I wouldn't even know how to begin to answer that question. I don't have a single most memorable place, but a small collection of special places that are about equally memorable. How would I remember which one I used?
This is no different than "what's your favorite..." questions. My favorite anything is not fixed. My favorites change over time, so I still end up having to outright guess what the right answer is.
This completely negates the purpose for me. If I can remember my nonsense answer, I can equally remember the actual password, and using a standard nonsense answer on for all logins is no different than using the same password for all logins, a big no-no.
For lots of people, like myself, taking notes is highly counterproductive. Particularly if I have to logically dissect what's being said (to digest the key points), and write them down, and keep up with the speech. If I must take notes, my best hope is to try and write down everything that's being said without parsing. The only effective way for me to handle lectures is to record them and transcribe later.
I am a reading-based learner, and lectures are by far the worst possible way for me to learn anything. Doing anything other than 100% concentrating on the words being spoken basically guarantees that I'll learn nothing from the lecture at all.
Everyone learns differently. I suck at learning through oral communication.
And this is obvious how? Business history is full of things like this coming back around to bite years later.
CL might be altruistic now, but what about years later, when management changes hands, or they are purchased, or who-knows-what? This is part of why it's important to pay attention to what a contract says, not how any party of the contract "obviously" intends to do. Intent means nothing.
And before anyone says "who cares about your little ad years later", well, odds are I won't. But I might. As a hypothetical, what if someone is assembling a book of funny ads and wants my permission to use mine? I may deeply desire to be included, but I could not legally give them permission to do so.
Just to clarify, the issue goes beyond whether I can repost my own ad other places or not. A point which is completely unambiguous about the language is that it is an exclusive license. This means that I cannot myself grant a license to any other entity for any purpose whatsoever unless I get Craiglist's permission first. That is my objection.
My guess is that they are trying to stop scrapers, and that's perfectly reasonable. I wonder: do you agree with that?
I agree that is their intent, but their intent is irrelevant to my concern. In a contract, what the intent is means nothing, it's what the words say that matters.
Do you think that content means advertising the thing in question or do you think it means the html content of the page.
I think that it means the words and pictures I'm uploading to Craigslist, because that's what it says. True, I could reword the ad special for Craigslist and use different pictures, but that's not the point. Besides, why should I bother?
I understand that their concern is scrapers, and that this is a piece in how they want to deal with them. That's fine, and entirely beside the point as well. I don't want to give them exclusive rights to my ad copy regardless of why they want it. Exclusive rights are a pretty strong thing, not to be given out lightly.
My jimmies aren't in a twist at all, unlike yours, apparently. However, I actually take contracts seriously and if I cannot accept their terms I don't enter into them. So no, I won't be back. not because I'm in some kind of snit, but because I'm treating Craigslist with the respect of honoring the terms they are laying down.
That's insane. I've used Craigslist quite a lot for various things, but I'm not about to give them (or anyone else who hasn't hired me to produce something for them) exclusive rights to anything whatsoever.
So, I guess Craigslist effectively no longer exists for me. I'm not angry or upset with CL about this, merely disappointed that they've made their TOS so unacceptable to me that I can't use them. I can't wait for the service that comes to replace it!
Yes, sorry, my reply was US-centric. In the US, an employer is free to look at anything they want to on machines they own unless there is a contractual obligation otherwise.
This is true, but for his purposes, reformatting is very likely just fine. No employer is going to go to the hassle and expense of data recovery unless they're actively investigating wrongdoing or the employee deleted critical data. And if the employer suspects wrongdoing, then the employee is probably already busted by the keylogging & monitoring software they would have installed.
And in the future, never put any personal data on your work computer, ever. Never even type personal passwords on it. Don't shop on it. It's not your machine, you cannot control it, your employer has rights to every bit on it, and therefore from your personal data point of view it's hard to think of a less secure system.
We're talking about civilian IT here. I would argue that the military and certain holdout industries (such as, perhaps, operating heavy cleaning machinery) has a different dynamic.
Groups like that have existed since about forever --- and they've managed to do a lot of good work without any problem despite being boys clubs.
Yes, but context is everything. This sort of behavior is not acceptable in society today, and engaging it in will cause problems with those not on the team: customers, suppliers, etc.
Diversity may be a value in and of itself today, but it's not actually necessary to get the job done.
Oh, and I forgot to add one little thing: you can be guilty of sexual harassment even if the target of the harassment never makes a complaint at all or never feels offended.
I take it that you've never been to a training, or haven't paid attention if you had. If you really want to know about this topic, google can point you to lots of information.
First, there's the obvious stuff: don't comment on another person's appearance, don't make sexual remarks, don't whip out your dick/flash your tits, don't bring up porn on your computer, don't make crude comments or jokes, etc. This really isn't rocket science. That you think it is seems disingenuous.
But the main thing to remember is that it takes more than one overly sensitive person taking something wrong. For a sexual harassment lawsuit to succeed, a pattern must be displayed. The behavior must continue after you've been told to stop it. In other words, it's behavior that is persistent and unceasing.
I disagree. Getting rid of the majority of the workforce is the better option. There's no shortage of qualified engineers to replace them with and, in the end, the company will create better product, work with better efficiency, and have better relationships with customers.
Teams like that hold a company back. Getting rid of them is like chemotherapy: it sucks and it hurts, but in the long run it will let the company live longer and healthier.
Because with victim-defined crimes like sexual harassment
Of course, sexual harassment is not a "victim-defined" crime at all. The rules are pretty clear and simple, and it's really very difficult to accidentally harass somebody. It takes more than just someone being offended by a passing remark.
Women aren't the only group of people that can be bothered by misogyny.
Yes. I'm a man, and the one time I've seen this behavior in the workplace I knew I had to quit. It is impossible to respect people who behave like that, and working in that kind of environment is hellish even when I'm not the target of it. It's not just misogyny, either, but any kind of prejudice.
Even setting aside the issue of prejudice, that kind of behavior indicates a lack of professionalism that is very likely to show its face in every other aspect of the workplace, including the quality of work. The last thing I need is to be associated with a company that allows this kind of fundamental disrespect, unprofessionalism, and general asshattery. It looks bad on the resume.
Maybe you and I have been lucky or something, but most of the tech people I've worked with were married, frequently had kids, and had no trouble with female co-workers
No, I think our experience (mine is like yours) is the norm, not the misogynists that are commenting here. I think they're just being extra-loud because they can't admit to themselves that they're broken people.
Slashdot Mirror
But then you are, in effect, using the same password for all your logins.
I wouldn't even know how to begin to answer that question. I don't have a single most memorable place, but a small collection of special places that are about equally memorable. How would I remember which one I used?
This is no different than "what's your favorite..." questions. My favorite anything is not fixed. My favorites change over time, so I still end up having to outright guess what the right answer is.
This completely negates the purpose for me. If I can remember my nonsense answer, I can equally remember the actual password, and using a standard nonsense answer on for all logins is no different than using the same password for all logins, a big no-no.
For lots of people, like myself, taking notes is highly counterproductive. Particularly if I have to logically dissect what's being said (to digest the key points), and write them down, and keep up with the speech. If I must take notes, my best hope is to try and write down everything that's being said without parsing. The only effective way for me to handle lectures is to record them and transcribe later.
I am a reading-based learner, and lectures are by far the worst possible way for me to learn anything. Doing anything other than 100% concentrating on the words being spoken basically guarantees that I'll learn nothing from the lecture at all.
Everyone learns differently. I suck at learning through oral communication.
And this is obvious how? Business history is full of things like this coming back around to bite years later.
CL might be altruistic now, but what about years later, when management changes hands, or they are purchased, or who-knows-what? This is part of why it's important to pay attention to what a contract says, not how any party of the contract "obviously" intends to do. Intent means nothing.
And before anyone says "who cares about your little ad years later", well, odds are I won't. But I might. As a hypothetical, what if someone is assembling a book of funny ads and wants my permission to use mine? I may deeply desire to be included, but I could not legally give them permission to do so.
Just to clarify, the issue goes beyond whether I can repost my own ad other places or not. A point which is completely unambiguous about the language is that it is an exclusive license. This means that I cannot myself grant a license to any other entity for any purpose whatsoever unless I get Craiglist's permission first. That is my objection.
My guess is that they are trying to stop scrapers, and that's perfectly reasonable. I wonder: do you agree with that?
I agree that is their intent, but their intent is irrelevant to my concern. In a contract, what the intent is means nothing, it's what the words say that matters.
IANAL, but can't you just get around this by calling yourself a search engine and falling back on the DMCA's safe harbor rules?
No, the safe harbor provision doesn't work that way.
Do you think that content means advertising the thing in question or do you think it means the html content of the page.
I think that it means the words and pictures I'm uploading to Craigslist, because that's what it says. True, I could reword the ad special for Craigslist and use different pictures, but that's not the point. Besides, why should I bother?
I understand that their concern is scrapers, and that this is a piece in how they want to deal with them. That's fine, and entirely beside the point as well. I don't want to give them exclusive rights to my ad copy regardless of why they want it. Exclusive rights are a pretty strong thing, not to be given out lightly.
Wow, I must have hit a nerve!
My jimmies aren't in a twist at all, unlike yours, apparently. However, I actually take contracts seriously and if I cannot accept their terms I don't enter into them. So no, I won't be back. not because I'm in some kind of snit, but because I'm treating Craigslist with the respect of honoring the terms they are laying down.
That's insane. I've used Craigslist quite a lot for various things, but I'm not about to give them (or anyone else who hasn't hired me to produce something for them) exclusive rights to anything whatsoever.
So, I guess Craigslist effectively no longer exists for me. I'm not angry or upset with CL about this, merely disappointed that they've made their TOS so unacceptable to me that I can't use them. I can't wait for the service that comes to replace it!
Yes, sorry, my reply was US-centric. In the US, an employer is free to look at anything they want to on machines they own unless there is a contractual obligation otherwise.
This is true, but for his purposes, reformatting is very likely just fine. No employer is going to go to the hassle and expense of data recovery unless they're actively investigating wrongdoing or the employee deleted critical data. And if the employer suspects wrongdoing, then the employee is probably already busted by the keylogging & monitoring software they would have installed.
And in the future, never put any personal data on your work computer, ever. Never even type personal passwords on it. Don't shop on it. It's not your machine, you cannot control it, your employer has rights to every bit on it, and therefore from your personal data point of view it's hard to think of a less secure system.
We're talking about civilian IT here. I would argue that the military and certain holdout industries (such as, perhaps, operating heavy cleaning machinery) has a different dynamic.
Groups like that have existed since about forever --- and they've managed to do a lot of good work without any problem despite being boys clubs.
Yes, but context is everything. This sort of behavior is not acceptable in society today, and engaging it in will cause problems with those not on the team: customers, suppliers, etc.
Diversity may be a value in and of itself today, but it's not actually necessary to get the job done.
The issue has nothing to do with diversity.
Oh, and I forgot to add one little thing: you can be guilty of sexual harassment even if the target of the harassment never makes a complaint at all or never feels offended.
I take it that you've never been to a training, or haven't paid attention if you had. If you really want to know about this topic, google can point you to lots of information.
First, there's the obvious stuff: don't comment on another person's appearance, don't make sexual remarks, don't whip out your dick/flash your tits, don't bring up porn on your computer, don't make crude comments or jokes, etc. This really isn't rocket science. That you think it is seems disingenuous.
But the main thing to remember is that it takes more than one overly sensitive person taking something wrong. For a sexual harassment lawsuit to succeed, a pattern must be displayed. The behavior must continue after you've been told to stop it. In other words, it's behavior that is persistent and unceasing.
Making a comment about a co-workers boobs in NOT harassment. Slapping a co-worker's ass is NOT harassment (but it may be assault).
In every sense of the term, all of those things are not only sexual harassment, but egregious and malicious sexual harassment.
I disagree. Getting rid of the majority of the workforce is the better option. There's no shortage of qualified engineers to replace them with and, in the end, the company will create better product, work with better efficiency, and have better relationships with customers.
Teams like that hold a company back. Getting rid of them is like chemotherapy: it sucks and it hurts, but in the long run it will let the company live longer and healthier.
but if you just look at someone in a way they don't like you can get charged with sexual harassment?
No.
Some of the stand up meetings I've been in could be considered sexual harassment just based on how close we were force to stand next to each other.
Again, no.
Jeko's list is a summary of examples of the types of things it can include. Things aren't as broad and vague as the list may imply.
Because with victim-defined crimes like sexual harassment
Of course, sexual harassment is not a "victim-defined" crime at all. The rules are pretty clear and simple, and it's really very difficult to accidentally harass somebody. It takes more than just someone being offended by a passing remark.
I don't think that will help. Men who can behave like that strike me as the sort who have mommy issues.
Women aren't the only group of people that can be bothered by misogyny.
Yes. I'm a man, and the one time I've seen this behavior in the workplace I knew I had to quit. It is impossible to respect people who behave like that, and working in that kind of environment is hellish even when I'm not the target of it. It's not just misogyny, either, but any kind of prejudice.
Even setting aside the issue of prejudice, that kind of behavior indicates a lack of professionalism that is very likely to show its face in every other aspect of the workplace, including the quality of work. The last thing I need is to be associated with a company that allows this kind of fundamental disrespect, unprofessionalism, and general asshattery. It looks bad on the resume.
Maybe you and I have been lucky or something, but most of the tech people I've worked with were married, frequently had kids, and had no trouble with female co-workers
No, I think our experience (mine is like yours) is the norm, not the misogynists that are commenting here. I think they're just being extra-loud because they can't admit to themselves that they're broken people.