We should not have to register vehicles, obtain drivers licenses, social security numbers, license plates, or submit to other forms of identification.
How do can you identify the owner of a vehicle and whether or not it has been stolen without registration? How do you verify that a person knows how to drive and the rules of the road without driver's licenses? How do you confirm that a person is who they say they are without a social security number? How do you identify a vehicle that has left the scene of an accident without a license plate?
It's not impossible to arrest someone for committing murder in a system without driver licenses or taxi licenses.
"Impossible" is a pretty high standard. There are also other lesser crimes that are much better dealt with from a license number rather than a name. Do you know how many Bob Smiths there are?
As a human being we should have a right to run a business without interference unless our actions are interfering with the rights of others.
How do you identify a person who has interfered with the rights of others and is no longer allowed to run the business?
You don't have a right to pollute the waters, but you do have a right to drive people without being licensed.
Where is this "right" written down? Who has agreed this is a "right"? Oh right, this would be your opinion. Too bad it is not the opinion of most people.
At the same time people have the right to refuse business with unlicensed drivers.
So every passenger would have to checks the driver's license, registration, insurance and inspection report before getting into a cab? That is why there are taxi licenses so the passenger can be sure that these checks have already been done.
Think impact with building. The President would probably be unhurt but a few guards would probably be injured or killed and the reputation of the US would be harmed.
Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time.
True but being laid off is an exceptionally stressful time which increases the chance of violence. There are many reported instances of people going off during or soon after being let go. It is much more frequent than a during normal work. To compensate for the increased danger there is increased security.
then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.
No, at regular times you have security at their regular posts ready to respond to incidents.
You still refuse to see the liability angle. A company is going to do everything possible to avoid paying out millions of dollars for not following a simple procedure. It is not about making the ex-employee feel bad it is about reducing liability.
Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor. This is a universal law that every child understands.
How does being given an escort imply laying on hands? Are you allowed to fight a police officer putting you in handcuffs while arresting you? I believe that is called resisting arrest and illegal.
Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight,...
All I see is them wanting you off their private property as is their right under the law. You have no right to be there and therefore were trespassing the instant they told you to leave.
Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.
It might will at least slow them down but not having security will definitely not stop someone. It is all about the company's due diligence. If things get to court the company has to show they did everything to avoid violence. In court, not having security present would be seen as lack of due diligence and the company would be held liable. Blame the issue on our litigious society.
Assuming no one is a threat is worse policy. In the worst case scenario when security is present an ex-employee feels slighted. In the worst case scenario when security is not present someone dies. If someone does get killed due to inaction by the company then the person is dead and the company is liable.
You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job.
No the company are telling people that there exists people who are capable of hurting others and the company does not have the ability to differentiate. The company will do everything to protect remaining employees and protect itself from litigation.
Whatever.... But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time? That's outrageous.
He is only banned until the trial is concluded and the years of prison time are the maximums for the charges. The maximums are not always imposed. He could also get off with probation and no jail time. Perhaps you should wait for the sentence before commenting on jail time.
So let me get this straight. You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass. Then you picked up two employees and carried them out of the store. That would be assault and battery since you actually touched someone. I think you are the one that is weird.
Think of the following scenario; 1. Inform flight control that you will be delivering letter by gyrocopter to the Capitol Lawn. 2. Load explosives in the mail bag. 3. Fly to the Capitol Lawn. 4. Crash into the Capitol Building and explode instead. How can you trust that the stated intentions are the actual intentions? How many time are such statements hoaxes?
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
It is. There are fewer people in parking lot and fewer improvised weapons available. It also does not give time for the frustration to build while in the office and explode which could end badly. Someone screaming and yelling in a parking lot is much less of a danger than doing the same thing and attacking people in the office.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees
The opposite is actually closer to the truth. It is about protecting the remaining workers from the laid off workers. No one can predict what someone will do during a traumatic experience like being laid off.
Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.
Put yourself on management's shoes. If security was not around and a laid off employee did go ballistic the company would be liable for any injuries. The court case would come down to the company failing to protect their employees from attack.
It is not about you. It is about some other person who is less stable and you just get treated the same. You get treated the same because managers are not psychologists. Even psychologists can not predict what a person will do during a traumatic experience like getting laid off.
I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day.
That is caused by a resource issue. The first part was to get it over with as quickly as possible. It also gives you time to absorb the implications. The second part was to ensure that security personnel were available to escort you to and from your desk in case you do go balistic.
Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff
That is probably "survivor's remorse". They don't want to see you because they don't want to think about why you got laid off instead of them.
Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.
The infrastructure is only partially there in a small part of London. They are proposing to use maglev which would require replacing the track. It looks like the want to do it in other places where they would need to bore their own tunnels.
How many supercomputers use the GM series GPU which is what this conversation is actually about. The K20 units use a different GPU and are beyond this conversation.
Designed for security needs to follow the KISS principle, keep it simple stupid.
In your opinion. Other people may have other opinions. Since there is no authority different people may use the same phrase and have different opinions about it.
Try $40 million (Qualcomm is about that size, the CEO makes $60 million)
The $60 million is after stock options and bonuses. His base pay is $805,582. Notice the article only talks about base pay and not bonuses and profit from the company. I sense a little spin happening in the announcement.
Slashdot Mirror
We should not have to register vehicles, obtain drivers licenses, social security numbers, license plates, or submit to other forms of identification.
How do can you identify the owner of a vehicle and whether or not it has been stolen without registration? How do you verify that a person knows how to drive and the rules of the road without driver's licenses? How do you confirm that a person is who they say they are without a social security number? How do you identify a vehicle that has left the scene of an accident without a license plate?
It's not impossible to arrest someone for committing murder in a system without driver licenses or taxi licenses.
"Impossible" is a pretty high standard. There are also other lesser crimes that are much better dealt with from a license number rather than a name. Do you know how many Bob Smiths there are?
As a human being we should have a right to run a business without interference unless our actions are interfering with the rights of others.
How do you identify a person who has interfered with the rights of others and is no longer allowed to run the business?
You don't have a right to pollute the waters, but you do have a right to drive people without being licensed.
Where is this "right" written down? Who has agreed this is a "right"? Oh right, this would be your opinion. Too bad it is not the opinion of most people.
At the same time people have the right to refuse business with unlicensed drivers.
So every passenger would have to checks the driver's license, registration, insurance and inspection report before getting into a cab? That is why there are taxi licenses so the passenger can be sure that these checks have already been done.
Think impact with building. The President would probably be unhurt but a few guards would probably be injured or killed and the reputation of the US would be harmed.
Yes the English language is strange sometimes.
Anyone is capable of hurting anyone else at ANY time.
True but being laid off is an exceptionally stressful time which increases the chance of violence. There are many reported instances of people going off during or soon after being let go. It is much more frequent than a during normal work. To compensate for the increased danger there is increased security.
then it's better to have armed guards surrounding the employees at all times while they're working, too.
No, at regular times you have security at their regular posts ready to respond to incidents.
You still refuse to see the liability angle. A company is going to do everything possible to avoid paying out millions of dollars for not following a simple procedure. It is not about making the ex-employee feel bad it is about reducing liability.
Well, if you put your hands on me with hostile intent, you're implicitly giving me permission to return the favor.
This is a universal law that every child understands.
How does being given an escort imply laying on hands? Are you allowed to fight a police officer putting you in handcuffs while arresting you? I believe that is called resisting arrest and illegal.
Given that all I did was carry those people outside and then tell them that if we wanted to fight,...
All I see is them wanting you off their private property as is their right under the law. You have no right to be there and therefore were trespassing the instant they told you to leave.
I was if anything, too forgiving.
You really don't understand the law do you?
Somone who is in thae aircraft while the masks drop might think the aircraft is in imminent danger and die of a stress induced heart attack.
Additional security isn't going to stop someone if they're belligerent enough.
It might will at least slow them down but not having security will definitely not stop someone. It is all about the company's due diligence. If things get to court the company has to show they did everything to avoid violence. In court, not having security present would be seen as lack of due diligence and the company would be held liable. Blame the issue on our litigious society.
The reason I mentioned "touching" is that threatening is "assault" and actually coming into contact is "battery".
Assuming everyone is a threat IS bad policy.
Assuming no one is a threat is worse policy. In the worst case scenario when security is present an ex-employee feels slighted. In the worst case scenario when security is not present someone dies. If someone does get killed due to inaction by the company then the person is dead and the company is liable.
You are telling EVERYONE that works there that you believe they are capable of hurting people because they lost a job.
No the company are telling people that there exists people who are capable of hurting others and the company does not have the ability to differentiate. The company will do everything to protect remaining employees and protect itself from litigation.
Would you want to be the one who shot down n unarmed mailman? HAd he deviated at all from his plan he probably would have been.
Whatever.... But banning him from setting foot in the District of Columbia and talking about YEARS of prison time? That's outrageous.
He is only banned until the trial is concluded and the years of prison time are the maximums for the charges. The maximums are not always imposed. He could also get off with probation and no jail time. Perhaps you should wait for the sentence before commenting on jail time.
Americans are weird sometimes!
So let me get this straight. You refused to leave the store thereby committing trespass. Then you picked up two employees and carried them out of the store. That would be assault and battery since you actually touched someone. I think you are the one that is weird.
Do you think any company can reliably predict how someone will react to being laid off?
Had they shot him down would you be the one posting that it was an over reaction and therefore the government is a complete joke and overprotective?
or imply that he was any kind of serious threat.
Think of the following scenario;
1. Inform flight control that you will be delivering letter by gyrocopter to the Capitol Lawn.
2. Load explosives in the mail bag.
3. Fly to the Capitol Lawn.
4. Crash into the Capitol Building and explode instead.
How can you trust that the stated intentions are the actual intentions? How many time are such statements hoaxes?
It is in the same context of "should we explode a bomb?" Sorry but making a joke about aircraft safety while on the aircraft is no joke.
So it's better for them to do it in the parking lot?
It is. There are fewer people in parking lot and fewer improvised weapons available. It also does not give time for the frustration to build while in the office and explode which could end badly. Someone screaming and yelling in a parking lot is much less of a danger than doing the same thing and attacking people in the office.
It's an MBA type policy by a bunch of asshats that don't give two shits about their employees
The opposite is actually closer to the truth. It is about protecting the remaining workers from the laid off workers. No one can predict what someone will do during a traumatic experience like being laid off.
Don't take it personally. It probably is not about you. The company is just trying to avoid litigation if one of the laid off employees goes ballistic. The problem is that they have to treat everyone the same.
Put yourself on management's shoes. If security was not around and a laid off employee did go ballistic the company would be liable for any injuries. The court case would come down to the company failing to protect their employees from attack.
It is not about you. It is about some other person who is less stable and you just get treated the same. You get treated the same because managers are not psychologists. Even psychologists can not predict what a person will do during a traumatic experience like getting laid off.
I was accompanied to my desk to pick up my jacket and I was out the door. I had to make a freaking appointment to collect my personal belongs from my desk the next day.
That is caused by a resource issue. The first part was to get it over with as quickly as possible. It also gives you time to absorb the implications. The second part was to ensure that security personnel were available to escort you to and from your desk in case you do go balistic.
Everyone in the office tried to hide while me and the other victims cleaned out our stuff
That is probably "survivor's remorse". They don't want to see you because they don't want to think about why you got laid off instead of them.
Yup. All it takes is one unstable employee picking up a box cutter and slashing people to cost a company millions. The court cases usually cite the company's lack of proper security when letting people go. This is yet another example of where procedures have to take worst case scenarios into account. In the general case it looks like overkill but in the worst case it is actually reasonable.
Here is the tweet.
Find myself on a 737/800, lets see Box-IFE-ICE-SATCOM, ? Shall we start playing with EICAS messages? "PASS OXYGEN ON" Anyone ? :)
To me that is not a comment about airplane security but a threat to tamper with airplane operations. Making a comment is legal making a threat is not.
Agreed
The infrastructure is only partially there in a small part of London. They are proposing to use maglev which would require replacing the track. It looks like the want to do it in other places where they would need to bore their own tunnels.
How many supercomputers use the GM series GPU which is what this conversation is actually about. The K20 units use a different GPU and are beyond this conversation.
Designed for security needs to follow the KISS principle, keep it simple stupid.
In your opinion. Other people may have other opinions. Since there is no authority different people may use the same phrase and have different opinions about it.
Try $40 million (Qualcomm is about that size, the CEO makes $60 million)
The $60 million is after stock options and bonuses. His base pay is $805,582. Notice the article only talks about base pay and not bonuses and profit from the company. I sense a little spin happening in the announcement.