only difference is that few people end up dead.
The historical rate for mass murders (minimum of 4 deaths during the incident) using firearms (4.92/incident) and mass murders using knifes/bludgeoning/fists (4.52/incident) is not too different and only 52% of mass murders were done with firearms.
We don't glamorize the usage of knives, baseball bats, or arsons at all unless the circumstances are wildly out the normal and we generally ignore most firearms murders unless they are wildly outside the norm or is going to attract controversy and by extension ratings. A murder-suicide isn't going to attract national attention, unless person committing the murder is a NFL player. A person attacking people with a knife isn't going to attract as much attention unless the guy decides to also consume the eyeballs of the victims or the attack is a child. Arsons that lead to deaths are practically unheard of in national news, yet these things still all happen.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not. It's taking one sentence out of the brief and out of context. It's also a rather pointless sentence with relation to the actual issues being viewed by the court.
As far as the ruling is concerned and tracking and privacy is concerned... they defined working as "on a campus equipped with sensors". The school is not capable of tracking a student that is off campus therefore they do not work off campus.
The whole case is basically a religious freedom case and has very little to do with privacy or tracking other than what Slashdot is reading into it.
The TL;DR would be basically that the student believes the RFID chip to be the mark of the beast. School offers an ID badge without the chip. She refuses and parent demands the problem be removed because wearing chipless ID badge constitutes supporting the program which means supporting the mark of the beast.
The question to ask is why iodine isn't more commonly used. I know iodine is used when a rupture in the GI is suspected since the barium would cause irritation.
They only usually give you an enema if they're looking at the rectum. Every other bit of the lower GI has the contrast medium ingested.
You want to eat rides....?
The targeted advertising is also a bit creepy. I'm guessing it will mainly be seeing which bathroom kids go into, and then they'll know whether to blast "Buzz Lightyear" or whatever it is their marketing staff tells them girls like. Ponies and ribbons or something like that. But considering how exceptionally greedy and efficient Disney already is about getting into your wallet through your kids, I can't imagine this will work out well for me.
Or bronies.
Many times, employees that do not have a phone are performing more physical tasks. Tasks where distractions can be safety hazards. Calling the main work phone number is the best and safest course to get a hold of such a work during an emergency situation since someone WILL answer the phone immediately and the person can get away from their work safely in order to answer the call.
It's the same thing with someone who does have a desk phone. They may or may not be at their desk. Calling the work number ensures that you get an immediate answer by someone.
Most of our employees do not have a desk. They have toolboxes on wheels, as you put. Those types of employees should not be carrying smartphones on them anyway for multiple reasons.
They're more likely to damage their property throughout the course of the workday and having it ring or vibrate while they're working on equipment could be distracting and consequently a safety hazard.
So the plea bargain, where the state wanted him to put in a backdoor, was part of the plea bargain related to this charge?
Because progressives hate any sort of fee or taxation that isn't progressive. If the tax is flat, then they will cry about it be regressive and hurting the poor.
Most teenagers have school in the morning. Medical science shows that there is a certain amount of sleep that is desirable for a growing individual to have each night. A curfew is a very reasonable thing for teenagers to make sure they are getting the proper amount of rest each night.
Just start teaching a "Defense Against the Dark Side" course. I'm sure that will turn out well.
I'll believe it the day I hear about someone burning down a house with a combustible lemon.
The problem is the mental wiring. A nerd-loser isn't wired to like sports, in the same way a jock isn't wired to like Dungeons and Dragons. A jock *enjoys* sports, a nerd-loser doesn't - So it's much harder to get them into it.
I laugh. I really do. It's not "wired to like sports" or "wired to like pen and paper games". I can get my jock friends to play Paranoia easy. I can get my jock friends to play Dungeons and Dragons if I have them play a campaign where they compete against each other and my antagonist. I can't get them to play Dungeons and Dragons when I don't have them compete against the antagonist. I'm possibly a nerd-loser. I like sports. I like the strategy that is involved with professional football regarding clock and time management, and deciding on whether to run or pass to try to get the 1st down.
It has nothing to do with whether something is A or B. It has everything to do with how A or B is presented and viewed by the subject. If you present D&D to a jock in a way they connect with, they will play it, if they have fun. You might have to "bro it up" or do some other unusual angles to make it work, but it will work.
They also don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine.
Not exactly.
Right to work means the employee is no longer required to pay union dues as a requirement for employment. That employee will, in fact, be represented by the union (join the union) if the union has an exclusive bargaining agreement with the company since the individual would not be able to bargain with the employer on terms of compensation or other factors without the company violating the bargaining agreement it has with the union for that work.
If the union does not have an exclusive bargaining agreement then the employee is not considered part of a union and does not become part of it automatically and the employee can bargain with the employer on terms of compensation. The employee would also be free to form another union for the line of work (a second auto-workers union for example) and two unions would exist in the same business representing the same type of worker.
Ideally, this is what we should strive for. If a union isn't adequately representing employees they should be free to break from the union and form another one but business and the unions conspire with these "exclusive bargaining agreements" to prevent that from happening so they both maintain their power. Fortunately, the United States courts actually made a smart decision for once and said that unions that have those agreements must represent all employees that would be covered under it regardless of whether the employee is a dues paying union member or not.
They're deposing two former HP managers of the 18 total employees that went from HP to GM. They're deposing those two managers to find out if they had violated a contract agreement where they agreed that they would not poach HP employees if they ever left. The remaining 16 employees, as far as the article is concerned, won't need to give a deposition.
That's a load of bull. What part of "employment at will" don't you understand? The laws in "at will" states are very clear on this point: either party can terminate the agreement at any time without reason or prior notice. The corporations themselves have long since dispensed with any nonsense illusions of "loyalty" and so we workers have learned to be ruthless too. It's their fault that there's no loyalty anymore, so I say turnabout's fair play, "contract" (which is unenforceable anyway) be damned.
Either party can break employment at any time for any reason. That much is true. However if you agreed to a contract as part of the terms of your employment you are still liable for breaking the terms of the contract. Employment at will doesn't provide a magical "get out of the contract free" card.
That's exactly what they do.
And theoretically private citizens are allowed guns partly to protect them from the government and invasion.
No, government does not allow its citizens to protect themselves against them. That is a misinterpretation of the constitution.
Indiana has outright stated that it is perfectly legal to use lethal force against a police officer that is entering your home uninvited or without a warrant. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as protecting yourself from the government.
Entitled to having something rather than the opportunity to have it is likely a better way to express it. I was at a loss for the proper words when I wrote it.
It's been a part of the USians culture since the beginning of our time. Our ability to own guns stems from our fight with England for independence. Yes, it is largely symbolic. No we can't really fight the government and win. But we have the option to do so, if we so choose. It would be going down in a blaze of glory. We would probably be utterly annihilated. But maybe not. I know a lot of soldiers. They wouldn't fire on the American people.
It's not about whether they would win or lose. It's about having the opportunity to actually do it rather than sit by idly. Somehow, at some point which I am not sure, people stopped perceiving America as a nation of opportunity and started perceiving it as a nation of will-have.
One of my thoughts is that depending on the seismic stability of the mountain ranges, placing this inside mountains might be worthwhile.
Any firearm can have a bayonet mount, even pistols.
I've heard that line tossed many times, but I think you and those who ask that are extremely foolish and do not understand in the slightest that the odds of obtaining victory are not what matters.
Guns are the best easily accessible means. Knives are even more available and people even do go on rampages with them. The only difference is that few people end up dead.
The historical rate for mass murders (minimum of 4 deaths during the incident) using firearms (4.92/incident) and mass murders using knifes/bludgeoning/fists (4.52/incident) is not too different and only 52% of mass murders were done with firearms.
We don't glamorize the usage of knives, baseball bats, or arsons at all unless the circumstances are wildly out the normal and we generally ignore most firearms murders unless they are wildly outside the norm or is going to attract controversy and by extension ratings. A murder-suicide isn't going to attract national attention, unless person committing the murder is a NFL player. A person attacking people with a knife isn't going to attract as much attention unless the guy decides to also consume the eyeballs of the victims or the attack is a child. Arsons that lead to deaths are practically unheard of in national news, yet these things still all happen.