For fuck's sake, that's why tablets are called tablets in the first place, because they are... you know... shaped like a tablet.
Suggesting that it shouldn't be called one because it's actually a portable home console is is like saying that you shouldn't call an EV a car because it's not powered by gasoline.
Obviously they could probably control calls from and to the device if those calls were actually being governed by the company, but the articl;e says not only are these things banned for work purposes, they ouright banned on the entire device if that device is used for work. Presumably, if the device is privately owned, it is used for things *other* than work as well.... but this policy would seem to suggest that encryption apps that do not allow the company to track communication with them would be prohibited on *ANY* device that is ever used for work, even if said communication had nothing to do with work.
Plus, if they do not actually prohibit it to that extent, then there is nothing stopping people from using said devices to communicate with eachother about work-related stuffs outside of regular work-hours anyways.
Actually, the president of the United States does not need to wait for a trial to issue a pardon. I do not want to speculate on whether Obama was deliberately lying or he has just been misinformed, but the statement that he cannot pardon him because Snowden hasn't been to trial yet is actually entirely false.
Ideally, the creatures' presence does not impact you, and you do not affect them, so you can both go about your business as usual. If this is not feasible, then you must relocate them without harming them. There are companies that specialize in this kind of thing, and the place that my wife worked for contracted such a company for their purposes. After the creatures have been evacuated, you are generally permitted to use any passive measures you desire to discourage reincursion. You are categorically *NOT* permitted to do anything that harms the creatures that may come into your property as a means of keeping them off of your property.
So yes... it is an inconvenience, and a potentially very expensive one, but it usually doesn't have to spell the end of your entire business.
When the story came out last month that Samsung was killing the headphone jack, I said back then that something was up... there was no substantiation of the report beyond the article that Slashdot itself linked to, and every cross-reference I could find online always linked back to the same location... so either they made the whole thing up, or else the publishers at that website couldn't think past how juicy the story sounded to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.
But hey... who can blame them? Fake news sells more site visits, I guess, so why should Slashdot be any different.
I have never even seen jewelers sell their wares for less than 50% off anywhere in Canada... They always say it's a sale, but in fact, the sale price *is* their everyday price.
Except, as I said, the world's population is *NOT* exceeding its carrying capacity, rather the rate at which we consume resources is what is *really* not sustainable... not the current population. The rate at which we are consuming these resources has nothing to do with the actual world's population because the places where the population is growing the fastest are also places that are the least developed, and not consuming as many of those resources in the first place, therefore, those resources do not appear to be necessary for life itself, but at most only a particular quality of life enjoyed by the most developed nations on earth.
Sure, but by analogy it's not the population itself that is unsustainable, it is the rate of consumption of certain resources that is unsustainable. As it happens, the resources we are liable to run out of the soonest appear to only give us a particular *quality* of life, not life itself, since the regions of the world where population is rising fastest do not consume nearly as much of those resources as more developed nations do.
Psh. If the planet were truly overpopulated then population would be decreasing, not climbing. What you really mean to say by the planet is overpopulated is that you don't think as many people deserve the same standard if living as you, or perhaps that they don't deserve to live at all.
How does writing down the ruleset that a site requires, which is information that you get when you first create the password, allow anyone to guess your passwords? This is information that anyone who was setting up a password on that site would already know anyways, or at least be able to trivially get. You would be no more compromising your own passwords with such information than you would be compromising everybody else's.
Why would the guesser know that they had been blocked? It could easily be set up so as far as they can tell, the password is just wrong... they may have no outwardly visible indication that the router has blacklisted their MAC address. For what it's worth, it could even be set up so that an incorrect password blocks *ALL* new wireless connection attempts for a period of, say, 1 second, regardless of the device. This would make it impossible to try more than a single guess every second, even if it were to cycle mac addresses or try and clone one your existing ones, and would make any automated attempts at brute-forcing a password infeasible. In practice, this would not hinder a human being attempting to connect who had got the password wrong because they would be manually correcting it and trying again anyways.
It is not infeasible to blacklist a MAC address from your wireless router after repeated password failure attempts over a short time. This could make automated brute-force password guessing from a device such as what you've described impractical.
Not always... but when one's civic rights are violated, most certainly.
If there's a toxic (but not illegal) problem in the workplace...
Actually, that toxic problem becomes illegal when somebody has to apply for employment insurance because of it.... particularly in jurisdictions where EI does not normally pay out when a person voluntarily quits the job.
Don't worry about "justice". Why in the world would you want to hire a lawyer, go through years of hell for 50% of some relatively small payout...
IANAL, but I have known several people to have dealt with constructive dismissal lawsuits in the past, and it seems like they are usually open-and-shut... often settling out of court. While the payout may not be a life-changing experience like winning a lottery may be, it can still amount to several months' pay, and the extra funds can certainly come in handy while one is looking for new job. If one finds a new job quickly enough, they are that far ahead of the game.
It's less about being bullied than it is about having to pay EI because of it. It's called constructive dismissal and is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Quit. If you cite bullying harassment that management was unwilling to deal with as a reason for quitting when applying for EI, then the company will be investigated, and will probably at least ensure that the asshole who put you in this position doesn't do the same to anyone else. You may even be able to sue them for constructive dismissal.
Your issue may have mattered if you could say 'but they can negotiate prices with Uber". If Uber is their CUSTOMER rather than their EMPLOYER that must be possible.
The unwillingness of Uber to negotiate a price beyond what they offered for the job does not make one working for them an employee. For example, if I say that I will pay $15 to somebody to shovel my walkway after it snows, and I am firm on that amount, if somebody agrees to do it, they don't get to turn around and say that just because they couldn't negotiate a price I need to be paying for employee benefits. Further, they don't get to spend all day doing the job and try to suggest that I need to be paying them a minimum hourly wage either. While inability to negotiate a price with the customer is a *FACTOR* in determining whether one is an independent contractor or employee, the difference between what Uber is doing here and what somebody who decides how much they think a job is worth and isn't willing to negotiate is infinitesimal, and shouldn't be considered a primary deciding factor. That there might be an ongoing relationship between the drivers and Uber which could look like an employer-employee relationship is also a red herring, because Uber is not the one that is maintaining that relationship, the only reason it exists at all in Uber's case is because the driver keeps accepting more jobs for the same client. Uber does not try and restrict the number of drivers that are available to take jobs, while an employer has complete control over how many people they will hire. An independent contractor could further not try and claim that somebody they repeatedly took jobs for was their employer and that they needed to be receiving employee benefits from that party just because of how frequently they worked for them.
The *only* reasons that I can see that uber drivers could be considered employees is in 1) how they control what kind of car their drivers are allowed to use, and 2) that they do not allow the people that they pay to further subcontract other drivers to actually do the work. These reasons, particularly the latter one, are chief factors in why Uber drivers ought to be employees, but I never see them mentioned in stories like this... they focus instead on how the drivers are being paid when there is no substantial difference between Uber in this regard and anyone else hiring an independent contractor who has already decided how much they think that a job is worth.
Yes, authority is defined as the ability to control, but that's just it.... it is an ABILITY, and does not necessitate that said control is necessarily being exercised at any given time, while control itself is a much more absolute concept.
My point, however, remains... Uber does not control the number of drivers that it has, while an employer chooses to have a specific number of employees. Uber does exert some control over the vehicles that the drivers are permitted to use, and this is probably the strongest argument that the Uber drivers are employees, but this point is rarely mentioned except as an afterthought... the only thing that these stories always bring up is the matter that the drivers don't get to negotiate fares with the passengers, but since the passengers are not the driver's clients, how much that the passengers should pay or how they should pay is none of the driver's business. It baffles me that these same points are always brought up.
Slashdot Mirror
For fuck's sake, that's why tablets are called tablets in the first place, because they are... you know... shaped like a tablet.
Suggesting that it shouldn't be called one because it's actually a portable home console is is like saying that you shouldn't call an EV a car because it's not powered by gasoline.
Obviously they could probably control calls from and to the device if those calls were actually being governed by the company, but the articl;e says not only are these things banned for work purposes, they ouright banned on the entire device if that device is used for work. Presumably, if the device is privately owned, it is used for things *other* than work as well.... but this policy would seem to suggest that encryption apps that do not allow the company to track communication with them would be prohibited on *ANY* device that is ever used for work, even if said communication had nothing to do with work.
Plus, if they do not actually prohibit it to that extent, then there is nothing stopping people from using said devices to communicate with eachother about work-related stuffs outside of regular work-hours anyways.
[nt]
For a lawyer, you'd think he should know the law better than that.
I strongly suspect he "couldn't" because of some personal convictions on the matter more than because of what he was legally allowed to do.
Actually, the president of the United States does not need to wait for a trial to issue a pardon. I do not want to speculate on whether Obama was deliberately lying or he has just been misinformed, but the statement that he cannot pardon him because Snowden hasn't been to trial yet is actually entirely false.
Psh. A pre-emptive pardon can still be issued. A century and a half ago, SCotUS explicitly determined that except for cases of impeachment, presidential pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment". Where do people get the notion that such a pardon can only be issued after a trial?
Ideally, the creatures' presence does not impact you, and you do not affect them, so you can both go about your business as usual. If this is not feasible, then you must relocate them without harming them. There are companies that specialize in this kind of thing, and the place that my wife worked for contracted such a company for their purposes. After the creatures have been evacuated, you are generally permitted to use any passive measures you desire to discourage reincursion. You are categorically *NOT* permitted to do anything that harms the creatures that may come into your property as a means of keeping them off of your property.
So yes... it is an inconvenience, and a potentially very expensive one, but it usually doesn't have to spell the end of your entire business.
When the story came out last month that Samsung was killing the headphone jack, I said back then that something was up... there was no substantiation of the report beyond the article that Slashdot itself linked to, and every cross-reference I could find online always linked back to the same location... so either they made the whole thing up, or else the publishers at that website couldn't think past how juicy the story sounded to do even the most rudimentary fact-checking.
But hey... who can blame them? Fake news sells more site visits, I guess, so why should Slashdot be any different.
You exaggerate. My wife used to work for a company that was affected by this once, and it's nowhere near as bad as you say.
... if one gets splatted on your windshield while driving?
I have never even seen jewelers sell their wares for less than 50% off anywhere in Canada... They always say it's a sale, but in fact, the sale price *is* their everyday price.
Except, as I said, the world's population is *NOT* exceeding its carrying capacity, rather the rate at which we consume resources is what is *really* not sustainable... not the current population. The rate at which we are consuming these resources has nothing to do with the actual world's population because the places where the population is growing the fastest are also places that are the least developed, and not consuming as many of those resources in the first place, therefore, those resources do not appear to be necessary for life itself, but at most only a particular quality of life enjoyed by the most developed nations on earth.
Sure, but by analogy it's not the population itself that is unsustainable, it is the rate of consumption of certain resources that is unsustainable. As it happens, the resources we are liable to run out of the soonest appear to only give us a particular *quality* of life, not life itself, since the regions of the world where population is rising fastest do not consume nearly as much of those resources as more developed nations do.
If, in fact, the population were not currently sustainable, then the population would currently be dropping, but it is not.
Psh. If the planet were truly overpopulated then population would be decreasing, not climbing. What you really mean to say by the planet is overpopulated is that you don't think as many people deserve the same standard if living as you, or perhaps that they don't deserve to live at all.
How does writing down the ruleset that a site requires, which is information that you get when you first create the password, allow anyone to guess your passwords? This is information that anyone who was setting up a password on that site would already know anyways, or at least be able to trivially get. You would be no more compromising your own passwords with such information than you would be compromising everybody else's.
Why would the guesser know that they had been blocked? It could easily be set up so as far as they can tell, the password is just wrong... they may have no outwardly visible indication that the router has blacklisted their MAC address. For what it's worth, it could even be set up so that an incorrect password blocks *ALL* new wireless connection attempts for a period of, say, 1 second, regardless of the device. This would make it impossible to try more than a single guess every second, even if it were to cycle mac addresses or try and clone one your existing ones, and would make any automated attempts at brute-forcing a password infeasible. In practice, this would not hinder a human being attempting to connect who had got the password wrong because they would be manually correcting it and trying again anyways.
Is there some reason you can't be bothered to write down the ruleset if you think you wouldn't remember it?
It is not infeasible to blacklist a MAC address from your wireless router after repeated password failure attempts over a short time. This could make automated brute-force password guessing from a device such as what you've described impractical.
Not always... but when one's civic rights are violated, most certainly.
Actually, that toxic problem becomes illegal when somebody has to apply for employment insurance because of it.... particularly in jurisdictions where EI does not normally pay out when a person voluntarily quits the job.
IANAL, but I have known several people to have dealt with constructive dismissal lawsuits in the past, and it seems like they are usually open-and-shut... often settling out of court. While the payout may not be a life-changing experience like winning a lottery may be, it can still amount to several months' pay, and the extra funds can certainly come in handy while one is looking for new job. If one finds a new job quickly enough, they are that far ahead of the game.
It's less about being bullied than it is about having to pay EI because of it. It's called constructive dismissal and is illegal in most jurisdictions.
Quit. If you cite bullying harassment that management was unwilling to deal with as a reason for quitting when applying for EI, then the company will be investigated, and will probably at least ensure that the asshole who put you in this position doesn't do the same to anyone else. You may even be able to sue them for constructive dismissal.
The unwillingness of Uber to negotiate a price beyond what they offered for the job does not make one working for them an employee. For example, if I say that I will pay $15 to somebody to shovel my walkway after it snows, and I am firm on that amount, if somebody agrees to do it, they don't get to turn around and say that just because they couldn't negotiate a price I need to be paying for employee benefits. Further, they don't get to spend all day doing the job and try to suggest that I need to be paying them a minimum hourly wage either. While inability to negotiate a price with the customer is a *FACTOR* in determining whether one is an independent contractor or employee, the difference between what Uber is doing here and what somebody who decides how much they think a job is worth and isn't willing to negotiate is infinitesimal, and shouldn't be considered a primary deciding factor. That there might be an ongoing relationship between the drivers and Uber which could look like an employer-employee relationship is also a red herring, because Uber is not the one that is maintaining that relationship, the only reason it exists at all in Uber's case is because the driver keeps accepting more jobs for the same client. Uber does not try and restrict the number of drivers that are available to take jobs, while an employer has complete control over how many people they will hire. An independent contractor could further not try and claim that somebody they repeatedly took jobs for was their employer and that they needed to be receiving employee benefits from that party just because of how frequently they worked for them.
The *only* reasons that I can see that uber drivers could be considered employees is in 1) how they control what kind of car their drivers are allowed to use, and 2) that they do not allow the people that they pay to further subcontract other drivers to actually do the work. These reasons, particularly the latter one, are chief factors in why Uber drivers ought to be employees, but I never see them mentioned in stories like this... they focus instead on how the drivers are being paid when there is no substantial difference between Uber in this regard and anyone else hiring an independent contractor who has already decided how much they think that a job is worth.
Yes, authority is defined as the ability to control, but that's just it.... it is an ABILITY, and does not necessitate that said control is necessarily being exercised at any given time, while control itself is a much more absolute concept.
My point, however, remains... Uber does not control the number of drivers that it has, while an employer chooses to have a specific number of employees. Uber does exert some control over the vehicles that the drivers are permitted to use, and this is probably the strongest argument that the Uber drivers are employees, but this point is rarely mentioned except as an afterthought... the only thing that these stories always bring up is the matter that the drivers don't get to negotiate fares with the passengers, but since the passengers are not the driver's clients, how much that the passengers should pay or how they should pay is none of the driver's business. It baffles me that these same points are always brought up.