Yeah that's what I was wondering -- where is the tether? In the video you can see the tether to the astronaut, so it seems like a no-brainer to have one go to the toolbox. Furthermore, she was only a foot or two away from the toolbox, so why didn't she lunge for it, grab it, then pull herself back to the space station using her own tether? Is it because that would be too awesome?
I had a conversation with an actual NASA tool engineer once. He went on at length about how a normal drill was not sufficient in space. (He used drills as an example, and by "drill" he meant the base onto which you could attach drill bits, sockets, or whatever.) The environment in space is, to put it simply, a lot rougher than a typical workshop on Earth.
I read the five sentences of your post while wondering "this is totally contrary to my rudimentary understanding of our legal system; where did this guy go to law school?" Then I saw your note saying that you are not a lawyer. Well, I am not a lawyer either, but what you said does not comport with my understanding of the legal system. Specifically, "innocent until proven guilty" does not, in fact, apply in civil courts, because "innocent" is not a driving concept in torts.
When you get your law degree, then you'll be demonstrably more informed than I am. Until then, I'm going with the person to whom you replied, who is a lawyer, who said what I already thought was true.
No, sorry, you're wrong. You have incorrectly conflated civil trials with criminal trials. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in civil trials. Don't feel too bad, though, it's a common mistake.
No, dude, we have laws to mitigate the employer-employee relationship because we know from history that the power dichotomy between the two parties unfairly favors the employer. What I'm saying is, we don't want to live in the world you describe. The laws cover almost all employment situations; for the other rare situations, you might be basically right.
In high school I worked in a lube shop. One time our accountant said if we were good employees we'd wait for the first car before clocking in. This applied mostly in the winter, where sometimes a car wouldn't come in for an oil change until an hour or two after we opened. We openly laughed right in her face.
They also tried to tell us to clock out before washing our hands, taking off our smocks, and doing other things at the end of the day. Again, we chuckled, and decided that if our hands came to work clean, and got dirty on the clock, then they had to get clean on the clock, so they could leave the way they came in.
I'm interested in this. I could throw on sweatpants and a tshirt in two minutes, but putting on a shirt and tie takes about ten minutes, to pick everything out and make myself presentable. Being presentable to clients is a requirement of my job. Could I come to work in sweatpants, then change into a shirt and tie once at work? It's a sliding scale, of course; I wonder where the law divides the scale.
I think you're splitting hairs. If the tolerance is measured in microns, then the OP was close enough. We're talking about orders of magnitude here. And if the OP said one micron, and you think its two microns... seriously, that's close enough.
I totally agree with that. For the first time in my life, I actually felt like I voted for the greater of two goods. I doubt I'll have that feeling again during our lifetimes.
the magical thing about casinos is that they don't have to rig the tables for the odds to be in their favor. this is very much like capitalism. if you are rich, you have a big advantage, even if you don't cheat.
Dude, get Firefox, and it will put a little red dotted line under boneheaded mistakes like that. Then you don't have to undergo the ridicule that people like me will heap on you.
I would agree with you generally, but it took Obama two years to convince people that he was the right man for the job. I don't know if he convinced you personally, but he convinced a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it my tax dollars that paid for that lost bag?
No, actually, for that particular toolbag they held a bake sale.
Yeah, I'm thinking she's a candidate spokeswoman for Velcro.
Yeah that's what I was wondering -- where is the tether? In the video you can see the tether to the astronaut, so it seems like a no-brainer to have one go to the toolbox. Furthermore, she was only a foot or two away from the toolbox, so why didn't she lunge for it, grab it, then pull herself back to the space station using her own tether? Is it because that would be too awesome?
I had a conversation with an actual NASA tool engineer once. He went on at length about how a normal drill was not sufficient in space. (He used drills as an example, and by "drill" he meant the base onto which you could attach drill bits, sockets, or whatever.) The environment in space is, to put it simply, a lot rougher than a typical workshop on Earth.
Also, dude, "their"? Really?
Touche! That form isn't in my dictionary. Still, my point stands.
Ha! I don't, and I had actual sex with a real live woman this morning.
That's bombastic, but you didn't even get the phrase "hither and yon" right. "Tither" isn't a word.
I read the five sentences of your post while wondering "this is totally contrary to my rudimentary understanding of our legal system; where did this guy go to law school?" Then I saw your note saying that you are not a lawyer. Well, I am not a lawyer either, but what you said does not comport with my understanding of the legal system. Specifically, "innocent until proven guilty" does not, in fact, apply in civil courts, because "innocent" is not a driving concept in torts.
When you get your law degree, then you'll be demonstrably more informed than I am. Until then, I'm going with the person to whom you replied, who is a lawyer, who said what I already thought was true.
No, sorry, you're wrong. You have incorrectly conflated civil trials with criminal trials. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" in civil trials. Don't feel too bad, though, it's a common mistake.
No, dude, we have laws to mitigate the employer-employee relationship because we know from history that the power dichotomy between the two parties unfairly favors the employer. What I'm saying is, we don't want to live in the world you describe. The laws cover almost all employment situations; for the other rare situations, you might be basically right.
It is a given. This issue is not controversial at all. This is a simple matter of some jerkoff manager trying to get away with shenanigans.
In high school I worked in a lube shop. One time our accountant said if we were good employees we'd wait for the first car before clocking in. This applied mostly in the winter, where sometimes a car wouldn't come in for an oil change until an hour or two after we opened. We openly laughed right in her face.
They also tried to tell us to clock out before washing our hands, taking off our smocks, and doing other things at the end of the day. Again, we chuckled, and decided that if our hands came to work clean, and got dirty on the clock, then they had to get clean on the clock, so they could leave the way they came in.
So it includes being in the car or on the train, it doesn't include your morning shower though!
I don't think the rule applies to any of those situations...
I'm interested in this. I could throw on sweatpants and a tshirt in two minutes, but putting on a shirt and tie takes about ten minutes, to pick everything out and make myself presentable. Being presentable to clients is a requirement of my job. Could I come to work in sweatpants, then change into a shirt and tie once at work? It's a sliding scale, of course; I wonder where the law divides the scale.
I think you're splitting hairs. If the tolerance is measured in microns, then the OP was close enough. We're talking about orders of magnitude here. And if the OP said one micron, and you think its two microns... seriously, that's close enough.
I totally agree with that. For the first time in my life, I actually felt like I voted for the greater of two goods. I doubt I'll have that feeling again during our lifetimes.
the magical thing about casinos is that they don't have to rig the tables for the odds to be in their favor. this is very much like capitalism. if you are rich, you have a big advantage, even if you don't cheat.
whether that is good or bad is open to debate.
"truely"?
Dude, get Firefox, and it will put a little red dotted line under boneheaded mistakes like that. Then you don't have to undergo the ridicule that people like me will heap on you.
You don't want people to sit on committees that interest them, and match their strengths?
I would agree with you generally, but it took Obama two years to convince people that he was the right man for the job. I don't know if he convinced you personally, but he convinced a lot of people.
For future reference, David and Goliath is a bad example of how it's difficult for the little guy to unseat a big guy.
Oh snap, you were on my flight last week?
What salary caps can you think of? I can't think of any.
Huh? Yes, it is.
Disclaiming responsibility is not always sufficient to absolve responsibility. -But it sometimes is. In the case of 4chan and Slashdot, I don't know.