And, just like the gun grabbers, they ignore the root of the issue (mentally-ill people not getting treatement), instead choosing the "easy" route of fucking everybody else out of their rights.
What? Tell them you want 2x what you were looking for and when they don't hire you, sue them for discrimination.
Yea, sure, and how exactly am I supposed to prove that they said something discriminatory, when the only people in the room were myself and the idiots I would be suing?
Take it from someone who knows, via personal experience - without solid evidence, discrimination lawsuits are a complete waste of time and money.
In hindsight, I should have recorded the conversation (I live in a "Single-party consent" state). Lesson learned.
With ya on that; I recently turned down a job that pays $10K/yr more than my current position, because during the interview they actually had the audacity to ask me about my religion. I figure, if they're going to blatantly flaunt the law and violate my privacy during the interview, chances are they aren't a group of people I want to associate with.
Yes, contrary to popular belief, there's more to a job than pay.
... Only to later hire you and your division back as 'consultants,' at double the standard rate, once we realize that a call center in India can't do shit about a broken fiber link on the local campus.
everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned. The big question is: why isn't it?
Devil's Advocate:
Hey, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to put your personal information on the internet. Sounds like you "opted in" to me.
forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board
Again, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to give personal information to MS and Google. You gave that info willingly by accessing their systems.
/Devil's Advocate
Personally, I agree with the idea that "opt-in" should be explicit, rather than implicit. Merely accessing a website should not be an open invitation for the owner of that website to track my every online move, especially if I haven't knowingly and explicitly told them they could (something I'd never do).
they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in
The hell they shouldn't - you don't get access to my house unless I give you a key, and I won't give you a key unless I know you're someone who can be trusted. Granted, that's not exactly the situation here, but close enough for the sake of analogy.
Nobody is obligated to give you anything for free, nor should they be.
Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.
If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.
Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.
Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences.;-)
Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before everyone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?
FTFY.
I sincerely hope they actually try to pull some shit like that.
P.S. if you're implying that there's something wrong with my father handing his prized deer rifle down to me without giving me a background check, you can go fuck yourself, Chief.
Damn right there's something wrong with it. How often do we hear "never saw it coming" and "can't believe he'd do something like that"?
The only time I ever recall hearing anything like that was when Jeffrey Dahmer was caught. BTW, Dahmer didn't use guns.
Anyway, anecdote != evidence.
If you're gonna do background checks at all, it should cover *all* transfers of ownership.
Well, considering how that plan is completely unworkable, unenforcable, and would turn a large portion of the population into criminals overnight, I don't see it happening.
Yes. And at, what, 16,000,000,000,000 and counting in annual expenses, how long do you think the federal government would be able to continue to operate if the people who provide that $16 trillion stopped paying?
You're missing the point, and it seems intentional.
How much of that difference is gun control laws in these countries and how much is cultural differences is a question to which I don't have an answer. But please, let's compare apples to apples.
No problem.
So... which countries, other than the US, have armament ownership enshrined in their constitution as an inalienable right? We'll start there.
Comparing apples to apples sounds like it makes sense, until you think about how many different kinds of apples there are.
Slashdot Mirror
Fill the unoccupied seats with patent lawyers and you've got my vote.
It will be a 'mile high' orgy.. with coke and blackjack
It will be mostly dudes.
Hey, he never said it would be a good orgy.
And, just like the gun grabbers, they ignore the root of the issue (mentally-ill people not getting treatement), instead choosing the "easy" route of fucking everybody else out of their rights.
Technically speaking, asking about your religion is not illegal.
True, it's not technically illegal - just very, very stupid.
What? Tell them you want 2x what you were looking for and when they don't hire you, sue them for discrimination.
Yea, sure, and how exactly am I supposed to prove that they said something discriminatory, when the only people in the room were myself and the idiots I would be suing?
Take it from someone who knows, via personal experience - without solid evidence, discrimination lawsuits are a complete waste of time and money.
In hindsight, I should have recorded the conversation (I live in a "Single-party consent" state). Lesson learned.
Workwise, the best admin job I ever had was working for a small, local call center - maybe 50 employees.
Then again, they fired me when I told them that $10/hr wasn't shit for a sysadmin... Maybe not that great a place to work after all.
With ya on that; I recently turned down a job that pays $10K/yr more than my current position, because during the interview they actually had the audacity to ask me about my religion. I figure, if they're going to blatantly flaunt the law and violate my privacy during the interview, chances are they aren't a group of people I want to associate with.
Yes, contrary to popular belief, there's more to a job than pay.
... Only to later hire you and your division back as 'consultants,' at double the standard rate, once we realize that a call center in India can't do shit about a broken fiber link on the local campus.
What civil right do you believe is threatened here? The one where you control Google's data about you? Not a civil right.
I'll simply make my data worthless.
I am Sparticus...
My concern is that California...
Well, hell, there's your problem!
everything should be opt-in as far as your data is concerned.
The big question is: why isn't it?
Devil's Advocate:
Hey, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to put your personal information on the internet. Sounds like you "opted in" to me.
forget MS, google. Forget every analytics company. This should be across the board
Again, nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to give personal information to MS and Google. You gave that info willingly by accessing their systems.
/Devil's Advocate
Personally, I agree with the idea that "opt-in" should be explicit, rather than implicit. Merely accessing a website should not be an open invitation for the owner of that website to track my every online move, especially if I haven't knowingly and explicitly told them they could (something I'd never do).
they should not be able to refuse you access if you don't opt in
The hell they shouldn't - you don't get access to my house unless I give you a key, and I won't give you a key unless I know you're someone who can be trusted. Granted, that's not exactly the situation here, but close enough for the sake of analogy.
Nobody is obligated to give you anything for free, nor should they be.
Isn't this the next step in evolution as a species? We have maxed out what we can do with our 46 chromosomes. The next step is technology assisted socail darwinism. Our database helps keep track of the idiots and criminals that we can no longer ostracize because there is no place to exile them to.
Is this a recursive post?
Is this a recursive post?
That would be an argument that would give you an F in patent law 101.
That's a painfully sad way to look at the situation...
I suppose, now, there's no point in majoring in Biochemistry, unless you're planning on a minor in Patent Law...
Fuck.
Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.
Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.
I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)
Funny commentary?
Or ominous vision of the future?
Considering a human may not own his own genes, the raw data that defines their human body's construction, how long before everyone receives a letter from a patent troll stating that they must pay a licencing fee if they wish to continue using their genes?
FTFY.
I sincerely hope they actually try to pull some shit like that.
Pirate Babies FTW!!!
(points at own junk) DMCA this, motherfuckers!
Um, OK, strawman much?
Or, at least, I'd call it a strawman, if I had the slightest idea what you're on about.
So... less rapists getting shot > less women getting raped.
Got it. Good to know where you stand... far, far away from me and my loved ones, preferably.
Damn right there's something wrong with it. How often do we hear "never saw it coming" and "can't believe he'd do something like that"?
The only time I ever recall hearing anything like that was when Jeffrey Dahmer was caught. BTW, Dahmer didn't use guns.
Anyway, anecdote != evidence.
If you're gonna do background checks at all, it should cover *all* transfers of ownership.
Well, considering how that plan is completely unworkable, unenforcable, and would turn a large portion of the population into criminals overnight, I don't see it happening.
You were talking about funding.
Yes. And at, what, 16,000,000,000,000 and counting in annual expenses, how long do you think the federal government would be able to continue to operate if the people who provide that $16 trillion stopped paying?
You're missing the point, and it seems intentional.
The human body, she is a fragile vessel.
Surprisingly so, in many cases.
I will assume in your anecdotal case you are not mentally disturbed. What happens when a socially isolated schizophrenic becomes obsessed with gaming?
Uh... you blame their behavior on the social isolation and schizophrenia, maybe?
I fail to see the point of your post.
Shut the fuck up, Donny.
Umm, they didn't start putting radios in cars 50 years ago.
More like 85....
The debate was ~50 years ago.
Google "Ralph Nader"
How much of that difference is gun control laws in these countries and how much is cultural differences is a question to which I don't have an answer. But please, let's compare apples to apples.
No problem.
So... which countries, other than the US, have armament ownership enshrined in their constitution as an inalienable right? We'll start there.
Comparing apples to apples sounds like it makes sense, until you think about how many different kinds of apples there are.