Maybe it's time for the nations of the world to pony up the cash and send a "hoover vacuum" satellite to clean up the loose debris. They should also send a cat satellite that would be terrified of the other satellite. Of course, some know it all would point out that space is already a vacuum.
No need. Dark Helmet is on his way right now to suck our atmosphere up. We can just have him clean up the debris in orbit while he's at it.
TDP is the maximum amount of power the thing should ever draw. So if your TDP is 85W it could be anywhere between 0 and 85W depending on whether its powered on, and what the workload is. I have a Sand Bridge 35W TDP I3 that runs on ~12W most of the time.
That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
Why does an omniscient and omnipotent being have to exist outside of the laws of physics? Would not such an omniscient being understand all the laws of physics, and perhaps be able to do things that we cannot, due to their understanding of such laws? I don't see why god and science have to be mutually exclusive, at least with our current understanding of both. I understand why many scientists do not believe in god, but I think they are being just as obstinate in people that deny science in the name of god. The (lack of?) existence of god does not mean that you have to follow some crazy leader. And there are plenty of crazy leaders who probably did not believe in god.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements.
You've obviously never used any of the iWork applications on a Mac, let alone on the iPad. I'll just tell you right now that Pages can't even open my resume properly, let alone some of the documents that I've had to access for work. And I've just reading multi hundred page documents on an iPad with Pages and it grinds to a halt on such large files. The Mac versions of these apps aren't much better, causing all sorts of formatting issues, etc. No CEO could replace Word unless he does everything in PDF.
If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist
And if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help, and there is no reason to waste time talking to you.
When it comes to the things they say about counterintelligence I do believe them. Why? Because they have been doing it for a long time. What they say also makes sense; its very logical. Of all the things they may want to lie about, I hardly doubt that what they teach on counterintel is a lie. Why would they lie? Don't they, by nature, want to make it more difficult for those who may want to spy on them?
The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together.
So the point is to keep the enlisted from finding out too much about what our own government is doing? Got it.
No that is not it at all. I have never, and will never serve in the military. I was under the same rules. The reason often has nothing to do with hiding things the government has done, but to hide things they intend to do. Don't get me wrong, I think they hide things they shouldn't have done all the time, but this is often enforced to protect operational security on active operations, ground breaking technology, etc
They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.
IOW, they said you can only get the government-approved version of the news, and you are forbidden to go straight to the source and get the facts. Anyone who agrees to such a restriction is a bad citizen and, again, is Part Of The Problem.
"if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help." Those WikiLeaks cables are not guaranteed to be 100% factual, accurate, unbiased, or otherwise useful. You have no idea what kind of ax the person who wrote them has to grind. You have no idea what, if any, are disinformation to validate the security of Government communications. You have no idea about those cables at all. I have no interest in reading them because I think what Manning did was despicable. But even if I had any interest in reading them I would take every word with a grain of salt. I would trust the BBC or NYT at least as much as I trust the original source of the cables themselves. The news was meant for general consumption, and the people who write it theoretically have a reputation to uphold. While the people who wrote the cables have a business reputation to uphold, they may also be writing their reports in order to cast a favorable light on personal policies and interests, or even the policies of their superiors. So read the WikiLeaks stuff all you want, enjoy. I'd rather read the news from a source that is supposed to have their international reputation at stake.
While that's a nice video, both articles cite the thickness at 2.5cm, or 1 inch.
Yes but those were hollow point bullets used to penetrate that steel, not ball ammunition. I don't know if it would penetrate 25mm of rusted steel, but even if it will not, an RPG will easily.
I'd be willing to bet that you could easily shoot into the cabin of this with a.50 BMG. You might even be able to penetrate from the back into the engine compartment with.50BMG. There is no way this thing can withstand 23MM AC fire. And don't get me started on the Particle Projectile Cannons (PPCs) that the Syria mechs have been using...
If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person.
If you agree to work for a government that cannot handle criticism, and thus cannot stand to have you see what is being said about it, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. Same thing I think about someone who works for Halliburton, or Chevron.
It has nothing to do with criticism, in this circumstance. While I do not believe that the government was fond of the leaked cables, or Julian Assange, there are security implications involved. If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist. They are actually quite fascinating presentations, at least the first few times you sit through them. The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together. In the case of these jobs, you agree to not seek out independent pieces of information that you do not need to know. If you go out of your way looking for independent information that you are restricted from seeing, then you are basically spying. You may be spying out of personal curiosity, but it may appear that you are spying for a reason. They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.
He is deported to the country that requests it for crimes committed there.
I know that is a strange concept for yanks but hey, butter up buttercup.
No; like the GP stated, Guatemala and Belize do not get along. They do not have an extradition treaty and are currently disputing their border. Also he is not a citizen of Belize, so why should they deport him to Belize? When people come into the US illegally from Canada or Mexico, we don't load them back up on a truck and dump them across the boarder. We fly them back to their home country. In this case the only reason he should be sent to Belize is for extradition, and not for entering the country illegally. He really ought to have gone to a US embassy, though I know he doesn't want to return to the US and face the civil law problems he has in the US.
Cans of gasoline can be quite dangerous in an accident. If you have a leaky can inside the trunk, or passenger area of your car it can cause dangerous vapors, as well. I would not leave one in my car for city driving. Certainly it would be worth the risk to avoid being stuck out in the Australian bush, but I think its better to plan out a trip like this in advance and know the roads you are going to take and not just blindly trust the GPS. I don't usually trust my GPS blindly even when driving somewhere new in town. Even Google maps has told me to go places that were closed, or had been moved down the street for years w/o being updated.
Who the fuck cares that you think you may lose your job because you clicked a link? Fuck off, suck it up and spend the time you bitch about your stupidity to actually check links.
Reading comprehension fail. I said I don't have to worry about my job, I don't work in the defense industry anymore. I said others may have to worry about their jobs. Yes I should have checked the link. Again reading comprehension fail. I said that I should have checked the link before I clicked it. My point is that Wikileaks is not a news source, and should not be linked to in an article summary, especially without indicating that the site being linked to is WikiLeaks. So before you call me stupid, you may want to work on your reading comprehension.
No, the reason you get into trouble is simple. You are violating the rules. The reason for the rule is pretty simple, too. You may not understand the full implications of the things you are working on. If you have access to external information, it could be used to create new pieces of information that are classified and that you do not need to know. The more information you know, the easier it is to accidentally let something slip when you should not. So the point is to prevent employees from trying to gather all of the information they possibly can. Not to mention it makes it easier to find spies. You look for the guy who is poking his nose around where it doesn't belong.
I'm not accessing slashdot from a work computer, or a government computer or any hardware that I do not own. I lease the network connection as well. As I said, I no longer do defense contracting. However, DSS (Defense Security Service) made an effort of going around to contractors to tell them that accessing WikiLeaks could be grounds for losing your clearance. It doesn't matter where you look at WikiLeaks, whether it as at work, at home or abroad. People in these positions have promised the government that they would not access classified material that they do not have the clearance and the need to know. There is no distinction between classified information that is at your office, and things that you could potentially access from home. As I said previously, the odds of getting caught are pretty damn slim, but I would hate to see someone lose their job for clicking on a link at Slashdot.
Except that it wasn't the original source. The original source was the government of Malaysia, and they had posted news stories about it for a great deal of time following the theft. Even if those diplomatic cables were the original source, WikiLeaks is not. Anyway, my point is that it should have been obvious it was a WikiLeaks link and not disguised as a news story. I know the link was visible, but the linked text implied a news story.
This is supposed to be a news site, and I don't see how a WikiLeaks link is news. They normally comment when a link may be sketchy for work. But how many people, when they see a link that say: "two F-5 engines were stolen from an airbase in Malaysia" think they are going to go to anything but a news site? I'm not saying that I couldn't have checked the link, I had said in my OP that I should have checked the link. I just don't think they addressed the link appropriately. I don't believe that WikiLeaks should be considered news by any means, and they implied it was a news story. I also think that, due to the ire raised by WikiLeaks, they ought to at least provide a warning for those who aren't paying attention.
Thank you for putting a WikiLeaks link in the story summary. I know I could have hovered over it with the mouse cursor and seen where it linked to, but I was expecting an actual news story and not WikiLeaks. You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right? It's not likely that they would be "caught" so to speak, but I thought this was a news aggregator, and would, you know, have links to the news. Thankfully I am no longer in the defense industry, and do not have to worry about losing my job.
For those of you who are about to freak out on the US Government's rules realize this: When you do work in certain areas you agree to not seek out information that is covered by a "Need to Know." The US Government has specifically said that those who work in sensitive areas are not to visit WikiLeaks, and have warned all employees and contractors. The reason is pretty simple. If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. And anyway, I think that a proper news story would have been more informative and read better than a diplomatic cable, or whatever that document was.
I was wondering why my iPhone started getting 3G signal. I have a factory unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile w/ unlimited everything for $45 a month (about $47 after taxes). I thought I was going to get HSPA+ with it, but that never seems to work. In any event, I am saving so much money over my previous plan that the phone has basically paid for itself in 1 year. I am hoping to hold onto it for 5 years if possible.
It's not even about the work, it's more sterile than that. I had a hospital stay, used up all my (very little) sick time, then was given 1 week of unpaid time after which they it ran into the HR's cut-off where HR rules dictated termination occurs for non-attendance, and thus I was let go. End of story. It's a matter of our culture accepting these ~2-3 days of sick time a year, what a joke. I'm not using that time for a cough, sorry, I might break something between now and the end of the year at which point I'll actually *need* that little bit of time.
What country was this in? If you cannot attend work due to illness or injury (in the United States), then you are covered by up to 12 weeks of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). You have to have been employed for a certain amount of time to be eligible, but they can be held liable for terminating you after you invoke the FMLA. Of course small businesses are exempt from FMLA.
So, basically, stay home, but keep working? Remember when sick days were to allow you to actually rest?
Like yesterday. A colleague phoned in sick, but we received an email from her a little later.
We told our manager, who emailed the sick colleague and reminded her that she should rest if she's ill (or otherwise follow medical advice). It's stupid to worry about work, or do any work, when that's likely to delay your return to work.
Of course, this wasn't in America.
I think you should leave that up to the judgement of the person who is sick. Certainly I can be contagious, but feel well enough to do something productive. If I am so sick that I am tired, weak, or mentally drained then I might rest. If I am coughing and sneezing and trying to be courteous to my coworkers, then I may work from home. What is the point in staying awake and twiddling my thumbs all day when I can actually do something of value with my time?
Here is the thing about security, you want it simple. You need people to easily understand what they can and can't access. The Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classifications do that. But at the same time, when your security classification is too broad, then people without a "Need to Know" can access items they don't need to within their security classification. The Jonathan Pollard case is a good example of this. Due to his style of espionage, things like SCI were invented that further restrict sensitive items to only those who have a "Need to Know". Now your security system is complicated. Who do you give SCI tickets to and how do you track them and adjust over time? There is no simple solution. SCI complicates security and makes it difficult to work or share work with people that can help you out. It prevents people from knowing the Big Picture. But it also prevents assholes from selling major national security secrets to foreign countries.
In general that is not a problem at all. If you read the rules of the current classification, you have no business reading or accessing any item that you do not have a "Need to Know" about. Strictly speaking, reading a classified document that does not pertain to you is grounds for losing your security clearance. The other classifications in SCI, like NO-FORN, etc aren't really that complex at all. And certainly NO-FORN will still have to exist, since there may be material that you want to explicitly exclude from allies. Anyway, my point is that even if you do not have a clearance you are supposed to report people abusing "Need to Know" and if you have a clearance, you are required to report any known or suspected violations. What else can you do?
I'd like to think that the problem they are trying to address is the cost of having someone go through all those FOIA requests and having to redact everything. I'm hoping they want to make it easier to determine what can and can't be released, and how soon items can be divulged. That's hope anyway. If its anything else, then someone is trying to throw a consulting / contracting bone to a campaign contributor.
You must be short. Us tall bastards can barely even see the screen the viewing angle is so sharp on a plane. No. I bring my tablet and a Bluetooth keyboard when I fly. I put the tablet on the tray table and the keyboard on my lap and write emails, documents, or whatever other work I need to do. The only thing I don't do is code.
The second was my own fault, as I'd taken it out of its case and so it was slidier than usual and fell straight out of my pocket..
Not trying to be nit-picky here but I think you meant "more slippy" or "slippier" (though I believe this is an informal word). Just trying to help out, in case you are a non-native English speaker.
It's probably all accidental, but Apple seems to be making sure that newer devices still work with the existing car tech.
You're kidding, right? My car, a 2010 Subaru Forester doesn't work with anything past an iPhone 4 because the device says that the car's stereo system is not an Apple compatible device. I'm pretty sure this is due to the stupid resistors they put into the sync cable. I can plug in anything prior to the 4S and it works like a champ. The iPod nano 5th gen+ do not work either, so its not just the iPhone. And Subaru had to release a new cable ($30) just to get an iPhone 4 to work.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's time for the nations of the world to pony up the cash and send a "hoover vacuum" satellite to clean up the loose debris. They should also send a cat satellite that would be terrified of the other satellite. Of course, some know it all would point out that space is already a vacuum.
No need. Dark Helmet is on his way right now to suck our atmosphere up. We can just have him clean up the debris in orbit while he's at it.
TDP is the maximum amount of power the thing should ever draw. So if your TDP is 85W it could be anywhere between 0 and 85W depending on whether its powered on, and what the workload is. I have a Sand Bridge 35W TDP I3 that runs on ~12W most of the time.
That doesn't follow. Mind you, anything that occurs in the natural world does (so magic is right out), but you cannot rule out the possibility of supernatural beings existing. You can put conditions on them: for example, they cannot have mass or speed or heat or be visible (otherwise they would fall under physics... part of the reason people attempting magic are foolish), but none of those things are required to actually exist. You can't prove they do (except God, or at least some "supernatural" thing that follows the conditions required to create our universe) but that would be where the whole "faith" thing comes into play.
Why does an omniscient and omnipotent being have to exist outside of the laws of physics? Would not such an omniscient being understand all the laws of physics, and perhaps be able to do things that we cannot, due to their understanding of such laws? I don't see why god and science have to be mutually exclusive, at least with our current understanding of both. I understand why many scientists do not believe in god, but I think they are being just as obstinate in people that deny science in the name of god. The (lack of?) existence of god does not mean that you have to follow some crazy leader. And there are plenty of crazy leaders who probably did not believe in god.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements.
You've obviously never used any of the iWork applications on a Mac, let alone on the iPad. I'll just tell you right now that Pages can't even open my resume properly, let alone some of the documents that I've had to access for work. And I've just reading multi hundred page documents on an iPad with Pages and it grinds to a halt on such large files. The Mac versions of these apps aren't much better, causing all sorts of formatting issues, etc. No CEO could replace Word unless he does everything in PDF.
If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist
And if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help, and there is no reason to waste time talking to you.
When it comes to the things they say about counterintelligence I do believe them. Why? Because they have been doing it for a long time. What they say also makes sense; its very logical. Of all the things they may want to lie about, I hardly doubt that what they teach on counterintel is a lie. Why would they lie? Don't they, by nature, want to make it more difficult for those who may want to spy on them?
The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together.
So the point is to keep the enlisted from finding out too much about what our own government is doing? Got it.
No that is not it at all. I have never, and will never serve in the military. I was under the same rules. The reason often has nothing to do with hiding things the government has done, but to hide things they intend to do. Don't get me wrong, I think they hide things they shouldn't have done all the time, but this is often enforced to protect operational security on active operations, ground breaking technology, etc
They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.
IOW, they said you can only get the government-approved version of the news, and you are forbidden to go straight to the source and get the facts. Anyone who agrees to such a restriction is a bad citizen and, again, is Part Of The Problem.
"if you believe what they say without question, then you are beyond help." Those WikiLeaks cables are not guaranteed to be 100% factual, accurate, unbiased, or otherwise useful. You have no idea what kind of ax the person who wrote them has to grind. You have no idea what, if any, are disinformation to validate the security of Government communications. You have no idea about those cables at all. I have no interest in reading them because I think what Manning did was despicable. But even if I had any interest in reading them I would take every word with a grain of salt. I would trust the BBC or NYT at least as much as I trust the original source of the cables themselves. The news was meant for general consumption, and the people who write it theoretically have a reputation to uphold. While the people who wrote the cables have a business reputation to uphold, they may also be writing their reports in order to cast a favorable light on personal policies and interests, or even the policies of their superiors. So read the WikiLeaks stuff all you want, enjoy. I'd rather read the news from a source that is supposed to have their international reputation at stake.
While that's a nice video, both articles cite the thickness at 2.5cm, or 1 inch.
Yes but those were hollow point bullets used to penetrate that steel, not ball ammunition. I don't know if it would penetrate 25mm of rusted steel, but even if it will not, an RPG will easily.
I'd be willing to bet that you could easily shoot into the cabin of this with a .50 BMG. You might even be able to penetrate from the back into the engine compartment with .50BMG. There is no way this thing can withstand 23MM AC fire. And don't get me started on the Particle Projectile Cannons (PPCs) that the Syria mechs have been using...
If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person.
If you agree to work for a government that cannot handle criticism, and thus cannot stand to have you see what is being said about it, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. Same thing I think about someone who works for Halliburton, or Chevron.
It has nothing to do with criticism, in this circumstance. While I do not believe that the government was fond of the leaked cables, or Julian Assange, there are security implications involved. If you sit through the DSS/FBI counter-intelligence briefings, they explain to you why these rules exist. They are actually quite fascinating presentations, at least the first few times you sit through them. The point in restricting information is that two sources of independent information can cause a third piece of information to be pieced together. In the case of these jobs, you agree to not seek out independent pieces of information that you do not need to know. If you go out of your way looking for independent information that you are restricted from seeing, then you are basically spying. You may be spying out of personal curiosity, but it may appear that you are spying for a reason. They never said you could not read the NYT, or go to any other accredited news source that may be discussing the leaks. They just specifically said do not go to WikiLeaks.
He is deported to the country that requests it for crimes committed there.
I know that is a strange concept for yanks but hey, butter up buttercup.
No; like the GP stated, Guatemala and Belize do not get along. They do not have an extradition treaty and are currently disputing their border. Also he is not a citizen of Belize, so why should they deport him to Belize? When people come into the US illegally from Canada or Mexico, we don't load them back up on a truck and dump them across the boarder. We fly them back to their home country. In this case the only reason he should be sent to Belize is for extradition, and not for entering the country illegally. He really ought to have gone to a US embassy, though I know he doesn't want to return to the US and face the civil law problems he has in the US.
Cans of gasoline can be quite dangerous in an accident. If you have a leaky can inside the trunk, or passenger area of your car it can cause dangerous vapors, as well. I would not leave one in my car for city driving. Certainly it would be worth the risk to avoid being stuck out in the Australian bush, but I think its better to plan out a trip like this in advance and know the roads you are going to take and not just blindly trust the GPS. I don't usually trust my GPS blindly even when driving somewhere new in town. Even Google maps has told me to go places that were closed, or had been moved down the street for years w/o being updated.
Who the fuck cares that you think you may lose your job because you clicked a link? Fuck off, suck it up and spend the time you bitch about your stupidity to actually check links.
Reading comprehension fail. I said I don't have to worry about my job, I don't work in the defense industry anymore. I said others may have to worry about their jobs. Yes I should have checked the link. Again reading comprehension fail. I said that I should have checked the link before I clicked it. My point is that Wikileaks is not a news source, and should not be linked to in an article summary, especially without indicating that the site being linked to is WikiLeaks. So before you call me stupid, you may want to work on your reading comprehension.
No, the reason you get into trouble is simple. You are violating the rules. The reason for the rule is pretty simple, too. You may not understand the full implications of the things you are working on. If you have access to external information, it could be used to create new pieces of information that are classified and that you do not need to know. The more information you know, the easier it is to accidentally let something slip when you should not. So the point is to prevent employees from trying to gather all of the information they possibly can. Not to mention it makes it easier to find spies. You look for the guy who is poking his nose around where it doesn't belong.
I'm not accessing slashdot from a work computer, or a government computer or any hardware that I do not own. I lease the network connection as well. As I said, I no longer do defense contracting. However, DSS (Defense Security Service) made an effort of going around to contractors to tell them that accessing WikiLeaks could be grounds for losing your clearance. It doesn't matter where you look at WikiLeaks, whether it as at work, at home or abroad. People in these positions have promised the government that they would not access classified material that they do not have the clearance and the need to know. There is no distinction between classified information that is at your office, and things that you could potentially access from home. As I said previously, the odds of getting caught are pretty damn slim, but I would hate to see someone lose their job for clicking on a link at Slashdot.
Except that it wasn't the original source. The original source was the government of Malaysia, and they had posted news stories about it for a great deal of time following the theft. Even if those diplomatic cables were the original source, WikiLeaks is not. Anyway, my point is that it should have been obvious it was a WikiLeaks link and not disguised as a news story. I know the link was visible, but the linked text implied a news story.
This is supposed to be a news site, and I don't see how a WikiLeaks link is news. They normally comment when a link may be sketchy for work. But how many people, when they see a link that say: "two F-5 engines were stolen from an airbase in Malaysia" think they are going to go to anything but a news site? I'm not saying that I couldn't have checked the link, I had said in my OP that I should have checked the link. I just don't think they addressed the link appropriately. I don't believe that WikiLeaks should be considered news by any means, and they implied it was a news story. I also think that, due to the ire raised by WikiLeaks, they ought to at least provide a warning for those who aren't paying attention.
Dear Editors:
Thank you for putting a WikiLeaks link in the story summary. I know I could have hovered over it with the mouse cursor and seen where it linked to, but I was expecting an actual news story and not WikiLeaks. You do realize that anyone who works in the Defense Industry, military, or other US Government contracting positions could lose their job over clicking that, right? It's not likely that they would be "caught" so to speak, but I thought this was a news aggregator, and would, you know, have links to the news. Thankfully I am no longer in the defense industry, and do not have to worry about losing my job.
For those of you who are about to freak out on the US Government's rules realize this: When you do work in certain areas you agree to not seek out information that is covered by a "Need to Know." The US Government has specifically said that those who work in sensitive areas are not to visit WikiLeaks, and have warned all employees and contractors. The reason is pretty simple. If you explicitly agree not to do something as a condition of employment, and you do it anyway, then you probably aren't a very trustworthy person. And anyway, I think that a proper news story would have been more informative and read better than a diplomatic cable, or whatever that document was.
I was wondering why my iPhone started getting 3G signal. I have a factory unlocked iPhone on T-Mobile w/ unlimited everything for $45 a month (about $47 after taxes). I thought I was going to get HSPA+ with it, but that never seems to work. In any event, I am saving so much money over my previous plan that the phone has basically paid for itself in 1 year. I am hoping to hold onto it for 5 years if possible.
It's not even about the work, it's more sterile than that. I had a hospital stay, used up all my (very little) sick time, then was given 1 week of unpaid time after which they it ran into the HR's cut-off where HR rules dictated termination occurs for non-attendance, and thus I was let go. End of story. It's a matter of our culture accepting these ~2-3 days of sick time a year, what a joke. I'm not using that time for a cough, sorry, I might break something between now and the end of the year at which point I'll actually *need* that little bit of time.
What country was this in? If you cannot attend work due to illness or injury (in the United States), then you are covered by up to 12 weeks of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). You have to have been employed for a certain amount of time to be eligible, but they can be held liable for terminating you after you invoke the FMLA. Of course small businesses are exempt from FMLA.
So, basically, stay home, but keep working? Remember when sick days were to allow you to actually rest?
Like yesterday. A colleague phoned in sick, but we received an email from her a little later.
We told our manager, who emailed the sick colleague and reminded her that she should rest if she's ill (or otherwise follow medical advice). It's stupid to worry about work, or do any work, when that's likely to delay your return to work.
Of course, this wasn't in America.
I think you should leave that up to the judgement of the person who is sick. Certainly I can be contagious, but feel well enough to do something productive. If I am so sick that I am tired, weak, or mentally drained then I might rest. If I am coughing and sneezing and trying to be courteous to my coworkers, then I may work from home. What is the point in staying awake and twiddling my thumbs all day when I can actually do something of value with my time?
Here is the thing about security, you want it simple. You need people to easily understand what they can and can't access. The Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classifications do that. But at the same time, when your security classification is too broad, then people without a "Need to Know" can access items they don't need to within their security classification. The Jonathan Pollard case is a good example of this. Due to his style of espionage, things like SCI were invented that further restrict sensitive items to only those who have a "Need to Know". Now your security system is complicated. Who do you give SCI tickets to and how do you track them and adjust over time? There is no simple solution. SCI complicates security and makes it difficult to work or share work with people that can help you out. It prevents people from knowing the Big Picture. But it also prevents assholes from selling major national security secrets to foreign countries.
In general that is not a problem at all. If you read the rules of the current classification, you have no business reading or accessing any item that you do not have a "Need to Know" about. Strictly speaking, reading a classified document that does not pertain to you is grounds for losing your security clearance. The other classifications in SCI, like NO-FORN, etc aren't really that complex at all. And certainly NO-FORN will still have to exist, since there may be material that you want to explicitly exclude from allies. Anyway, my point is that even if you do not have a clearance you are supposed to report people abusing "Need to Know" and if you have a clearance, you are required to report any known or suspected violations. What else can you do?
I'd like to think that the problem they are trying to address is the cost of having someone go through all those FOIA requests and having to redact everything. I'm hoping they want to make it easier to determine what can and can't be released, and how soon items can be divulged. That's hope anyway. If its anything else, then someone is trying to throw a consulting / contracting bone to a campaign contributor.
You must be short. Us tall bastards can barely even see the screen the viewing angle is so sharp on a plane. No. I bring my tablet and a Bluetooth keyboard when I fly. I put the tablet on the tray table and the keyboard on my lap and write emails, documents, or whatever other work I need to do. The only thing I don't do is code.
Thank you, I did mean slippery.
The second was my own fault, as I'd taken it out of its case and so it was slidier than usual and fell straight out of my pocket..
Not trying to be nit-picky here but I think you meant "more slippy" or "slippier" (though I believe this is an informal word). Just trying to help out, in case you are a non-native English speaker.
It's probably all accidental, but Apple seems to be making sure that newer devices still work with the existing car tech.
You're kidding, right? My car, a 2010 Subaru Forester doesn't work with anything past an iPhone 4 because the device says that the car's stereo system is not an Apple compatible device. I'm pretty sure this is due to the stupid resistors they put into the sync cable. I can plug in anything prior to the 4S and it works like a champ. The iPod nano 5th gen+ do not work either, so its not just the iPhone. And Subaru had to release a new cable ($30) just to get an iPhone 4 to work.
Apparently. I got modded troll.