Umm no, its actually a theory. Thats why they call it the Theory of Evolution.
It has not been proven and mostlikely will never be proven. I believe its true as well as most of the other free thinkers in this world. This does not mean its fact.
First of all, that wasn't a spelling error, it was a typo. Secondly, I never claimed I was "above" anyone or that I anyone is inferior. What I stated was that there are not enough competent people in the field, which is a fact. If this were not true, then there would not be such a demand for IT people. I respect people and I expect the same from others. My point however, was that software sucks because the competent people get stuck with ALL the work (which is an enormous amount), while the incompetent get paid the same and do nothing 90% of the time.
Don't test me on this, I'm knee deep in it. And in the future, don't try to warp my words into me sounding like an asshole.
This is so true. This is the root of the suckness of software.
On top of such suckiness is the competence of the coder. Not everyone in the industry is competent. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority are incompetent and that there is a select few who actually get the work done. This increases the load on the competent while the incompetent weazle by managing the build and doing other such simple tasks.
I heard on the news the other day that this could mean that our complexity is more dependant on the proteins these genes produce rather than the genes themselves. I'm no expert, this is just what I heard...
Go back and read the context in which I was making my statement. In other words, read the whole thread.
I was not giving a definition of Near Earth, I was merely stating that his use of the term "stable" was wrong. In space, nothing is always stable and 100% predictable, especially when the object is small, like Eros, and has an oblong orbit. The definition does not mean that the orbit is INSIDE the Earths, its simply that its orbit INTERSECTS the Earth's plane.
So not only are you wrong with your definition, but you also didn't bother to read the entire thread.
The term Near Earth Astroid does not mean they will impact Earth, but that the possibility is there since they come so close. In space you've got N bodies influencing eachother gravitationally. Eros orbit may appear stable, but all it would need is a random erratic body to pull it into a deadly course.
Genetic testing will NOT be a tool to determine who should have a lower rate. It will only be used to determine who should have a HIGHER rate. Just look at HMO's. HMO... affordable healthcare at the expense of the people. As a result of HMO, insurance company's have been ROLLING in the $. Trust me, I know this from personal experience.
Wrong. The insurance company's purpose is to FUND health care, not have any deciding factor in it. Unfortunately this isn't consistent with HMO's.
The whole purpose to insurance is that you're buying into the security as a whole to pay for you if something bad ever happens to you. Doing genetic testing is NOT the same as an insurance company asking if you're a smoker. You can always lie about being a smoker. Genetic testing has the possibility of describing specificly what you could die of. This information frightens me if its in the wrong hands.
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
This is true in principal, but since an employer does not need a reason to fire you, they can therefore fire you. For example, a school teacher has a porn website and gets fired. Why? Because its "indecent". Can she sue? Hell yes, however she'll lose because they don't NEED a reason to fire you. They are not firing her because she's female, or a certain color or because she's in a wheel chair, they're firing her for her actions.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer. Its that simple. Lawsuits will fly but there's nothing legally restricting them.
He can say whatever he wants to. However, people can hold him accountable for his words because they're HIS words. Free speech protects you from going to prison or being exiled, not from keeping your job.
Defame: To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
Slander, as in tell his employer falsities. THAT is defemation. If he posted negative material on a website about his former employer, then they can tell whomever they want about it. If his current employer finds that he is untrustworthy as a result, they can fire him.
He could sue. He would lose, because he DID post the comments.
Sure, he can sue. Would there be any legal justification in the lawsuit? Who knows... we have not been given enough details. What it comes down to however, is that he said something publicly about the company which was not nice and now they want to tell his current employer in retaliation. There's nothing illegal about this. Maybe he'll be smarter about criticism in the future.
As I said earlier, criticism, as I've experienced, has been accepted by all people when its presented in a respectable manor. Posting comments to a public billboard is not a respectable manor. They're holding him accountable for his actions. There's nothing illegal about it. He can sue, but he'll lose.
If they're publicizing his actions, then there's nothing wrong with it. If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him. There's just no argument there.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you. They can ALSO tell your current employer. There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
Companies are made up of individuals. They can publicize the fact that an individual was slanding (IF HE WAS SLANDERING) his former employer. If he wasn't slandering, then they can still TELL THE TRUTH about what he was saying. e.g. "He publicly criticized the way management handled a release."
This statement is neither slanderous, nor infinging on anyone's rights. It is simply holding him accountable for his actions. There is NOTHING wrong with holding someone accountable for their actions. In fact, it doesn't happen enough if you ask me...
On the contrary, it sounds like this company is out to criticize someone who is defaming them. They have every right to trash someone just like the individual does.
es, you are right, a man may speak his mind and wag his tongue, but I don't think that he can be fired for it.
Wrong. You can get fired for laying a smelly fart. A company doesn't NEED a reason to fire you; they only provide a reason as to prevent them from being sued. Just because its your necessity have a job does not mean that the employer is therefore obligated to employ you. If you're a jerk and trash your company publicly then they _should_ fire you.
In my company, I criticize my superiors on a daily basis, but I do it in good faith. I tell them where I think they're going wrong, which is a healthy relationship. If you cannot have that type of relationship with an employer, then you bite your tongue, quit your job, or say something publicly and get fired. Its that simple.
Umm...Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
How about Freedom of speech. They can tell his current company that he slandered his former employer (if he did). They can tell the story EXACTLY how it is. Free speech does not cover your ass from getting fired from your current job because you can't hold your tongue! Having a job is a _privilage_, not a right. They have the right to say whatever they want and so do you.
NASA actually brings multiple laptops for guidance computer while in orbit. Only one computer is actually needed, but since they recognize the fact that windows is instable, they have a couple more for redundancy. While one is blue-screening, another one takes control of the system.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen to that.
Umm no, its actually a theory. Thats why they call it the Theory of Evolution.
It has not been proven and mostlikely will never be proven. I believe its true as well as most of the other free thinkers in this world. This does not mean its fact.
First of all, that wasn't a spelling error, it was a typo. Secondly, I never claimed I was "above" anyone or that I anyone is inferior. What I stated was that there are not enough competent people in the field, which is a fact. If this were not true, then there would not be such a demand for IT people. I respect people and I expect the same from others. My point however, was that software sucks because the competent people get stuck with ALL the work (which is an enormous amount), while the incompetent get paid the same and do nothing 90% of the time.
Don't test me on this, I'm knee deep in it. And in the future, don't try to warp my words into me sounding like an asshole.
Could this work on the atomic scale? Could this be used on something like a microprocessor?
This is so true. This is the root of the suckness of software.
On top of such suckiness is the competence of the coder. Not everyone in the industry is competent. In fact, I'd say that the vast majority are incompetent and that there is a select few who actually get the work done. This increases the load on the competent while the incompetent weazle by managing the build and doing other such simple tasks.
I heard on the news the other day that this could mean that our complexity is more dependant on the proteins these genes produce rather than the genes themselves. I'm no expert, this is just what I heard...
Go back and read the context in which I was making my statement. In other words, read the whole thread.
I was not giving a definition of Near Earth, I was merely stating that his use of the term "stable" was wrong. In space, nothing is always stable and 100% predictable, especially when the object is small, like Eros, and has an oblong orbit. The definition does not mean that the orbit is INSIDE the Earths, its simply that its orbit INTERSECTS the Earth's plane.
So not only are you wrong with your definition, but you also didn't bother to read the entire thread.
Well... we could. Now the Chinese will.
The term Near Earth Astroid does not mean they will impact Earth, but that the possibility is there since they come so close. In space you've got N bodies influencing eachother gravitationally. Eros orbit may appear stable, but all it would need is a random erratic body to pull it into a deadly course.
Genetic testing will NOT be a tool to determine who should have a lower rate. It will only be used to determine who should have a HIGHER rate. Just look at HMO's. HMO... affordable healthcare at the expense of the people. As a result of HMO, insurance company's have been ROLLING in the $. Trust me, I know this from personal experience.
Yes kudos... Now can anyone tell me what the point was, besides taking pics on the way down? Does it serve any purpose on the surface of the asteroid?
Wrong. The insurance company's purpose is to FUND health care, not have any deciding factor in it. Unfortunately this isn't consistent with HMO's. The whole purpose to insurance is that you're buying into the security as a whole to pay for you if something bad ever happens to you. Doing genetic testing is NOT the same as an insurance company asking if you're a smoker. You can always lie about being a smoker. Genetic testing has the possibility of describing specificly what you could die of. This information frightens me if its in the wrong hands.
I think this depends on the state you live in. Most states they do not. But cause for termination could simply be "Budget does not allow".
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
This is true in principal, but since an employer does not need a reason to fire you, they can therefore fire you. For example, a school teacher has a porn website and gets fired. Why? Because its "indecent". Can she sue? Hell yes, however she'll lose because they don't NEED a reason to fire you. They are not firing her because she's female, or a certain color or because she's in a wheel chair, they're firing her for her actions.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer. Its that simple. Lawsuits will fly but there's nothing legally restricting them.
He can say whatever he wants to. However, people can hold him accountable for his words because they're HIS words. Free speech protects you from going to prison or being exiled, not from keeping your job.
Do you understand the definition of defamation?
Defame: To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel.
Slander, as in tell his employer falsities. THAT is defemation. If he posted negative material on a website about his former employer, then they can tell whomever they want about it. If his current employer finds that he is untrustworthy as a result, they can fire him.
He could sue. He would lose, because he DID post the comments.
Sure, he can sue. Would there be any legal justification in the lawsuit? Who knows... we have not been given enough details. What it comes down to however, is that he said something publicly about the company which was not nice and now they want to tell his current employer in retaliation. There's nothing illegal about this. Maybe he'll be smarter about criticism in the future.
As I said earlier, criticism, as I've experienced, has been accepted by all people when its presented in a respectable manor. Posting comments to a public billboard is not a respectable manor. They're holding him accountable for his actions. There's nothing illegal about it. He can sue, but he'll lose.
I'm speaking in the legal sense. If you believe this should be a moral right bounded by law, then move to France or some other socialist country.
If they're publicizing his actions, then there's nothing wrong with it. If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him. There's just no argument there.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you. They can ALSO tell your current employer. There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
Companies are made up of individuals. They can publicize the fact that an individual was slanding (IF HE WAS SLANDERING) his former employer. If he wasn't slandering, then they can still TELL THE TRUTH about what he was saying. e.g. "He publicly criticized the way management handled a release."
This statement is neither slanderous, nor infinging on anyone's rights. It is simply holding him accountable for his actions. There is NOTHING wrong with holding someone accountable for their actions. In fact, it doesn't happen enough if you ask me...
Thats precisely why I said "(if he did)".
Basically you agree.
Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
_FALSE STATEMENTS_ is the key term here. They can tell his current employer exactly what he's doing. I NEVER said anything about them slandering him.
On the contrary, it sounds like this company is out to criticize someone who is defaming them. They have every right to trash someone just like the individual does.
es, you are right, a man may speak his mind and wag his tongue, but I don't think that he can be fired for it.
Wrong. You can get fired for laying a smelly fart. A company doesn't NEED a reason to fire you; they only provide a reason as to prevent them from being sued. Just because its your necessity have a job does not mean that the employer is therefore obligated to employ you. If you're a jerk and trash your company publicly then they _should_ fire you.
In my company, I criticize my superiors on a daily basis, but I do it in good faith. I tell them where I think they're going wrong, which is a healthy relationship. If you cannot have that type of relationship with an employer, then you bite your tongue, quit your job, or say something publicly and get fired. Its that simple.
Umm...Yahoo!'s message boards are public, and the guy no longer works for them (and had no contractual obligations to stay silent when he left), so what precedent gives his ex-company the right to audit his opinions?
How about Freedom of speech. They can tell his current company that he slandered his former employer (if he did). They can tell the story EXACTLY how it is. Free speech does not cover your ass from getting fired from your current job because you can't hold your tongue! Having a job is a _privilage_, not a right. They have the right to say whatever they want and so do you.
NASA actually brings multiple laptops for guidance computer while in orbit. Only one computer is actually needed, but since they recognize the fact that windows is instable, they have a couple more for redundancy. While one is blue-screening, another one takes control of the system.