Where in the comment did you read anything that suggested it would be about licensing? Or were you unaware that Berkeley and MIT are actual, real-world institutions, and it's possible to use those names without necessarily referring to the corresponding open source license.
If it doesn't work, then study *WHY* it doesn't work.... *WHY* are people treated differently based on gender when there is no need to? Address that issue, and you solve the problem. Treating them differently to somehow compensate for how they may have already been treated differently is *STILL* treating them differently.
Instead of trying to compensate for a past that may have been less than ideal, people should concentrate on trying to make the future better than yesterday was.
And if you provide the factual information that they were fired because they were repeatedly late for work, or because they didn't do the work they were iinstructed to do, that too, or even if they simply didn't measure up to the standards you had laid out, that would be just as much of a fact as when they were working for you.
Not because they would lose a lawsuit but want to avoid one in the first place.
I get that... but when you get down to it, really, absolutely *anything* that they say other than "this employee was a good worker", especially if person calling about the reference actually asks a specific question pertaining to that, and the former employer provides what is essentially a non-sequitur answer that clearly reeks of wanting to avoid a lawsuit, which could certainly end up causing the person to not get hired, so the ex-employee could still try to sue them for saying stuff about the former employee that may have finalized the decision with the prospective employer to not hire them. The former employer can be just as damned if they do say something bad as damned if they don't say something good. They won't lose a court case, but would they lose, in court, if the previous employer just said that the employee didn't fit in with their company culture, or some such thing? After all, the employee isn't likely to know exactly what they said about them before filing a lawsuit... at most they would know only that something that they said led to the person not getting hired.
The best way to deal with the problem is to just stop treating people differently based on gender in the first place... perpetuating it by treating them differently to compensate for how they may have been treated differently by others just perpetuates the problem.
ISPs are legally expected to monitor and rat out their customers for accessing verboten content, ie torrents.
Not that I'm disputing the fact that more than a healthy percentage of torrent downloading is copyrighted content where unauthorized copies (ie, copies for which no explicit permission was ever given to make) are being distributed, but not *ALL* of it is... so who does the ISP "rat out" their customers to?
Would the standard Record of Employment form qualify for that, or is an employer required to personally write a letter stating much of the same information that is already on the employee's ROE?
"In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea."
Except, of course, for the fact that by trying to focus attention on how males and females are being treated differently where gender should be irrelevant, they are, in fact, treating the different genders differently when the notion of gender should be irrelevant, which only perpetuates the problem
Are there any explicit laws or precedents that indicate what specifically which data is safe for an employer to divulge that will not be considered incriminating to the character of the employee? I'd like references to them, if possible... If a prospective employer of a former employee of yours calls and asks you what kind of worker they were and you retort with what is essentially a non-sequitur by saying that all you can give are the dates that they worked there, that's going to paint a pretty clear picture that if you say anything else about the employee, you feel like they might try and sue you, and that will still almost universally lead to them not hiring that person (employers tend to shy away from employees who might try and sue former employers for saying something that wasn't false).
If they call asking for dates of employment, then they wouldn't need to talk to me at all, they *should* be talking to HR, who will have those records, and for that matter, I probably wouldn't be able to precisely confirm the dates anyways, even if I knew the individual personally. If my hands were really totally tied by HR like that with unsatisfactory employees, I'd probably default to directing any calls about such employees directly to HR, telling the caller that I apologize for any inconvenience, but I'm not readily able to answer any inquiries about that person that HR would not also be able to answer with at least as much expediency. We would, in such a case, be talking about a person that I never gave any kind of permission to for other employers to ask me questions about, after all. If an ex-employee asks me for a reference and I don't feel they were a good employee, I'll tell them that I'm not going to serve as a reference for them, and if anyone calls me about them, I'll direct their calls to HR. With HR tying my hands like that, if HR can't answer their questions, then neither can I anyways.
The only reason I can think of that an employer would ever even be willing to talk to the HR department at all is either if the former employee actually personally worked in HR, or else if the person that was given as a reference no longer worked there.
Sounds to me like the best thing to do, then, might be to just hang up as soon as you discover they are calling in regards to a job reference. Or is that against the law too?
If the law prevents him from saying anything bad, then certainly he could just say that the law prevents him from saying anything bad, and leave it at that.... The former boss hasn't said anything bad at all about the employee and has only expressed (completely truthfully) that the law in that jurisdiction prevents him from being able to do so, and advise the caller that they will have to form their own opinion.
I predict the final implosion on mobile app-mania will occur much closer to the end of the decade. Sometime in 2019 at the absolute latest, but probably no sooner than 2017.
Even if they do not own it, they still rent or lease it... regardless, it is their responsibility.
The private home viewing recording exemption to copyright applies to private home recording only... not to companies or even to individuals who would seek monetary compensation by recording content for absolutely anyone else who will pay for it. That puts them squarely into the content of broadcasting, and although it's not illegal to be a broadcaster in general, being a broadcaster doesn't automatically negate copyright infringement... the licensing fees that broadcasters pay to distribute content is so that they can *GET* permission to broadcast it without infringing on copyright.
The notice doesn't usually say anything about them recording you... It literally says "this call may be recorded". In English, that's expressly granting permission.
If it is on your own property then *you* are the one doing the recording, and not aero. The private home viewing exemption to copyright infringement enables you to record programs... But if you start collecting fees fom other people to record stuff for them, then you are forgoing that exemption.
The biggest argument against Aero, I think, lies in that the fact that they were doing it for commercial gain... As a general principle, they weren't actually doing anything that it isn't completely legal for a private person to do for their own purposes, but as soon as you throw making any money while doing it into the mix, any recordings that you make no longer qualify simply as "private home viewing" and are thus ineligible for copyright infringement exemption.
I personally suspect that the people who might worry the most about it may already be convinced that it is too late... and any actions that we take now will at best only make a difference of a couple of generations, at most... leading them, perhaps ironically, to not really make any serious effort to take responsibility for what they may be able to do to slow it down.
The heat dissipation isn't bad when you are starting with 6 volts, or 4aa batteries. For battery powered applications, you want to use a low power regulator in the sub 1watt range. Of course, if 4.5 v will suffice then it's not an issue because you can use just 3 cells, but standard USB, I believe does require a regulated 5v
Re:Slow CPU, crippled network, too little RAM
on
New Raspberry Pi Model B+
·
· Score: 3, Informative
input voltages than 5V are still not accepted, making battery powered applications unnecessarily difficult.
Only if you think that adding a voltage regulator chip to your power supply is difficult. A 5v regulator, the 7805, costs about 50 cents a piece even when you buy them in very small quantities.
Even if the fees are being paid for by the merchants, forcing them to charge higher prices, the people who pay in cash at places that accept both are having to pay those higher prices just as much as a person who doesn't ever carry cash would..
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the comment did you read anything that suggested it would be about licensing? Or were you unaware that Berkeley and MIT are actual, real-world institutions, and it's possible to use those names without necessarily referring to the corresponding open source license.
If it doesn't work, then study *WHY* it doesn't work.... *WHY* are people treated differently based on gender when there is no need to? Address that issue, and you solve the problem. Treating them differently to somehow compensate for how they may have already been treated differently is *STILL* treating them differently.
Instead of trying to compensate for a past that may have been less than ideal, people should concentrate on trying to make the future better than yesterday was.
And if you provide the factual information that they were fired because they were repeatedly late for work, or because they didn't do the work they were iinstructed to do, that too, or even if they simply didn't measure up to the standards you had laid out, that would be just as much of a fact as when they were working for you.
I get that... but when you get down to it, really, absolutely *anything* that they say other than "this employee was a good worker", especially if person calling about the reference actually asks a specific question pertaining to that, and the former employer provides what is essentially a non-sequitur answer that clearly reeks of wanting to avoid a lawsuit, which could certainly end up causing the person to not get hired, so the ex-employee could still try to sue them for saying stuff about the former employee that may have finalized the decision with the prospective employer to not hire them. The former employer can be just as damned if they do say something bad as damned if they don't say something good. They won't lose a court case, but would they lose, in court, if the previous employer just said that the employee didn't fit in with their company culture, or some such thing? After all, the employee isn't likely to know exactly what they said about them before filing a lawsuit... at most they would know only that something that they said led to the person not getting hired.
The best way to deal with the problem is to just stop treating people differently based on gender in the first place... perpetuating it by treating them differently to compensate for how they may have been treated differently by others just perpetuates the problem.
Not really that big... in Canada.
Not that I'm disputing the fact that more than a healthy percentage of torrent downloading is copyrighted content where unauthorized copies (ie, copies for which no explicit permission was ever given to make) are being distributed, but not *ALL* of it is... so who does the ISP "rat out" their customers to?
Would the standard Record of Employment form qualify for that, or is an employer required to personally write a letter stating much of the same information that is already on the employee's ROE?
Except, of course, for the fact that by trying to focus attention on how males and females are being treated differently where gender should be irrelevant, they are, in fact, treating the different genders differently when the notion of gender should be irrelevant, which only perpetuates the problem
Are there any explicit laws or precedents that indicate what specifically which data is safe for an employer to divulge that will not be considered incriminating to the character of the employee? I'd like references to them, if possible... If a prospective employer of a former employee of yours calls and asks you what kind of worker they were and you retort with what is essentially a non-sequitur by saying that all you can give are the dates that they worked there, that's going to paint a pretty clear picture that if you say anything else about the employee, you feel like they might try and sue you, and that will still almost universally lead to them not hiring that person (employers tend to shy away from employees who might try and sue former employers for saying something that wasn't false).
If they call asking for dates of employment, then they wouldn't need to talk to me at all, they *should* be talking to HR, who will have those records, and for that matter, I probably wouldn't be able to precisely confirm the dates anyways, even if I knew the individual personally. If my hands were really totally tied by HR like that with unsatisfactory employees, I'd probably default to directing any calls about such employees directly to HR, telling the caller that I apologize for any inconvenience, but I'm not readily able to answer any inquiries about that person that HR would not also be able to answer with at least as much expediency. We would, in such a case, be talking about a person that I never gave any kind of permission to for other employers to ask me questions about, after all. If an ex-employee asks me for a reference and I don't feel they were a good employee, I'll tell them that I'm not going to serve as a reference for them, and if anyone calls me about them, I'll direct their calls to HR. With HR tying my hands like that, if HR can't answer their questions, then neither can I anyways.
The only reason I can think of that an employer would ever even be willing to talk to the HR department at all is either if the former employee actually personally worked in HR, or else if the person that was given as a reference no longer worked there.
Sounds to me like the best thing to do, then, might be to just hang up as soon as you discover they are calling in regards to a job reference. Or is that against the law too?
Instead of giving details, can't you just say that you would not recommend the person to anyone, and leave it at that?
If the law prevents him from saying anything bad, then certainly he could just say that the law prevents him from saying anything bad, and leave it at that.... The former boss hasn't said anything bad at all about the employee and has only expressed (completely truthfully) that the law in that jurisdiction prevents him from being able to do so, and advise the caller that they will have to form their own opinion.
I predict the final implosion on mobile app-mania will occur much closer to the end of the decade. Sometime in 2019 at the absolute latest, but probably no sooner than 2017.
Even if they do not own it, they still rent or lease it... regardless, it is their responsibility.
The private home viewing recording exemption to copyright applies to private home recording only... not to companies or even to individuals who would seek monetary compensation by recording content for absolutely anyone else who will pay for it. That puts them squarely into the content of broadcasting, and although it's not illegal to be a broadcaster in general, being a broadcaster doesn't automatically negate copyright infringement... the licensing fees that broadcasters pay to distribute content is so that they can *GET* permission to broadcast it without infringing on copyright.
The notice doesn't usually say anything about them recording you... It literally says "this call may be recorded". In English, that's expressly granting permission.
If it is on your own property then *you* are the one doing the recording, and not aero. The private home viewing exemption to copyright infringement enables you to record programs... But if you start collecting fees fom other people to record stuff for them, then you are forgoing that exemption.
The biggest argument against Aero, I think, lies in that the fact that they were doing it for commercial gain... As a general principle, they weren't actually doing anything that it isn't completely legal for a private person to do for their own purposes, but as soon as you throw making any money while doing it into the mix, any recordings that you make no longer qualify simply as "private home viewing" and are thus ineligible for copyright infringement exemption.
I personally suspect that the people who might worry the most about it may already be convinced that it is too late... and any actions that we take now will at best only make a difference of a couple of generations, at most... leading them, perhaps ironically, to not really make any serious effort to take responsibility for what they may be able to do to slow it down.
The heat dissipation isn't bad when you are starting with 6 volts, or 4aa batteries. For battery powered applications, you want to use a low power regulator in the sub 1watt range. Of course, if 4.5 v will suffice then it's not an issue because you can use just 3 cells, but standard USB, I believe does require a regulated 5v
Only if you think that adding a voltage regulator chip to your power supply is difficult. A 5v regulator, the 7805, costs about 50 cents a piece even when you buy them in very small quantities.
... all this proves is that studies can prove absolutely anything that you want them to.
Even if the fees are being paid for by the merchants, forcing them to charge higher prices, the people who pay in cash at places that accept both are having to pay those higher prices just as much as a person who doesn't ever carry cash would..