.... that it is legal in the USA to discriminate based on country of origin now, even when they are legally landed permanent resident, and entitled to work in the country? I'm not wholly up on US immigration policies, or how h1b's normally work, but it seems top me like this bill might be setting companies up to deal with a swarm of discrimination lawsuits.
If you can do the majority of the work yourself in just 60 hours, then you are probably already a licensed electrician, or are, at the very least, essentially qualified to be one, but simply don't have the paperwork or certification to prove it.
So what you are saying, for example, is that McDonalds has to pay more taxes to the American government for every franchise in the world that isn't in the USA because they were a company that started in America? Interesting...
Not always... sometimes it is simply more convenient for them to have offices in areas where they do international business, and in many cases, particularly in urban settings, it is simply more convenient to hire people that are local to the area than to require someone to effectively permanently relocate if the position is not a temporary one.
In the USA, the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935. The law exists primarily to protect employees from employers who might otherwise seek to break labor laws. If the employer knows that they cannot legally require (either verbally or in written form) their employees to not disclose aspects of their employment such as salary or job conditions to anyone that they choose, they have significant incentive to obey the law in those regards in the first place unless they can somehow make the employees complicit in such matters as well (and therefore accessories to the behavior). Otherwise, an employer could capitalize on someone who was ignorant of labor laws in the region (perhaps someone new the area, or otherwise inexperienced), and by explicitly telling employees that they can't tell anyone, continue to get away with it for longer than they could if they could not prohibit the employee from speaking about it to whomever they wished. Simply asking an employee to not discuss their pay with others is not legal in some jurisdictions (state law applies), and at the very least can be deemed as a point worthy of suspicion.
You can certainly, if you so choose, respect your employer's wishes to not disclose your salary to others, but that is at your own discretion, not your employer's.
I didn't say that you were an asshole.... I said that you shouldn't be so hasty to think that you can possibly always intuit what a person is thinking because of a single word. That you did so doesn't make you an asshole, but that you blindly adhere to it despite a truthful explanation could suggest that you prefer believing what you want about something to the truth. The only way one can reasonably assume that the point about using empathizing language is some kind of contrived ego defense is if one already presumes that it is somehow more likely that the initial impression you had of me was right in the first place, hence my conclusion that you are more predisposed to your internal biases about something than accepting that you might have been wrong. Your position about me does, in fact, beg the question in the classical sense.
Actually, what I think is exactly what the reports said.... that there was not enough evidence to merit prosecution.... Apparently, there is something there... but I have not personally seen the evidence and am incapable of making an objective evaluation. I can only say that according to the feds it does not merit prosecution. Full stop. What I *personally* believe about her guilt is that if she *is* guilty, it is unlikely to be for anything as serious as what those who would think that she should be behind bars for life would think. That, however, is just my own conjecture, and not substantiated by evidence that I can cite. My choice to use the word "unfortunately" was I said, used because I can empathize with people who might feel that she was most certainly guilty of a treasonous crime. I was not attempting to "pretend" that I believe in that... it was simple empathy. Nothing more, and nothing less.
And for that matter, I wasn't even *trying* to deceive anyone, and you came to a grossly inaccurate conclusion about me. How badly off could it have been if someone were *actively* trying to deceive you? One should hope that border security is better at distinguishing fact from fiction than you.
If you believe it is ridiculous to be able to empathise with parties with whom you do not necessarily agree, then I would suggest that you are, yourself, far too short-sighted and predisposed towards your own biases to intuit what Occam may or may not be able to see.
Or perhaps I was using the terminology to empathize with those who wanted to prosecute her. Just because I don't agree with them does not make me incapable of empathizing with their position.
Of course, it's probably just a whole lot easier for you to believe I'm a two-dimensional idiot.
Yes they can if your employment contract says you can't.
No, they cannot. Your salary is just as much your own business as it is your employer's, and all putting it into contract does is mean that it is probably just grounds for termination. Your employer categorically has no legal right to forbid you to discuss your salary or conditions of your job with anyone that you wish.
Think about this the same way you would an NDA. They can do a hell of a lot more than fire you if you leave and discuss anything covered by that agreement.
Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA, and any attempts by your employer to do so would not be enforceable.
Actually, I do.... I wasn't suggesting that she was guilty either.... and by "guilty", I mean that to suggest that something wrong was done, not whether or not a court had made such a decision.
While a court decision is indeed one connotation of the word "guilty", there are others.
More likely it is because what she was alleged to have done in the first place was determined to not be worth attempting to prosecute her over because, according to the feds, the evidence that incriminated her was tenuous, and unfortunately largely circumstantial. That doesn't mean she wasn't guilty, only that the evidence was seen as unlikely sufficient to merit prosecution. And if it didn't merit prosecution, why should it merit a pardon?
An employer cannot prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone you want to any more than they can prohibit you from doing anything else they might not want you to do when you are not at work, but is otherwise entirely legal. The most they might be able to do is fire you (where at-will employment is applicable), but that's it. They may as well try to "contractually obligate" you to never wear jewelry even when you are not at work, for example.
What kind of fucking stupid design is that where that is even physically possible? It should run afoul of absolutely every kind of fire regulation imaginable that a door lock can even *POSSIBLY* lock a person in their unit.
The mechanism to unlatch the door should be *PHYSICALLY* tied to the turning of the handle or knob on the inside of the unit such that the only way to potentially lock someone in would be to physically damage the latch first... either by welding it into position or otherwise gutting the innards so that it did not work.
And any employer who hears that is going to know that what you are saying is either so much bullshit, or else you don't actually have a clue what your employer is legally allowed to do. So they are going to assume that either you have no ethical issues with being dishonest with them, or they can pull the same kind of wool over your eyes about what your obligations are to them. Either way, you will get screwed. The most honest thing you can say to them if you do not want to discuss it is that you are not comfortable divulging that information to them at this time. While that doesn't necessarily give them the information they were asking, it does tell them something about your own ethical code of conduct, and the prospective employer may very well be quite respectful of that.
If you answer the question about what was your last salary by answering a different question and telling them how much you make, then that communicates to the employer that you were dissatisfied with your last salary and since you likely did the same thing with *that* employer telling them how much you wanted, you were actually lying to them.
But if you were getting paid fairly, telling them how much you were making at worst. it only tells the employer that you are too costly for him to hire, which is a lot better than quoting a number at the employer that says you think you are worth more than you may actually be. More likely, he will think that is fair and offer about the same amount.
And if you weren't getting paid what you think is fair, then if this employer is one that will be worth staying at, he will see that your previous salary was not commensurate with your talents after you have only been there a short time. If you do not get a raise within your first year, be prepared to quit.
It is absolutely your right to not disclose salary to anyone other than agencies or representatives of such agencies which have a legitimate right to those lines of inquiry, but an employer cannot actually prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone else any more than they could prohibit you from any other kind of legal activity when you are not at work.
And the fact that this has been theorized, but that the only thing the article mentions about is is that held its state at 83K suggests that the theory it would stay that way at room temperature was bunk.
Not to mention the pressure that may be required to maintain.
... rather, the problem is with the volume of information that is contained within them. The format of the documents seems to be entirely irrelevant to core of the problem:
...investors say they are sick of their inboxes piling up with run-of-the-mill reports each day.
Which might be nice if it were at pressures that were a little more normal on earth, but the article did not give that impression. While the article mentions there is a theoretical basis for believing that it would remain metal at more normal temperatures and pressures, the fact that it did not explicitly mention anything about being the same at a lower pressure when it mentioned maintaining its state at 83K suggests that the enormous pressures were maintained.
How is faster than light communication functionally identical to sending information backwards in time?
As far as I can see, if a hypothetical signal travelling at twice the speed of light were sent from a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, then it still reaches us over 2 years *after* the signal was sent. If we send a response at the same speed, it will take another 2+ years to get there... at about the same time our ordinary telescopes pick up any additional evidence of their having sent the original signal. But they still don't receive any response for over 4 years *after* they sent the original message. There's no sending information backwards in time here that I can see here.
I'm not suggesting that sending information at such speeds may necessarily ever be possible (I suspect it isn't for what it's worth), I am only saying that I can see no reason to equate it to somehow sending information backwards in time.
My understanding of sending a signal backwards in time would be when you get a response to a signal that you hadn't even sent yet, but that doesn't happen here... can you give an example of how it faster than light communication could enable that? If not, then why are they assumed to be functionally identical?
Slashdot Mirror
.... that it is legal in the USA to discriminate based on country of origin now, even when they are legally landed permanent resident, and entitled to work in the country? I'm not wholly up on US immigration policies, or how h1b's normally work, but it seems top me like this bill might be setting companies up to deal with a swarm of discrimination lawsuits.
If you can do the majority of the work yourself in just 60 hours, then you are probably already a licensed electrician, or are, at the very least, essentially qualified to be one, but simply don't have the paperwork or certification to prove it.
So what you are saying, for example, is that McDonalds has to pay more taxes to the American government for every franchise in the world that isn't in the USA because they were a company that started in America? Interesting...
Not always... sometimes it is simply more convenient for them to have offices in areas where they do international business, and in many cases, particularly in urban settings, it is simply more convenient to hire people that are local to the area than to require someone to effectively permanently relocate if the position is not a temporary one.
In the USA, the National Labor Relations Act, enacted in 1935. The law exists primarily to protect employees from employers who might otherwise seek to break labor laws. If the employer knows that they cannot legally require (either verbally or in written form) their employees to not disclose aspects of their employment such as salary or job conditions to anyone that they choose, they have significant incentive to obey the law in those regards in the first place unless they can somehow make the employees complicit in such matters as well (and therefore accessories to the behavior). Otherwise, an employer could capitalize on someone who was ignorant of labor laws in the region (perhaps someone new the area, or otherwise inexperienced), and by explicitly telling employees that they can't tell anyone, continue to get away with it for longer than they could if they could not prohibit the employee from speaking about it to whomever they wished. Simply asking an employee to not discuss their pay with others is not legal in some jurisdictions (state law applies), and at the very least can be deemed as a point worthy of suspicion.
You can certainly, if you so choose, respect your employer's wishes to not disclose your salary to others, but that is at your own discretion, not your employer's.
Pick any two, right?
I didn't say that you were an asshole.... I said that you shouldn't be so hasty to think that you can possibly always intuit what a person is thinking because of a single word. That you did so doesn't make you an asshole, but that you blindly adhere to it despite a truthful explanation could suggest that you prefer believing what you want about something to the truth. The only way one can reasonably assume that the point about using empathizing language is some kind of contrived ego defense is if one already presumes that it is somehow more likely that the initial impression you had of me was right in the first place, hence my conclusion that you are more predisposed to your internal biases about something than accepting that you might have been wrong. Your position about me does, in fact, beg the question in the classical sense.
Actually, what I think is exactly what the reports said.... that there was not enough evidence to merit prosecution.... Apparently, there is something there... but I have not personally seen the evidence and am incapable of making an objective evaluation. I can only say that according to the feds it does not merit prosecution. Full stop. What I *personally* believe about her guilt is that if she *is* guilty, it is unlikely to be for anything as serious as what those who would think that she should be behind bars for life would think. That, however, is just my own conjecture, and not substantiated by evidence that I can cite. My choice to use the word "unfortunately" was I said, used because I can empathize with people who might feel that she was most certainly guilty of a treasonous crime. I was not attempting to "pretend" that I believe in that... it was simple empathy. Nothing more, and nothing less.
And for that matter, I wasn't even *trying* to deceive anyone, and you came to a grossly inaccurate conclusion about me. How badly off could it have been if someone were *actively* trying to deceive you? One should hope that border security is better at distinguishing fact from fiction than you.
If you believe it is ridiculous to be able to empathise with parties with whom you do not necessarily agree, then I would suggest that you are, yourself, far too short-sighted and predisposed towards your own biases to intuit what Occam may or may not be able to see.
Or perhaps I was using the terminology to empathize with those who wanted to prosecute her. Just because I don't agree with them does not make me incapable of empathizing with their position.
Of course, it's probably just a whole lot easier for you to believe I'm a two-dimensional idiot.
Carry on.
No, they cannot. Your salary is just as much your own business as it is your employer's, and all putting it into contract does is mean that it is probably just grounds for termination. Your employer categorically has no legal right to forbid you to discuss your salary or conditions of your job with anyone that you wish.
Obviously, but your salary is categorically not allowed to be covered by NDA, and any attempts by your employer to do so would not be enforceable.
Actually, I do.... I wasn't suggesting that she was guilty either.... and by "guilty", I mean that to suggest that something wrong was done, not whether or not a court had made such a decision.
While a court decision is indeed one connotation of the word "guilty", there are others.
More likely it is because what she was alleged to have done in the first place was determined to not be worth attempting to prosecute her over because, according to the feds, the evidence that incriminated her was tenuous, and unfortunately largely circumstantial. That doesn't mean she wasn't guilty, only that the evidence was seen as unlikely sufficient to merit prosecution. And if it didn't merit prosecution, why should it merit a pardon?
An employer cannot prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone you want to any more than they can prohibit you from doing anything else they might not want you to do when you are not at work, but is otherwise entirely legal. The most they might be able to do is fire you (where at-will employment is applicable), but that's it. They may as well try to "contractually obligate" you to never wear jewelry even when you are not at work, for example.
What kind of fucking stupid design is that where that is even physically possible? It should run afoul of absolutely every kind of fire regulation imaginable that a door lock can even *POSSIBLY* lock a person in their unit.
The mechanism to unlatch the door should be *PHYSICALLY* tied to the turning of the handle or knob on the inside of the unit such that the only way to potentially lock someone in would be to physically damage the latch first... either by welding it into position or otherwise gutting the innards so that it did not work.
And any employer who hears that is going to know that what you are saying is either so much bullshit, or else you don't actually have a clue what your employer is legally allowed to do. So they are going to assume that either you have no ethical issues with being dishonest with them, or they can pull the same kind of wool over your eyes about what your obligations are to them. Either way, you will get screwed. The most honest thing you can say to them if you do not want to discuss it is that you are not comfortable divulging that information to them at this time. While that doesn't necessarily give them the information they were asking, it does tell them something about your own ethical code of conduct, and the prospective employer may very well be quite respectful of that.
If you answer the question about what was your last salary by answering a different question and telling them how much you make, then that communicates to the employer that you were dissatisfied with your last salary and since you likely did the same thing with *that* employer telling them how much you wanted, you were actually lying to them.
But if you were getting paid fairly, telling them how much you were making at worst. it only tells the employer that you are too costly for him to hire, which is a lot better than quoting a number at the employer that says you think you are worth more than you may actually be. More likely, he will think that is fair and offer about the same amount.
And if you weren't getting paid what you think is fair, then if this employer is one that will be worth staying at, he will see that your previous salary was not commensurate with your talents after you have only been there a short time. If you do not get a raise within your first year, be prepared to quit.
It is absolutely your right to not disclose salary to anyone other than agencies or representatives of such agencies which have a legitimate right to those lines of inquiry, but an employer cannot actually prohibit you from discussing your salary with anyone else any more than they could prohibit you from any other kind of legal activity when you are not at work.
And the fact that this has been theorized, but that the only thing the article mentions about is is that held its state at 83K suggests that the theory it would stay that way at room temperature was bunk.
Not to mention the pressure that may be required to maintain.
Which might be nice if it were at pressures that were a little more normal on earth, but the article did not give that impression. While the article mentions there is a theoretical basis for believing that it would remain metal at more normal temperatures and pressures, the fact that it did not explicitly mention anything about being the same at a lower pressure when it mentioned maintaining its state at 83K suggests that the enormous pressures were maintained.
How is faster than light communication functionally identical to sending information backwards in time?
As far as I can see, if a hypothetical signal travelling at twice the speed of light were sent from a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, then it still reaches us over 2 years *after* the signal was sent. If we send a response at the same speed, it will take another 2+ years to get there... at about the same time our ordinary telescopes pick up any additional evidence of their having sent the original signal. But they still don't receive any response for over 4 years *after* they sent the original message. There's no sending information backwards in time here that I can see here.
I'm not suggesting that sending information at such speeds may necessarily ever be possible (I suspect it isn't for what it's worth), I am only saying that I can see no reason to equate it to somehow sending information backwards in time.
My understanding of sending a signal backwards in time would be when you get a response to a signal that you hadn't even sent yet, but that doesn't happen here... can you give an example of how it faster than light communication could enable that? If not, then why are they assumed to be functionally identical?
Also from the article was that it was observed to still have the properties they associated with being metallic at 83K.
83 degrees kelvin is a heck of a long way from room temperature.
Hence my inquiry about the practical benefits of this.
... this endeavor was not simply a colossal waste of time?
Serious question.... are any practical implications to this at all?
80 years seems like a long time searching for something when you aren't expecting any kind of positive net benefit from the fruits of that search.
Are they going to be granted an exemption for killing members or protected species as well?