If I were you, I'd contact a lawyer. It seems the state of Washington is very friendly to employers. There is no law that requires employers to provide leave time (vacation, sick, bereavement, or otherwise.) However, if an employer offers leave time, you must be allowed to take it. Here's an excerpt from the state website for the Department of Labor and Industries. Note my emphasis.
An employer is not required to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave.
Paid leave for holidays, vacation, sickness or bereavement following the death of a close family member are considered "benefits" that may be paid by the business under a policy, written agreement, personal contract, oral agreement, collective bargaining agreement or other form of agreement. There are no state laws requiring that such benefits be given.
If the business agrees to give these benefits and then does not do so, workers may sue the business in a private legal suit in small claims court or through a private attorney. L&I does not enforce these agreements.
Some municipalities (like the cities of Seattle and SeaTac) have passed local ordinances that require businesses to provide for certain types of sick and safe leave. It is suggested that you check with your local ordinances to ensure compliance with local laws.
IANAL, but I think that management, while they have a right to approve vacation, cannot adopt a policy that makes it so difficult to take vacation that it effectively makes it impossible to do so. Note also that the same website says that paid sick leave will be a requirement for some jobs as of January 1, 2018.
A battery which only lasts a few hundred recharge cycles isn't an imperfect solution, it's simply not a solution.
Really? Then how do you explain that there is a healthy market in batteries that last zero recharge cycles?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for rechargeable batteries. A battery that can be used 400 times is 400 times better than a battery that can be used only once.
It's irrelevant what the purpose of a law or agency. The only thing that matters is its effect.
The only thing that matters? Unlikely. But, um, okay...
Yes, the markets functioned better before the SEC.
FACEPALM. That is all.
The real intent of the SEC is to make sure you're not allowed to invest in competing financial instruments and to make investors completely and utterly gullible.
Wait... didn't you just claim that an agency's purpose (i.e., intent) is "irrelevant?"
The rest of your statement is hard to disentangle, but here goes.
Unregulated financial instruments are a potential threat to the investing consumer, who must rely on the proper behavior of fiduciaries who are not compelled to behave transparently. Such instruments can "compete" just fine with regulated ones... by becoming regulated. The effort is not trivial, but it is not onerous either.
As for the SEC "making" investors gullible... no, the SEC does not make investors gullible. They may or may not already be gullible. The SEC just ensures they have the information they need to make informed choices, so if they're still gullible, they have no excuse, and it's certainly not the SEC's fault.
Clarification: When I say Dodd-Frank passed during the Clinton's, it was when Hillary was a Senator, I'm assuming you are including that as part of the "Clinton Administration".
Hillary Clinton moved from the Senate to Secretary of State on January 21, 2009. Dodd-Frank was proposed by the Obama administration in June 2009, and was passed on July 21, 2010.
So no, Dodd-Frank was not passed (in fact, was not even under construction) while Hillary Clinton was a Senator. She may have been "in office" as Secretary of State, but was not in a role that had any significant influence on the crafting of Dodd-Frank.
I understand that many advocates of digital currencies sing the praises of their libertarian, state-independent qualities.
But conflating the SEC with Mussolini? Come on, the purpose of the SEC is to protect investors from unscrupulous companies. Do you really want the kinds of markets we had before the SEC was around?
In the bigger scheme of things, a Glassdoor that allows leaks reduces fraud. But killing the site (and similiar sites) means that in future there will be no users to disclose.
Courts need to focus on the public good in general and not just on one particular case.
But the public good is served poorly if the claims that Glassdoor's users bring forward aren't tested in the courts.
I get that Glassdoor's mission isn't to expose the malfeasance of companies its users once worked for -- it's to offer a clearing house for comments on the culture of companies, to benefit potential new employees. But surely, the worst of those companies will undergo a special kind of scrutiny that includes what we're discussing here. Whether Glassdoor likes it or not, they will need to cope with companies that break the law, and whose former employees talk about it on their site.
Yes of course, you can't follow up every ping. But if analytics show something different about the attack -- something that indicates it's not just a random port-scan -- then it deserves to be investigated. Especially if the computer in question is managing something sensitive.
I pretty much just assume that any computer attached to the internet is being tested by hackers all the time. Why should election computers be any different?
Presumably there might be something different about who does it.
Computers, whether or not they're used to manage elections, should be secured from people looking for vulnerabilities in order to steal data or money. But if hackers try to penetrate election computers, possibly with the intent to alter the results, then it seems important to follow up.
If the CIA or NORAD were subjected to attempts to penetrate their computer systems, I doubt they would just shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to script kiddies. No, they would try to find out who did it, and if possible, why.
Slashdot Mirror
the IQs of Republicans are still far higher than those of Democrats
Citation needed.
In fact, the evidence suggests that the issue is complicated, but may actually lean to the opposite of the GP's view.
https://www.google.com/search?...
In my experience, there are plenty of smart and dumb people across the political spectrum. I don't think it's fair to say any wing has an advantage.
The aliens will use it to up load malware to our presidents brain!
Hmm ... Donald Trump on the moon ... marooned with aliens ...
~ ~ * uh, sorry, what was the topic?
Is that monolith buried in Tycho just an ancient alien cell tower?
Or maybe it was put there by the same folks that run this radio station.
There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
-- Pink Floyd
I saw what you did there.
This is a very cool hack.
'course, there's an emacs command to do that.
"My God, it's full of stars."
If I were you, I'd contact a lawyer. It seems the state of Washington is very friendly to employers. There is no law that requires employers to provide leave time (vacation, sick, bereavement, or otherwise.) However, if an employer offers leave time, you must be allowed to take it. Here's an excerpt from the state website for the Department of Labor and Industries. Note my emphasis.
An employer is not required to give workers paid holiday, vacation, sick or bereavement leave.
Paid leave for holidays, vacation, sickness or bereavement following the death of a close family member are considered "benefits" that may be paid by the business under a policy, written agreement, personal contract, oral agreement, collective bargaining agreement or other form of agreement. There are no state laws requiring that such benefits be given.
If the business agrees to give these benefits and then does not do so, workers may sue the business in a private legal suit in small claims court or through a private attorney. L&I does not enforce these agreements.
Some municipalities (like the cities of Seattle and SeaTac) have passed local ordinances that require businesses to provide for certain types of sick and safe leave. It is suggested that you check with your local ordinances to ensure compliance with local laws.
IANAL, but I think that management, while they have a right to approve vacation, cannot adopt a policy that makes it so difficult to take vacation that it effectively makes it impossible to do so. Note also that the same website says that paid sick leave will be a requirement for some jobs as of January 1, 2018.
I'd go further and say that Etcetera is committing the same logical fallacy as the blog post he links to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I read that as "Sunday night porn!", does that mean anything?
It means you need glasses. I'm afraid to guess why.
A battery which only lasts a few hundred recharge cycles isn't an imperfect solution, it's simply not a solution.
Really? Then how do you explain that there is a healthy market in batteries that last zero recharge cycles?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for rechargeable batteries. A battery that can be used 400 times is 400 times better than a battery that can be used only once.
https://xkcd.com/937/
https://xkcd.com/1098/
If I were to write a comedy skit about this presidency, no one would buy it because it would be too far fetched.
But it would be funny. This isn't.
Trump will finally have a staff in place that can run the White House.
Yeah. The next President's.
It's irrelevant what the purpose of a law or agency. The only thing that matters is its effect.
The only thing that matters? Unlikely. But, um, okay...
Yes, the markets functioned better before the SEC.
FACEPALM. That is all.
The real intent of the SEC is to make sure you're not allowed to invest in competing financial instruments and to make investors completely and utterly gullible.
Wait ... didn't you just claim that an agency's purpose (i.e., intent) is "irrelevant?"
The rest of your statement is hard to disentangle, but here goes.
Unregulated financial instruments are a potential threat to the investing consumer, who must rely on the proper behavior of fiduciaries who are not compelled to behave transparently. Such instruments can "compete" just fine with regulated ones ... by becoming regulated. The effort is not trivial, but it is not onerous either.
As for the SEC "making" investors gullible ... no, the SEC does not make investors gullible. They may or may not already be gullible. The SEC just ensures they have the information they need to make informed choices, so if they're still gullible, they have no excuse, and it's certainly not the SEC's fault.
Clarification: When I say Dodd-Frank passed during the Clinton's, it was when Hillary was a Senator, I'm assuming you are including that as part of the "Clinton Administration".
Hillary Clinton moved from the Senate to Secretary of State on January 21, 2009. Dodd-Frank was proposed by the Obama administration in June 2009, and was passed on July 21, 2010.
So no, Dodd-Frank was not passed (in fact, was not even under construction) while Hillary Clinton was a Senator. She may have been "in office" as Secretary of State, but was not in a role that had any significant influence on the crafting of Dodd-Frank.
I understand that many advocates of digital currencies sing the praises of their libertarian, state-independent qualities.
But conflating the SEC with Mussolini? Come on, the purpose of the SEC is to protect investors from unscrupulous companies. Do you really want the kinds of markets we had before the SEC was around?
To say that he has a... "casual acquaintance with truth and reality" is an understatement.
If that gang of sociopaths tell you it's July and the sky is blue, begin to doubt the existence of seasons and colors.
You can say that again.
That may change when Apple releases the iPhone 10 Steam Punk Edition, which will actually run on coal.
Wow. And I thought Samsung phones got too hot...
In the bigger scheme of things, a Glassdoor that allows leaks reduces fraud. But killing the site (and similiar sites) means that in future there will be no users to disclose.
Courts need to focus on the public good in general and not just on one particular case.
But the public good is served poorly if the claims that Glassdoor's users bring forward aren't tested in the courts.
I get that Glassdoor's mission isn't to expose the malfeasance of companies its users once worked for -- it's to offer a clearing house for comments on the culture of companies, to benefit potential new employees. But surely, the worst of those companies will undergo a special kind of scrutiny that includes what we're discussing here. Whether Glassdoor likes it or not, they will need to cope with companies that break the law, and whose former employees talk about it on their site.
Yes of course, the identities of the witnesses would need to be revealed to the defendant. I was talking about sealing the records from public access.
I understand Glassdoor's argument about protecting the privacy of their users, and the chilling effect that losing pseudonymity would have.
On the other hand, it sounds like these users may be witnesses to a crime of fraud. That seems to favor the government's case for talking to them.
If only the users in question could be deposed in the case without having their identities revealed. IANAL -- Is there a way to do this?
Yes of course, you can't follow up every ping. But if analytics show something different about the attack -- something that indicates it's not just a random port-scan -- then it deserves to be investigated. Especially if the computer in question is managing something sensitive.
I saw what you did there. Voter Fraud != Election Hacking.
I pretty much just assume that any computer attached to the internet is being tested by hackers all the time. Why should election computers be any different?
Presumably there might be something different about who does it.
Computers, whether or not they're used to manage elections, should be secured from people looking for vulnerabilities in order to steal data or money. But if hackers try to penetrate election computers, possibly with the intent to alter the results, then it seems important to follow up.
If the CIA or NORAD were subjected to attempts to penetrate their computer systems, I doubt they would just shrug their shoulders and chalk it up to script kiddies. No, they would try to find out who did it, and if possible, why.