Of course, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try and avoid an accident with a car behind me, since the actualy responsibility for that goes to the driver that is behind me. If I feel I need to stop or slow down to assess an unexpected situation, I will do so, because I have a responsibility to not cause an accident ahead of me with my own vehicle.
The Colorado laws regarding meal breaks govern the activities of the employer, not the employee. The employer is entirely free to discipline an employee who has worked more time than was authorized under the company's normal disciplinary policies, but the employee must still be paid for all time that they worked.
"The employer is required to provide" is not actually the same thing as "the employee is required to take". An employer cannot deduct time for a lunch break that was not taken. The employer can, however, discipline an employee for failing to take a lunch break when they were supposed to, and can refuse to honor the time worked during the expected lunch break if this is stipulated in the employment contract. In absence of any such contract, the employee is still required to be paid for all time worked.
Employers are certainly free to require that employees take a lunch break to prevent the "he said-she said" scenario, but employees are not actually directly required to take such breaks by law. You may want to reread the California statutes again.
The employer cannot deduct a lunch break if the employee did not take one. If the employer mandates that lunch breaks be taken, or will not necessarily approve of all hours worked if no lunch break is taken, then this sort of thing must explicitly be described in the employment contract that the employee signs when they first start working for that employer. In some jurisdictions, it is required by law that employers offer breaks to employees who work more than a certain number of otherwise consecutive hours, but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
Only *IF* the person behind was following too closely for their speed in the first place. Generally speaking, rear-end collisions are open-and-shut with insurance companies... and the person behind is ordinarily considered 100% at fault for the accident (the exceptions to this typically require separate and unbiased testimony from quite a few witnesses, or what would work even better is an actual video recording of the incident to show the person in front was at fault), and insurance will fully cover all of the expenses applicable for both vehicle damage restoration and any injury claims.
Of course... and pilots should never trust their electronic guidance to get them where they need to go... they should only ever use visual confirmation near the ground and dead reckoning while at altitude.
What's wrong with hitting the brakes in an unexpected emergency to assess the actual danger, exactly? If the person behind collides with them, they were following too closely for the speed the person behind was going in the first place. That's not the fault of the person who slowed down or stopped their car.
And you realize that the arctic and antarctic circles do not account individually account for a very large percentage of the earth's surface that continues to receive sunlight while they are in darkness, right? The planet, as a whole, still receives heat from the sun.
Thank you... that's exactly the sort of statistics I was wondering about. So it's survivable, but probably regularly quite chilly. Basically, you'd get short period of winter like weather at least once every orbit, regardless of the actual season based on its orientation to the sun.
"...customers will have the ability to buy as much data as they want"
Because taken at face value, that comment means that they should be offering customers as much money as they need to get all of the data that their customers want. After all, if a customer don't have enough money to pay for it, then they don't really have the ability to buy it, do they?
I imagined the eclipse lasting several days each revolution... it would be orbiting a gas-giant, which is substantially larger than the moon itself, and close enough to the gas giant that it may possibly even tidally locked to it.
I can easily envisiion a situation where an entire moon is plunged into shadow as it orbits a gas giant. This would, I presume, cause temperatures to fall for the duration of the eclipse, and if it lasted too long, I can imagine that such a regular occurrence would likely make the moon inhospitable to life as we know it, even if it is the right distance from the sun to support liquid water, and even if it had an appropriate gravitational pull and atmosphere.
Yes... so there would have to be a statistically measurable difference between accident rates from people who have automated cars vs people who drive them manually. This will take quite a long time for enough data to be collected to have statistical significance with respect to the actual number of automobiles that are on the road.
It would be up to the human who is babysitting the ai, just as much as you have to babysit cruisecontrol, to realize that the car is not doing things properly.
That's only applicable if the key is the same for each and every device. The key itself can still be set uniquely for each device, and put into an eeprom circuit that is built into the device's hardware, and not changeable simply by swapping out any IC's that would not also amount to basically swapping out the entire innards of the phone. In the end, the only useful component of such a bricked phone would be its casing... making theft unprofitable, and when it's common enough, hopefully discouraging such theft from occurring in the first place.
Yes it is part of the deal... Until they have demonstrated reliability at being safer than human drivers with several years of data over many millions of vehicles.
Unless there's a hardware component (say a physical key you need to insert into a slot on the side of the phone)....
What about having to physically enter a passcode on the device's keypad? The locking itself can be in software, but that locking software can easily be hardcoded onto the silicon, and not something you can bypass with any software technique.
The Android app does not lock the phone, it erases it. The phone itself would still be usable once you replace the sim card. The point of the law is to make the theft of protected cell phones unprofitable by requiring that the functionality be embedded into the device itself, and make the phone unusable for anything beyond making an emergency call, or using the keypad to enter in the appropriate unlock code.
I'm sure competent hackers will immediately find ways around this stupid "Kill Switch" idea.
I would assume that reversal requires physical access to the phone, and also the manual entry of the correct password into the device itself, the password being one that is created by the user (initially randomized at manufacture, the default code for it being on a small slip of paper that comes with the phone when you buy it brand new). Since each password attempt would have to be manually entered, there is no viable way to expedite cracking such a phone, and I would imagine that most people even trying to do so would probably quickly abandon the attempt. And if the point of the law is to simply make theft of cell phones unprofitable, I think it would probably succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, but I'm not going to go out of my way to try and avoid an accident with a car behind me, since the actualy responsibility for that goes to the driver that is behind me. If I feel I need to stop or slow down to assess an unexpected situation, I will do so, because I have a responsibility to not cause an accident ahead of me with my own vehicle.
The Colorado laws regarding meal breaks govern the activities of the employer, not the employee. The employer is entirely free to discipline an employee who has worked more time than was authorized under the company's normal disciplinary policies, but the employee must still be paid for all time that they worked.
"The employer is required to provide" is not actually the same thing as "the employee is required to take". An employer cannot deduct time for a lunch break that was not taken. The employer can, however, discipline an employee for failing to take a lunch break when they were supposed to, and can refuse to honor the time worked during the expected lunch break if this is stipulated in the employment contract. In absence of any such contract, the employee is still required to be paid for all time worked.
Employers are certainly free to require that employees take a lunch break to prevent the "he said-she said" scenario, but employees are not actually directly required to take such breaks by law. You may want to reread the California statutes again.
That line is Trochaic tetrameter, not iambic pentameter.
The employer cannot deduct a lunch break if the employee did not take one. If the employer mandates that lunch breaks be taken, or will not necessarily approve of all hours worked if no lunch break is taken, then this sort of thing must explicitly be described in the employment contract that the employee signs when they first start working for that employer. In some jurisdictions, it is required by law that employers offer breaks to employees who work more than a certain number of otherwise consecutive hours, but I know of no legislation anywhere that an employee might be required by law take them if they do not want to.
Only *IF* the person behind was following too closely for their speed in the first place. Generally speaking, rear-end collisions are open-and-shut with insurance companies... and the person behind is ordinarily considered 100% at fault for the accident (the exceptions to this typically require separate and unbiased testimony from quite a few witnesses, or what would work even better is an actual video recording of the incident to show the person in front was at fault), and insurance will fully cover all of the expenses applicable for both vehicle damage restoration and any injury claims.
Of course... and pilots should never trust their electronic guidance to get them where they need to go... they should only ever use visual confirmation near the ground and dead reckoning while at altitude.
What's wrong with hitting the brakes in an unexpected emergency to assess the actual danger, exactly? If the person behind collides with them, they were following too closely for the speed the person behind was going in the first place. That's not the fault of the person who slowed down or stopped their car.
And you realize that the arctic and antarctic circles do not account individually account for a very large percentage of the earth's surface that continues to receive sunlight while they are in darkness, right? The planet, as a whole, still receives heat from the sun.
Thank you... that's exactly the sort of statistics I was wondering about. So it's survivable, but probably regularly quite chilly. Basically, you'd get short period of winter like weather at least once every orbit, regardless of the actual season based on its orientation to the sun.
In both of those situations, only *part* of the planet is in darkness for that period... what if the entire planet was?
Because taken at face value, that comment means that they should be offering customers as much money as they need to get all of the data that their customers want. After all, if a customer don't have enough money to pay for it, then they don't really have the ability to buy it, do they?
I imagined the eclipse lasting several days each revolution... it would be orbiting a gas-giant, which is substantially larger than the moon itself, and close enough to the gas giant that it may possibly even tidally locked to it.
I can easily envisiion a situation where an entire moon is plunged into shadow as it orbits a gas giant. This would, I presume, cause temperatures to fall for the duration of the eclipse, and if it lasted too long, I can imagine that such a regular occurrence would likely make the moon inhospitable to life as we know it, even if it is the right distance from the sun to support liquid water, and even if it had an appropriate gravitational pull and atmosphere.
There's nothing wrong with working.... as long as you are paying all the appropriate amounts of income tax.
What is the point of cruise control that you have to babysit in case your car suddenly decides to do twice the speed limit?
Yes... so there would have to be a statistically measurable difference between accident rates from people who have automated cars vs people who drive them manually. This will take quite a long time for enough data to be collected to have statistical significance with respect to the actual number of automobiles that are on the road.
It would be up to the human who is babysitting the ai, just as much as you have to babysit cruisecontrol, to realize that the car is not doing things properly.
That's only applicable if the key is the same for each and every device. The key itself can still be set uniquely for each device, and put into an eeprom circuit that is built into the device's hardware, and not changeable simply by swapping out any IC's that would not also amount to basically swapping out the entire innards of the phone. In the end, the only useful component of such a bricked phone would be its casing... making theft unprofitable, and when it's common enough, hopefully discouraging such theft from occurring in the first place.
Yes it is part of the deal... Until they have demonstrated reliability at being safer than human drivers with several years of data over many millions of vehicles.
What about having to physically enter a passcode on the device's keypad? The locking itself can be in software, but that locking software can easily be hardcoded onto the silicon, and not something you can bypass with any software technique.
No different at all, as long as you can't bypass the lock screen by changing the sim card.
The Android app does not lock the phone, it erases it. The phone itself would still be usable once you replace the sim card. The point of the law is to make the theft of protected cell phones unprofitable by requiring that the functionality be embedded into the device itself, and make the phone unusable for anything beyond making an emergency call, or using the keypad to enter in the appropriate unlock code.
I would assume that reversal requires physical access to the phone, and also the manual entry of the correct password into the device itself, the password being one that is created by the user (initially randomized at manufacture, the default code for it being on a small slip of paper that comes with the phone when you buy it brand new). Since each password attempt would have to be manually entered, there is no viable way to expedite cracking such a phone, and I would imagine that most people even trying to do so would probably quickly abandon the attempt. And if the point of the law is to simply make theft of cell phones unprofitable, I think it would probably succeed.