I'm not sure how it in the USA, but In Canada it is *required* that employers give employees adequate time to vote. If the employee anticipates half a day, the employer is required to give that to them.
The employer can dock pay, of course... but missing out on only half a day's pay is an entirely a different kettle of fish to missing potentially multiple weeks worth of income.
I never suggested that Apple should be allowed to disobey the order entirely. My point behind the aesthetics of the site is that I can easily imaging it taking a lot longer than 48 hours to design a layout on their home page to accommodate the verbosity of what Apple is required to display, and that does not significantly detract from the aesthetic look that Apple may consider extremely important for their business.
Indeed, I think it's not unlikely that given the requirement that they have this up within 48 hours, Apple might even have legitimate grounds to protest the order on account of it creating an "ugly" home page.
Oh, and it would also have the upshot of ensuring that deliberation was not unduly long, since the government would not want to continue to pay the jury such amounts for longer than it absolutely had to.
Not as such.... but I can see it taking more than 48 hours to complete the page redesign that might be necessary to visually accommodate the notice without upsetting the aesthetic balance of their home page.
In the UK, Apple were previously ordered to add a statement to their website stating that Samsung did not copy their designs....
Apparently, Apple was ordered to do no such thing.
There were only ordered to acknowledge that the court had ruled it so... not to acknowledge that they were actually wrong about anything.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.
I might argue that if it was truly a civil and just society, then it would not generally ever be case that citizens would be unable to take time out their lives to help preserve that society on account of the financial distress it would cause.
At the very least, I believe that jury duty should compensate a person fairly (with an amount that is at least comparable to their current income levels). If that were the case, I expect you'd find substantially fewer people would be trying to avoid it.
Ignoring the fact that yeah, I think that might not be a bad idea.... voting is something that only takes a couple of hours out of one day every few years to do. You don't even have to take a full day off of work to do it.
Jury duty, on the other hand, can be significantly more disruptive, because it can extend for multiple weeks, throughout which a person will forfeit their normal income, and could result in potentially very high levels of financial stress.
What about job guarantees so you don't get fired while you're on jury duty?
I was under the impression that there was.
But yeah... the fact that a juror gets paid so little can amount to a huge amount of disruption to their lives, and it's quite understandable that people would want to go out of their way to avoid it.... much as they will go out of their way to avoid doing things that they perceive are likely to cause them other types of pain or suffering (it's not that jury duty itself is necessarily painful but it can easily end up putting a person in a significant amount of financial distress).
The reason, I think, that people "want out of it" is simply because it is too disruptive for them. It's not necessarily that they are unwilling to try to make a contribution to society, but it can amount to a rather significant commitment that can easily leave one unable to simply pick up their lives where they left off afterward, unless they have acquired enough savings to tide them over while their regular income gets disrupted. Even then, dipping into those funds for such a purpose can amount to a tremendous personal sacrifice... and to be frank, why should a person be *expected* to pay possibly quite significant amounts of money out of their own hard-earned wages in order to do something for somebody else? It's not so much about being selfish, but a lot of people are just trying to do everything they can simply to get by and hopefully try to make their lives better in the future. Jury duty can, for many people, take all such hope away.
16:10 is nice to have for computer monitors that might be used to watch video, because it allows space at the bottom or top of the screen for user interface controls that don't actually overlap the video.
...same as they need a warrant to use a thermal imaging device to search for grow houses
While granted, the results of such imaging isn't visible to the naked eye... detecting non-visible radiation coming from something does not involve subjecting it to anything more than a completely passive examination that can be done *ENTIRELY* externally, and does not amount to any sort of direct observation of the contents or actual activities on private property.
One should still need a warrant to physically search the place, however.
Legitimate news reports don't "create" anything. You can't "create" facts... you can only observe them and record them. You can't really own a fact either.
Or are they suggesting that french news reporters somehow also manufacture the facts?
Most bugs that I uncover with a debugger are often the result of small logic errors and typos where the incongruity between the expected behavior and what the program is actually doing focuses my attention on the exact flaws that I had made. Often examining the stack at critical points *before* the bug actually occurs can yield similar insight as well. Certainly there's nothing that I do with a debugger that I could not probably also do using printf or the like, and correlating that info with what is in a map file that the linker generates, but the debugger in an IDE allows me to perform it much more quickly.
Does that make me a more flawed programmer than most, because I rely on a computer to do what I could otherwise do by hand, but do not do the latter simply because it would take so much longer?
I might suggest that what differentiates an artist from someone who builds things is that artists actually create something that didn't exist previously. This is not the same thing as building in that an imaginative and creative process is involved (although building can definitely be a major part of creating)
What creative process do engineers generally practice as a part of their job function, exactly? They are certainly building bridges, but it's pretty hard to argue that they actually *create* them. That said, an engineer who *designs* a bridge could reasonably be considered an artist by the notion I've presented above, however.
I won't argue that replacing a domestic worker with a foreign one could reasonably be considered to be stealing jobs from Americans. My only point was that the mere act of companies choosing to hire foreign workers instead of domestic ones reasonably be construed as stealing anything from the domestic workers since the latter do not possess them yet I likened it to the notion of piracy, because some conglomerates like to argue that pirates are stealing from the publishers by depriving them of income they otherwise could have had, which of course, is a completely ludicrous concept of stealing.
Current jobs that Americans do not yet have, if foreigners are taking them.
Again... it is about taking away something that somebody do not yet actually possess.
If Americans were actually *losing* jobs that they formerly had, and were then replaced by foreign workers, than a much stronger argument would exist that they are stealing jobs from domestic workers. If this is not what is happening, then they cannot reasonably be considered to be "stealing" anything from anybody, any more than a media pirate steals money out of a publisher's pocket by avoiding paying for copyrighted works
Stealing is not about "future possession", it's whether you possess something or not.
My entire point is that, assuming this is true, then foreign workers can't really steal jobs from domestic workers, since the domestic ones don't actually have those jobs yet.
Either you *CAN* take something from somebody they don't yet possess, in which case piracy steals money from the people who would have been paid for it, or you *CANNOT* take something from somebody they don't yet posess, in which case, foreign workers don't actually take jobs from domestic people who don't actually have them.
Not that I'm complaining... I'm just a bit surprised. News for nerds north of the 49th.... If this was November, I'd suspect some sort of alliteration joke to be forthcoming.
First of all, they had absolutely no legal authority to demand that he delete photos from a camera. They can request it, but he would not be under any legal compulsion to comply. They can only tell him to stop taking photo's, or else to leave.
Secondly, he could not comply with the request to delete the photographs in question anyways, as it was a film camera... the only way to "delete" the photos would have been to open the camera and expose the entire roll, which is something else that they could not legally compel him to.
Dang typo.... I didn't mean to type "you foreign workers"... I started a sentence one way, and then changed what I was saying in the middle, and didn't realize what I had typed until I hit "submit".. I meant to just say "foreign workers"... I was not implying anything about your nationality.
But to be fair, how is taking a job that a domestic worker could otherwise have had any different from not pirating a work that the publisher could have otherwise received money for?
My point behind all this is, ultimately, that you either *CAN* steal something that somebody does not yet possesss, in which case, pirating a work instead of paying for it is stealing money from the creators of the work, or else that you *CANNOT* steal something that somebody does not yet possess, in which case, you foreign workers aren't stealing jobs from domestic ones.
You can't have it both ways and have a remotely consistent definition of stealing... all you end up with otherwise is just an arbitrary "well, I don't like this therefore that's bad, and oh, I can see the point behind this so therefore that's okay".
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure how it in the USA, but In Canada it is *required* that employers give employees adequate time to vote. If the employee anticipates half a day, the employer is required to give that to them.
The employer can dock pay, of course... but missing out on only half a day's pay is an entirely a different kettle of fish to missing potentially multiple weeks worth of income.
Even waits of many hours are unlikely to amount to needing to miss a full day of work. Half a day, at most.
I never suggested that Apple should be allowed to disobey the order entirely. My point behind the aesthetics of the site is that I can easily imaging it taking a lot longer than 48 hours to design a layout on their home page to accommodate the verbosity of what Apple is required to display, and that does not significantly detract from the aesthetic look that Apple may consider extremely important for their business.
Indeed, I think it's not unlikely that given the requirement that they have this up within 48 hours, Apple might even have legitimate grounds to protest the order on account of it creating an "ugly" home page.
Oh, and it would also have the upshot of ensuring that deliberation was not unduly long, since the government would not want to continue to pay the jury such amounts for longer than it absolutely had to.
Not as such.... but I can see it taking more than 48 hours to complete the page redesign that might be necessary to visually accommodate the notice without upsetting the aesthetic balance of their home page.
Apparently, Apple was ordered to do no such thing.
There were only ordered to acknowledge that the court had ruled it so... not to acknowledge that they were actually wrong about anything.
And to be fair, based on the verbosity of what Apple is required to post, I can understand their reluctance at putting it on their home page, since it could substantially alter how the page balances visually on a full screen browser.
I might argue that if it was truly a civil and just society, then it would not generally ever be case that citizens would be unable to take time out their lives to help preserve that society on account of the financial distress it would cause.
At the very least, I believe that jury duty should compensate a person fairly (with an amount that is at least comparable to their current income levels). If that were the case, I expect you'd find substantially fewer people would be trying to avoid it.
A mandatory holiday for voting seems excessive, because voting does not take up so much time as to use up an entire day.
Ignoring the fact that yeah, I think that might not be a bad idea.... voting is something that only takes a couple of hours out of one day every few years to do. You don't even have to take a full day off of work to do it.
Jury duty, on the other hand, can be significantly more disruptive, because it can extend for multiple weeks, throughout which a person will forfeit their normal income, and could result in potentially very high levels of financial stress.
I was under the impression that there was.
But yeah... the fact that a juror gets paid so little can amount to a huge amount of disruption to their lives, and it's quite understandable that people would want to go out of their way to avoid it.... much as they will go out of their way to avoid doing things that they perceive are likely to cause them other types of pain or suffering (it's not that jury duty itself is necessarily painful but it can easily end up putting a person in a significant amount of financial distress).
The reason, I think, that people "want out of it" is simply because it is too disruptive for them. It's not necessarily that they are unwilling to try to make a contribution to society, but it can amount to a rather significant commitment that can easily leave one unable to simply pick up their lives where they left off afterward, unless they have acquired enough savings to tide them over while their regular income gets disrupted. Even then, dipping into those funds for such a purpose can amount to a tremendous personal sacrifice... and to be frank, why should a person be *expected* to pay possibly quite significant amounts of money out of their own hard-earned wages in order to do something for somebody else? It's not so much about being selfish, but a lot of people are just trying to do everything they can simply to get by and hopefully try to make their lives better in the future. Jury duty can, for many people, take all such hope away.
16:10 is nice to have for computer monitors that might be used to watch video, because it allows space at the bottom or top of the screen for user interface controls that don't actually overlap the video.
... a beholder's primary eye *IS* in the center of its head.
While granted, the results of such imaging isn't visible to the naked eye... detecting non-visible radiation coming from something does not involve subjecting it to anything more than a completely passive examination that can be done *ENTIRELY* externally, and does not amount to any sort of direct observation of the contents or actual activities on private property.
One should still need a warrant to physically search the place, however.
Legitimate news reports don't "create" anything. You can't "create" facts... you can only observe them and record them. You can't really own a fact either.
Or are they suggesting that french news reporters somehow also manufacture the facts?
Does that make me a more flawed programmer than most, because I rely on a computer to do what I could otherwise do by hand, but do not do the latter simply because it would take so much longer?
I might suggest that what differentiates an artist from someone who builds things is that artists actually create something that didn't exist previously. This is not the same thing as building in that an imaginative and creative process is involved (although building can definitely be a major part of creating)
What creative process do engineers generally practice as a part of their job function, exactly? They are certainly building bridges, but it's pretty hard to argue that they actually *create* them. That said, an engineer who *designs* a bridge could reasonably be considered an artist by the notion I've presented above, however.
I won't argue that replacing a domestic worker with a foreign one could reasonably be considered to be stealing jobs from Americans. My only point was that the mere act of companies choosing to hire foreign workers instead of domestic ones reasonably be construed as stealing anything from the domestic workers since the latter do not possess them yet I likened it to the notion of piracy, because some conglomerates like to argue that pirates are stealing from the publishers by depriving them of income they otherwise could have had, which of course, is a completely ludicrous concept of stealing.
Current jobs that Americans do not yet have, if foreigners are taking them.
Again... it is about taking away something that somebody do not yet actually possess.
If Americans were actually *losing* jobs that they formerly had, and were then replaced by foreign workers, than a much stronger argument would exist that they are stealing jobs from domestic workers. If this is not what is happening, then they cannot reasonably be considered to be "stealing" anything from anybody, any more than a media pirate steals money out of a publisher's pocket by avoiding paying for copyrighted works
My entire point is that, assuming this is true, then foreign workers can't really steal jobs from domestic workers, since the domestic ones don't actually have those jobs yet.
Either you *CAN* take something from somebody they don't yet possess, in which case piracy steals money from the people who would have been paid for it, or you *CANNOT* take something from somebody they don't yet posess, in which case, foreign workers don't actually take jobs from domestic people who don't actually have them.
You cannot have it both ways.
Not that I'm complaining... I'm just a bit surprised. News for nerds north of the 49th.... If this was November, I'd suspect some sort of alliteration joke to be forthcoming.
In BC, which is where this incident occurred, the minimum wage is $10.25.
First of all, they had absolutely no legal authority to demand that he delete photos from a camera. They can request it, but he would not be under any legal compulsion to comply. They can only tell him to stop taking photo's, or else to leave.
Secondly, he could not comply with the request to delete the photographs in question anyways, as it was a film camera... the only way to "delete" the photos would have been to open the camera and expose the entire roll, which is something else that they could not legally compel him to.
Dang typo.... I didn't mean to type "you foreign workers"... I started a sentence one way, and then changed what I was saying in the middle, and didn't realize what I had typed until I hit "submit".. I meant to just say "foreign workers"... I was not implying anything about your nationality.
But to be fair, how is taking a job that a domestic worker could otherwise have had any different from not pirating a work that the publisher could have otherwise received money for?
My point behind all this is, ultimately, that you either *CAN* steal something that somebody does not yet possesss, in which case, pirating a work instead of paying for it is stealing money from the creators of the work, or else that you *CANNOT* steal something that somebody does not yet possess, in which case, you foreign workers aren't stealing jobs from domestic ones.
You can't have it both ways and have a remotely consistent definition of stealing... all you end up with otherwise is just an arbitrary "well, I don't like this therefore that's bad, and oh, I can see the point behind this so therefore that's okay".