Chances are, sharing this type of data would break various laws in the US, including those protecting workers' rights to unionize and whistleblower protection laws.
Individual workers could also sue the company for providing information that was prejudicial against them to prospective employers. When I was a manager, we couldn't even say *good* things about previous employees; if we got a call from a prospective employer checking an applicant's previous employment, all we could do was confirm (or fail to confirm) dates employed, job title, and pay information. We couldn't provide any information or answer any qualitative questions.
We could act as *personal* references, but if called in our capacity with the company, we couldn't even say "Wow, she was great, we really miss her!"
It costs $7 for a State ID card, and people don't get one in order to vote in elections?
They're not required to have one. That's the whole point of the thread.
But then, here in Oz, we have the same sort of issues. People who send their kids to school barefoot with no breakfast & no school books, yet who always seem to have money for smokes / fast food / alcohol.
If you ask me, such people don't deserve to vote. If they want the privilege of voting, they can pay $7 for an ID card.
I'm not sure you have the same sorts of issues. I work for a non-profit healthcare provider. We are funded (in part; about 7% of our annual budget) as a Section 330 Federally Qualified Health Center. As such, we can provide free service to people who earn below the Federal Poverty Level, and reduced-fee service on a sliding scale to people who make up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
For a family of four, the Federal Poverty level is $21,200 a year. To compare, a typical 1-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles rents for about $1000 a month (in the cheaper parts of town that aren't total slums).
They arrive at the Federal Poverty Level numbers by calculating the best price you can get on the Minimum Temporary Emergency Diet (living on rice and beans... not exactly three squares a day), and then multiplying that number by three, since most households spend about 1/3 their income on food.
The folks who are coming in to our Skid Row clinic are mostly homeless. They sleep on the sidewalk. We have about 8,000 unduplicated patients per year at that clinic, and a good 90% of them are chronic or acute homeless (yes, the Federal government officially defines these categories).
Sure, they could probably scrape together $7 for a state ID card. But then they'd lose it next time someone robs them, or they have a seizure and get hauled off to the hospital without their cart, or simply switch identities (it's estimated that 30-50% of homeless people have serious mental illness). BTW, where should the state mail that card to them? "NE Corner of 6th and San Pedro, under the leopard-print tarp, Los Angeles, CA 90013"?
So honestly, if some of these folks get it together enough to register to vote and show up at the polls, you think it's reasonable to throw up one more barrier to them exercising their *right*? Because they "don't deserve" to vote? There's a lot they "don't deserve." I don't think they deserve to be treated like human refuse, either.
Um, while 9/11 was definitely the WORST terrorist attack we've ever had, I'd say that the previous bombing at the WTC in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1995 definitely count as terrorist attacks.
"identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship, or government or medical building or facility"
Ok... so by "government facility" is he including property that is owned by governmental agencies, but is leased out to private entities? Because otherwise, the ONLY major US terrorist target since 1995 didn't make the list.
I am not buying that it is too expensive. What about the costs a voter incurs to miss work to go vote? What about the gas used to drive the voter to the voting booth? It is all the same. (Obviously missed work time is much less money than the cost of a state-issued photo ID card, even at minimum-wage rates)...
By (Federal?) law, employers must allow up to two hours off work to go vote, if the employee is unable to make it to the polls while they are open without missing work. (I believe that time is paid.)
Polling places are, whenever possible, within walking distance of the voter's registered living place.
Finally, it's not that it's "too expensive," it's that there is *any* expense. Voting is supposed to be free. Sure, if you have a state-issued voter ID card, great, they can use that, but if there's no such animal, they can't require you to present an ID that costs you money to obtain. Homeless people still get to vote, you know. (Unless they're convicted felons or something.)
Most people will feel that the candidate they wanted won, so the machines must be okay. Most will never consider the possibility that their candidate wasn't supposed to win.
Of course, if "most" people wanted the winning candidate to win, they probably voted for him, and therefore... he's the winning candidate.
(Not that this in any way excuses electronic voting fraud.)
Considering that still, several months later, the State of Minnesota is recounting paper Senate ballots over and over, is this REALLY that bad of an option?
You mean, it's better to have an electronic system arbitrarily choose a candidate quickly, than a paper system slowly choose a candidate based on actual votes?
The very polite woman looked away and told me that she CANNOT look at my ID Cards because of laws/rules.... What troubles me is that there was almost ZERO authentication! All I needed, was a name and to show up where that name would be likely registered and I could vote fraudulently.... I realized that this must be ON PURPOSE. But why? All I can conclude after much though is to allow fraud.
No... it's to allow everyone to vote, even if they don't have the money to get a state ID card.
There's no FREE form of authenticated ID. A passport costs $100. A California State ID Card costs $7 if you qualify for a reduced fee.
A state that provides authenticated ID at no charge might not have a state law requiring that people be allowed to vote without ID, but around here, requiring ID would be a financial barrier to voting.
If a video of someone's preschooler summarizing Star Wars requires a tracking cookie to access, well, if you want to stay completely private, you just go without the video.
If the President of the United States is using a service as an official distribution channel, though, it's not enough to say "If you don't like the policy, don't view the content." The President's official communication is, in essence, something that the American People have a *right* to view, and not to be tracked while doing it.
Let's just get a little 1984 here: What if it became, somehow, "right" to always watch the President's videos? Or wrong? And so, with the law behind them, the government subpoenaed those tracking cookie results, and determined who was being a good/bad little boy/girl?
Or more mundane: say someone works for Google, and has some access to that data. And has political differences from his/her spouse... so they look up the home IP in the tracking database for the President's videos. Domestic squabbles ensue because someone's listening to "that one" when they're not "supposed" to be.
Participation in the political process is both voluntary and an entitlement for most Americans between 18 and death. Tracking any part of that participation has the potential for abuse, and could have a chilling effect.
I actually specifically said it was NOT easy (well, not "blatantly easy" anyway). But heck, programming (well) is not easy. Almost anyone can write code that does something, but it takes thought, planning, skill, and training to write code that does something efficiently, securely, and with a well-designed interface. Are you also of the opinion that "programmers" should not be entrusted with interface design? A specialist should come in and tell them how the website shall work from the point of view of the user? Because, you know, some of them screw this part up, too.
There's no shortage of bad code on the internet. That doesn't mean that a good programmer cannot possibly handle the task of creating a well-designed site. it just means there's a lot of bad programmers.;-)
Let me guess... Zero_Kelvin makes his living as a software security expert. And, if ordinary programmers were to think that they could (*gasp*) write secure code all by themselves, he'd be out of a job.
Website software security is important, and not blatantly easy... but I don't know that it's soooo specialized that it needs its own entire profession.
Rather than comparing software security experts to heart surgeons, maybe we could compare them to professional babyproofers. They would have you believe that, until they get done, your home is a deathtrap to your munchkin, and there's just no way you could POSSIBLY have accounted for all the hidden dangers. Unless, of course, you spent a little time on the web, finding out about common causes of injury and death in home accidents for children in your offspring's age group, and maybe oh, I dunno, paid attention to your child to see what they are likely to hurt themselves doing.
It's not that they're useless, but they're doing something for you that, with some time and effort, you can do yourself. It just depends on whether you have more money to hire another body, or more resources on staff that can be developed to do things right in the first place.
Now I really want to find EMR solutions that will run on Linux. This would be a *perfect* piece of hardware for a clinic setting... if the whole EMR industry wasn't so infatuated with MS. (The reps from NextGen seem to think that MySQL is a dodgy, fly-by-night operation next to their MSSQL server.)
What planet are you from? Civil cases aren't judged by jury.
Could have fooled me... I've actually been a juror on a civil suit. Malpractice, it was. Special verdict and all (though we didn't get past the second of nine questions, finding that no harm had come to the plaintiff).
So we learn to love the colors our parents dress us in when we're babies?
Actually, my oldest seemed to prefer red when he was a baby, and my younger son prefers blue... but I think that if that's at all due to environment, it's probably because of the pjs I was wearing after they were born.;-)
Are you actually quoting a TELEVISION SHOW as being realistic in any way? Are you serious? And who the hell modded you up? TV shows do whatever they want, they are works of FICTION.
They're supposed to be, but according to TFA, that particular example is true-to-life. I guess that's the point.
That's the thing though. They're trying hard to maintain the context and stratigraphy given the circumstances. Every single one of them would tell you that they'd much rather be working with the material in place in the ground rather than out of crates in the back lot.
Have you seen the weather in SoCal lately? I'm not so sure the scientists would rather be under tarps and in slickers rather than in a comfy hangar or wherever...
Slashdot Mirror
Chances are, sharing this type of data would break various laws in the US, including those protecting workers' rights to unionize and whistleblower protection laws.
Individual workers could also sue the company for providing information that was prejudicial against them to prospective employers. When I was a manager, we couldn't even say *good* things about previous employees; if we got a call from a prospective employer checking an applicant's previous employment, all we could do was confirm (or fail to confirm) dates employed, job title, and pay information. We couldn't provide any information or answer any qualitative questions.
We could act as *personal* references, but if called in our capacity with the company, we couldn't even say "Wow, she was great, we really miss her!"
Oh, good point. I often forget about the Pentagon, since they happened to hit the side of it that was empty.
So, yay, we'll blur the Pentagon, and no one will EVER KNOW it's there! They'll have to fly into the Empire State Building instead.
Really?
It costs $7 for a State ID card, and people don't get one in order to vote in elections?
They're not required to have one. That's the whole point of the thread.
But then, here in Oz, we have the same sort of issues. People who send their kids to school barefoot with no breakfast & no school books, yet who always seem to have money for smokes / fast food / alcohol.
If you ask me, such people don't deserve to vote. If they want the privilege of voting, they can pay $7 for an ID card.
I'm not sure you have the same sorts of issues. I work for a non-profit healthcare provider. We are funded (in part; about 7% of our annual budget) as a Section 330 Federally Qualified Health Center. As such, we can provide free service to people who earn below the Federal Poverty Level, and reduced-fee service on a sliding scale to people who make up to 200% of the Federal Poverty Level.
For a family of four, the Federal Poverty level is $21,200 a year. To compare, a typical 1-bedroom apartment in Los Angeles rents for about $1000 a month (in the cheaper parts of town that aren't total slums).
They arrive at the Federal Poverty Level numbers by calculating the best price you can get on the Minimum Temporary Emergency Diet (living on rice and beans... not exactly three squares a day), and then multiplying that number by three, since most households spend about 1/3 their income on food.
The folks who are coming in to our Skid Row clinic are mostly homeless. They sleep on the sidewalk. We have about 8,000 unduplicated patients per year at that clinic, and a good 90% of them are chronic or acute homeless (yes, the Federal government officially defines these categories).
Sure, they could probably scrape together $7 for a state ID card. But then they'd lose it next time someone robs them, or they have a seizure and get hauled off to the hospital without their cart, or simply switch identities (it's estimated that 30-50% of homeless people have serious mental illness). BTW, where should the state mail that card to them? "NE Corner of 6th and San Pedro, under the leopard-print tarp, Los Angeles, CA 90013"?
So honestly, if some of these folks get it together enough to register to vote and show up at the polls, you think it's reasonable to throw up one more barrier to them exercising their *right*? Because they "don't deserve" to vote? There's a lot they "don't deserve." I don't think they deserve to be treated like human refuse, either.
Um, while 9/11 was definitely the WORST terrorist attack we've ever had, I'd say that the previous bombing at the WTC in 1993 and the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1995 definitely count as terrorist attacks.
Not to mention, it might bring housing prices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego back down to within reach of median-income families. ;-)
"identified on the Internet Web site by the operator as a school, place of worship, or government or medical building or facility"
Ok... so by "government facility" is he including property that is owned by governmental agencies, but is leased out to private entities? Because otherwise, the ONLY major US terrorist target since 1995 didn't make the list.
I bet most of these "terrorists" wear shoes.
You don't have to *ban* them... but you better x-ray them all before you let anyone get on a plane wearing them.
I am not buying that it is too expensive. What about the costs a voter incurs to miss work to go vote? What about the gas used to drive the voter to the voting booth? It is all the same. (Obviously missed work time is much less money than the cost of a state-issued photo ID card, even at minimum-wage rates)...
By (Federal?) law, employers must allow up to two hours off work to go vote, if the employee is unable to make it to the polls while they are open without missing work. (I believe that time is paid.)
Polling places are, whenever possible, within walking distance of the voter's registered living place.
Finally, it's not that it's "too expensive," it's that there is *any* expense. Voting is supposed to be free. Sure, if you have a state-issued voter ID card, great, they can use that, but if there's no such animal, they can't require you to present an ID that costs you money to obtain. Homeless people still get to vote, you know. (Unless they're convicted felons or something.)
Most people will feel that the candidate they wanted won, so the machines must be okay. Most will never consider the possibility that their candidate wasn't supposed to win.
Of course, if "most" people wanted the winning candidate to win, they probably voted for him, and therefore... he's the winning candidate.
(Not that this in any way excuses electronic voting fraud.)
Considering that still, several months later, the State of Minnesota is recounting paper Senate ballots over and over, is this REALLY that bad of an option?
You mean, it's better to have an electronic system arbitrarily choose a candidate quickly, than a paper system slowly choose a candidate based on actual votes?
The very polite woman looked away and told me that she CANNOT look at my ID Cards because of laws/rules. ... ...
What troubles me is that there was almost ZERO authentication! All I needed, was a name and to show up where that name would be likely registered and I could vote fraudulently.
I realized that this must be ON PURPOSE. But why? All I can conclude after much though is to allow fraud.
No... it's to allow everyone to vote, even if they don't have the money to get a state ID card.
There's no FREE form of authenticated ID. A passport costs $100. A California State ID Card costs $7 if you qualify for a reduced fee.
A state that provides authenticated ID at no charge might not have a state law requiring that people be allowed to vote without ID, but around here, requiring ID would be a financial barrier to voting.
If a video of someone's preschooler summarizing Star Wars requires a tracking cookie to access, well, if you want to stay completely private, you just go without the video.
If the President of the United States is using a service as an official distribution channel, though, it's not enough to say "If you don't like the policy, don't view the content." The President's official communication is, in essence, something that the American People have a *right* to view, and not to be tracked while doing it.
Let's just get a little 1984 here: What if it became, somehow, "right" to always watch the President's videos? Or wrong? And so, with the law behind them, the government subpoenaed those tracking cookie results, and determined who was being a good/bad little boy/girl?
Or more mundane: say someone works for Google, and has some access to that data. And has political differences from his/her spouse... so they look up the home IP in the tracking database for the President's videos. Domestic squabbles ensue because someone's listening to "that one" when they're not "supposed" to be.
Participation in the political process is both voluntary and an entitlement for most Americans between 18 and death. Tracking any part of that participation has the potential for abuse, and could have a chilling effect.
I actually specifically said it was NOT easy (well, not "blatantly easy" anyway). But heck, programming (well) is not easy. Almost anyone can write code that does something, but it takes thought, planning, skill, and training to write code that does something efficiently, securely, and with a well-designed interface. Are you also of the opinion that "programmers" should not be entrusted with interface design? A specialist should come in and tell them how the website shall work from the point of view of the user? Because, you know, some of them screw this part up, too.
There's no shortage of bad code on the internet. That doesn't mean that a good programmer cannot possibly handle the task of creating a well-designed site. it just means there's a lot of bad programmers. ;-)
Let me guess... Zero_Kelvin makes his living as a software security expert. And, if ordinary programmers were to think that they could (*gasp*) write secure code all by themselves, he'd be out of a job.
Website software security is important, and not blatantly easy... but I don't know that it's soooo specialized that it needs its own entire profession.
Rather than comparing software security experts to heart surgeons, maybe we could compare them to professional babyproofers. They would have you believe that, until they get done, your home is a deathtrap to your munchkin, and there's just no way you could POSSIBLY have accounted for all the hidden dangers. Unless, of course, you spent a little time on the web, finding out about common causes of injury and death in home accidents for children in your offspring's age group, and maybe oh, I dunno, paid attention to your child to see what they are likely to hurt themselves doing.
It's not that they're useless, but they're doing something for you that, with some time and effort, you can do yourself. It just depends on whether you have more money to hire another body, or more resources on staff that can be developed to do things right in the first place.
Now I really want to find EMR solutions that will run on Linux. This would be a *perfect* piece of hardware for a clinic setting... if the whole EMR industry wasn't so infatuated with MS. (The reps from NextGen seem to think that MySQL is a dodgy, fly-by-night operation next to their MSSQL server.)
What planet are you from? Civil cases aren't judged by jury.
Could have fooled me... I've actually been a juror on a civil suit. Malpractice, it was. Special verdict and all (though we didn't get past the second of nine questions, finding that no harm had come to the plaintiff).
Well, other than the gact that is wasn't one of their people.
I have a feeling the above message was typed on that missing mobile device...
So we learn to love the colors our parents dress us in when we're babies?
Actually, my oldest seemed to prefer red when he was a baby, and my younger son prefers blue... but I think that if that's at all due to environment, it's probably because of the pjs I was wearing after they were born. ;-)
Are you actually quoting a TELEVISION SHOW as being realistic in any way? Are you serious? And who the hell modded you up? TV shows do whatever they want, they are works of FICTION.
They're supposed to be, but according to TFA, that particular example is true-to-life. I guess that's the point.
If you can't come up with $50 the night you run away from your abusive husband, you're probably doing pretty average.
Please, get help.
In physical space, or Hemn space?
That's the thing though. They're trying hard to maintain the context and stratigraphy given the circumstances. Every single one of them would tell you that they'd much rather be working with the material in place in the ground rather than out of crates in the back lot.
Have you seen the weather in SoCal lately? I'm not so sure the scientists would rather be under tarps and in slickers rather than in a comfy hangar or wherever...
He was missing a leg, right? That would tend to make him a lame mammoth...
I thought the quote was quite apt, and its application humorous. But maybe that's because I was tripping the first time I saw Pulp Fiction.