... shouldn't one have to pay the same amount to make a call anywhere in the world as they would for a local call?
Or do the companies charge different amounts because there might actually be real differences in cost associated with providing that service?
And if it really is the latter, why should an ISP be prohibited from charging less, or even not at all, for providing access to facilities that might happen to cost *THEM* less money to have provided to their customers in the first place? Why should an ISP be prohibited from charging a customer more for services that actually cost *THEM* more, because the content isn't already on their their own network?
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
It wouldn't matter, 17 U.S. Code S 1201 SS e covers that:
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.
Imagine a computer that uses voice recognition to gain access, but also determines from the sound of your voice if you are under any kind of duress, and so voice recognition will fail. Even in regions where one might be sent to jail for not giving law enforcement access to your devices until they cooperate, if you showed them that you could not access your system on demand, could they also throw you in jail for refusing too to grant them access without feeling like you were being forced to?
I am restricting this conjecture to nations that otherwise have relatively decent justice systems, but have been perhaps driven by some recent events into a state where they might hide behind the notion that trying to catch certain types of people that are really dangerous, such as terrorists or pedophiles, carries far more weight than allowing people to have any privacy.
So the law that allows employees to demand to be paid in cash has no teeth, since the employer can refuse to hire them in the first place if they won't accept the payment method desired by the employer.
When so-called selfishness is really just self-interest. It isn't. There's nothing wrong with acting in your own self-interests... It's one thing to be looking out for yourself as a priority, but it's quite another to desire more than what you may actually need, or might be entitled to. Human beings are social creatures, and accomplish far more when we cooperate than when we all work alone... selfishness typically impedes such cooperation, and is therefore objectively wrong.
Obviously there are caveats on what constitutes professional behavior depending on the business, but Microsoft is not in the business of operating night clubs or renting dancers for parties, so for a company like Microsoft, this atmosphere was unprofessional.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being unprofessional either, or even an unprofessional atmosphere... but it shouldn't ever be on the company dollar.
When a court has ordered them to do so and they have lost all appeals.
Not enforceable... since Apple would not have authored the binary, they would have no guarantee that it might not be used to harm them. It would be tantamount to a court mandating that an individual play Russian roulette... that doing such a thing might help the FBI in this one particular instance is wholly irrelevant to the fact that it has every potential to harm Apple (almost the *exact* same reason that Apple does not want to write the software themselves in the first place), and a court cannot rightfully order anyone or any company to do something that is self-destructive.
Of course, if justice is thrown out the window, then the court can do whatever the fuck it wants... and just throw the Apple CEO in prison until the company acquiesces. Apple will probably leave the USA entirely if it comes to that.
The first one is why should us law enforcement be so special? If the FBI is allowed to do this then so should law enforcement from ny other nation, what if one of them does not just limit it to a single device?
Secondly, why on earth should Apple be expected to sign *any* binary that they did not author themselves?
The obvious rebuttal is that apparently there is gold in them thar hills. Baiting for heterosexual men probably works profitably to increase sales of games, else they wouldn't do so much of it.
Of course... and had the event been open to the general public, I really couldn't have cared less about this, and probably would have been wondering why it was even news.
But this was a corporately funded event specifically for the employees, which reflects directly on how the company wants to treat its employees, and no company should *EVER*, even off of work hours, treat any employee with anything but professionalism and respect. An environment where women are objectualized as sexual objects, however human and entirely natural anyone might argue this kind of thing to be (and I won't even disagree with them), is not generally considered very professional. The event was certainly private in the sense that it was not public, but the event was also *NOT* private in the sense that it was still *corporate*. While individuals might be entitled to go off the clock at the end of the day, the company itself should never do so.
And so, had this been hosted by some executives at Microsoft, who paid for it themselves instead of putting it on the company dollar directly, I wouldn't have taken an issue with this.
My problem is not with people looking at women who are dancing while perhaps wearing less than a half dozen or so square feet of material covering their entire bodies, my problem is that outside of certain industries where that may literally be what the job is about, it isn't at all professional, and since Microsoft is not in such an industry, and because the company was hosting it, employees who were going to attend had at least some reasonable basis to expect professionalism at the event, even though it was an 'after party', as it were.
But by no means am I some kind of feminist SJW who is offended at the very notion that some substantial percentage of men might find ogling pretty young women in skimpy clothes to be an enjoyable pastime.
Of course, now I've probably pissed of such people who may have formerly thought I was trying to champion their cause. But hey, my thoughts have been criticized to death by at most of the respondents to my posts so far... I might as well load up on abuse from the rest.
Had this kind of thing been at a function that was being paid for by some Microsoft employees, I would have had no problem with it... the fact that it was the company that paid for and hosted the vent is where it becomes problematic. There's nothing wrong with people that might like to look at pretty young women in skimpy clothing, but that doesn't make the behavior professional, and because it was the company that was paying for it, it represents the company, and a company should *NEVER* be unprofessional with its own employees.
I don't value the SJW rage that you seem to be ascribing to me at all, I only maintain that if the company was going to pay for it, and this was for their employees, then the standards for entertainment should have been substantially higher than appealing to people that like to look at pretty young women in skimpy clothing. I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with looking at such, or anyone that might enjoy it, only that it's not particularly professional, and I *do* maintain that a company should *always* be treating its employees professionally. Since this was a company sponsored event that employees were specifically invited to, it carries a reflection of how the company chooses to treat its employees. This crosses the line, and is Microsoft's bad.
Had Microsoft not been paying for the after party, but it was simply a party that some Microsoft employees had paid for and hosted, I would similarly have had no issue with this.... in fact, it probably wouldn't have even been news, and we wouldn't even know about it unless we worked at MS and had gone.
That's the key, here... if it was the employees going to a dance club and having a good time after their conference, then people who might have been made to feel uncomfortable by this wouldn't have even been there in the first place.
As it was Microsoft that was footing the bill for it... yes it was. If it were to be a private function that was not a corporate event, the organizers should have paid for it from their own funds instead of it being funded by the company.
Now to be fair, I realize this was an 'after party'.... but to be equally fair, the organizers probably should have been up front with all of employees about the kind of entertainment that was hired for the party so that people who might be made uncomfortable by that kind of setting could make an informed choice to not go. The very fact that this even made news is every indication that people went to it who did not know what to expect.
By that reasoning, it should be illegal to fire an employee for sexual harassment because the employer would be discriminating against their so-called right to be a sexually active person.
Again, I have no problem with people having fun at their own events. But this was a *CORPORATE EVENT*.
Why, if one is not permitted to sexually harass employees, should a company still be permitted to subject them to a sexually charged atmosphere that is actively being paid for by the company? Really, if this were such a private party, as you suggest, then the people that might have been bothered by it wouldn't have had any occasion to be there in the first place because they would have known that their preferences would not be welcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Or do the companies charge different amounts because there might actually be real differences in cost associated with providing that service?
And if it really is the latter, why should an ISP be prohibited from charging less, or even not at all, for providing access to facilities that might happen to cost *THEM* less money to have provided to their customers in the first place? Why should an ISP be prohibited from charging a customer more for services that actually cost *THEM* more, because the content isn't already on their their own network?
Or, perhaps they are charging you more to view the content they do not own because they actually have to pay for it... because, you know, they don't own it in the first place... where if they own it already, then it is theirs to do with as they see fit and charge for it... or not.
[nt]
[nt]
Imagine a computer that uses voice recognition to gain access, but also determines from the sound of your voice if you are under any kind of duress, and so voice recognition will fail. Even in regions where one might be sent to jail for not giving law enforcement access to your devices until they cooperate, if you showed them that you could not access your system on demand, could they also throw you in jail for refusing too to grant them access without feeling like you were being forced to?
I am restricting this conjecture to nations that otherwise have relatively decent justice systems, but have been perhaps driven by some recent events into a state where they might hide behind the notion that trying to catch certain types of people that are really dangerous, such as terrorists or pedophiles, carries far more weight than allowing people to have any privacy.
So the law that allows employees to demand to be paid in cash has no teeth, since the employer can refuse to hire them in the first place if they won't accept the payment method desired by the employer.
Is it also illegal to refuse to hire someone in the first place because they will not accept electronic payment?
Sure there were... they just weren't called that back then. Usually, they were called philosophers, astronomers, or mathematicians.
I mean really... this one totally sucks so far.
If both, how is more than 45% less than something considered "nearly"?
To answer your question, people who actually keep up with news.
Have you considered the possibility that you may just need a new bed mattress?
When so-called selfishness is really just self-interest. It isn't. There's nothing wrong with acting in your own self-interests... It's one thing to be looking out for yourself as a priority, but it's quite another to desire more than what you may actually need, or might be entitled to. Human beings are social creatures, and accomplish far more when we cooperate than when we all work alone... selfishness typically impedes such cooperation, and is therefore objectively wrong.
Obviously there are caveats on what constitutes professional behavior depending on the business, but Microsoft is not in the business of operating night clubs or renting dancers for parties, so for a company like Microsoft, this atmosphere was unprofessional.
There's nothing inherently wrong with being unprofessional either, or even an unprofessional atmosphere... but it shouldn't ever be on the company dollar.
Not enforceable... since Apple would not have authored the binary, they would have no guarantee that it might not be used to harm them. It would be tantamount to a court mandating that an individual play Russian roulette... that doing such a thing might help the FBI in this one particular instance is wholly irrelevant to the fact that it has every potential to harm Apple (almost the *exact* same reason that Apple does not want to write the software themselves in the first place), and a court cannot rightfully order anyone or any company to do something that is self-destructive.
Of course, if justice is thrown out the window, then the court can do whatever the fuck it wants... and just throw the Apple CEO in prison until the company acquiesces. Apple will probably leave the USA entirely if it comes to that.
Oh... that's not how I read it at all.
Two questions. Consider them both carefully.
The first one is why should us law enforcement be so special? If the FBI is allowed to do this then so should law enforcement from ny other nation, what if one of them does not just limit it to a single device?
Secondly, why on earth should Apple be expected to sign *any* binary that they did not author themselves?
Of course... and had the event been open to the general public, I really couldn't have cared less about this, and probably would have been wondering why it was even news.
But this was a corporately funded event specifically for the employees, which reflects directly on how the company wants to treat its employees, and no company should *EVER*, even off of work hours, treat any employee with anything but professionalism and respect. An environment where women are objectualized as sexual objects, however human and entirely natural anyone might argue this kind of thing to be (and I won't even disagree with them), is not generally considered very professional. The event was certainly private in the sense that it was not public, but the event was also *NOT* private in the sense that it was still *corporate*. While individuals might be entitled to go off the clock at the end of the day, the company itself should never do so.
And so, had this been hosted by some executives at Microsoft, who paid for it themselves instead of putting it on the company dollar directly, I wouldn't have taken an issue with this.
My problem is not with people looking at women who are dancing while perhaps wearing less than a half dozen or so square feet of material covering their entire bodies, my problem is that outside of certain industries where that may literally be what the job is about, it isn't at all professional, and since Microsoft is not in such an industry, and because the company was hosting it, employees who were going to attend had at least some reasonable basis to expect professionalism at the event, even though it was an 'after party', as it were.
But by no means am I some kind of feminist SJW who is offended at the very notion that some substantial percentage of men might find ogling pretty young women in skimpy clothes to be an enjoyable pastime.
Of course, now I've probably pissed of such people who may have formerly thought I was trying to champion their cause. But hey, my thoughts have been criticized to death by at most of the respondents to my posts so far... I might as well load up on abuse from the rest.
Had this kind of thing been at a function that was being paid for by some Microsoft employees, I would have had no problem with it... the fact that it was the company that paid for and hosted the vent is where it becomes problematic. There's nothing wrong with people that might like to look at pretty young women in skimpy clothing, but that doesn't make the behavior professional, and because it was the company that was paying for it, it represents the company, and a company should *NEVER* be unprofessional with its own employees.
I don't value the SJW rage that you seem to be ascribing to me at all, I only maintain that if the company was going to pay for it, and this was for their employees, then the standards for entertainment should have been substantially higher than appealing to people that like to look at pretty young women in skimpy clothing. I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with looking at such, or anyone that might enjoy it, only that it's not particularly professional, and I *do* maintain that a company should *always* be treating its employees professionally. Since this was a company sponsored event that employees were specifically invited to, it carries a reflection of how the company chooses to treat its employees. This crosses the line, and is Microsoft's bad.
Had Microsoft not been paying for the after party, but it was simply a party that some Microsoft employees had paid for and hosted, I would similarly have had no issue with this.... in fact, it probably wouldn't have even been news, and we wouldn't even know about it unless we worked at MS and had gone.
paid for by the company.
That's the key, here... if it was the employees going to a dance club and having a good time after their conference, then people who might have been made to feel uncomfortable by this wouldn't have even been there in the first place.
As it was Microsoft that was footing the bill for it... yes it was. If it were to be a private function that was not a corporate event, the organizers should have paid for it from their own funds instead of it being funded by the company.
Now to be fair, I realize this was an 'after party'.... but to be equally fair, the organizers probably should have been up front with all of employees about the kind of entertainment that was hired for the party so that people who might be made uncomfortable by that kind of setting could make an informed choice to not go. The very fact that this even made news is every indication that people went to it who did not know what to expect.
By that reasoning, it should be illegal to fire an employee for sexual harassment because the employer would be discriminating against their so-called right to be a sexually active person.
Again, I have no problem with people having fun at their own events. But this was a *CORPORATE EVENT*.
Why, if one is not permitted to sexually harass employees, should a company still be permitted to subject them to a sexually charged atmosphere that is actively being paid for by the company? Really, if this were such a private party, as you suggest, then the people that might have been bothered by it wouldn't have had any occasion to be there in the first place because they would have known that their preferences would not be welcome.