Minimum wage coupled with rent control might be workable if food and transportation costs are kept marginal.
I would prefer a "free market" solution. Require landlords to offer tenants an annual agreement valid for a minimum of
5 years that promises at least that number of years of lease extension at substantially the same terms and specifies
the maximum rate increase over the next 5 years out and extendable every year.
The level of the rate increase is completely up to the landlord, their choice.
HOWEVER, any rate increase specified by the agreement over the next 5 years will be presumed to be guaranteed income,
which tax must be prepaid for, and only 80% of the tax amount will be eligible to be refunded under any circumstances whatsoever,
including deductible expenses or if the tenant cancels their lease before that income is realized, and failing at the end of the year to add another year
indicating intent to cancel the lease, will be valid, but a $1000 administrative fee must be paid to the government in order to do
so, to help cover social programs, unless the tenant themself declared an intent to cancel the lease using a specific notarized form.
Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble.
I believe vehicle owners will willingly contribute the data; especially if they know it will be used to help enforce the law against miscreants who disrupted their smooth travel.
If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Traffic violations are not frivolous, they are a safety issue.
All available sources for collecting data should be used to help enforce safety.
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease.
You mean fines will increase to support law enforcement. The most minor violation from a human driver will to have to carry a heftier fine than before, and more rigorous enforcement will be possible thanks to contributions from autonomous vehicle owners.
You seem to think that DNS names being exposed in TLS negotiation was an accident.
The purpose of DNS names being exposed by the SNI extension is to facilitate name-based virtual hosting. It is not to expose additional information to 3rd parties sniffing the line; that part was clearly an accident.
It can be fixed, and I see no reason why it won't be.
There are legitimate reasons for some people being able to selectively block web traffic
If someone's abusing SNI information for censorship purposes, then that's yet another reason this needs to be fixed. No a 3rd party sniffing to identify names and tampering with or "blocking" SSL traffic is not legitimate, for any reason.
being exchanged to become opaque those who want/need to block will do so using other means like IP blocks/reverse DNS lookups
One protocol at a time. There are other undergoing projects within the industry to privacy-secure DNS, so 3rd parties won't be able to intercept your DNS requests or figure out what DNS names you are looking up.
As for IP blocks, there are always methods available of proxying traffic, including ToR... these could even get built into standard web browsers as a "fallback" connection method, if for some reason, a direct connection was failing, or in due course using default proxying, for additional source IP privacy shielding.
New proxies are becoming available every day, so the major browsers just need to incorporate all available anti-censorship techniques, to ensure that network-based traffic tampering/interception won't work out of the box.
But somebody needs deal with the inevitable delays and malfunctioning signals at winter and look out the window to check people do not get stuck in the door, etc.
Translation: Get rid of drivers and replace them with safety patrol officers and maintenance workers who are trained to ensure safety and handle emergencies.
I'll relish in those years where I can drive like a mad man and all those self driving cars will part like the red sea.
And those self-driving cars who will at the same time catch you on video and upload the footage to your insurance company and local traffic authorities.....
The next stage is for users to download the ads, but don't show them on the screen.
Big data analysis will show when the number of legitimate clicks drops below expected levels for a/20 or more of IP space.
When it drops below acceptable tolerance; we'll replace content with a Captcha submission form that requires looking at an image or text shown in the Advert frame in order to successfully answer the Captcha.
If the Ad is not shown, then the user won't be able to complete the Captcha.
as the DNS names the certificates protect are passed in the clear during TLS negotiation.
A privacy issue.... Hopefully, in the future, we'll add negotiation using DH of a shared secret between client and server, then exchange a Hash of the DNS name encrypted with a shared secret during TLS negotiation, instead of the actual name.
That way, a third party cannot passively snoop on the TLS negotiation and work out the proper certificate name being expected by the client, without causing the SSL session to fail.
I noticed there are a lot of incidents of "people providing carriage" these days looking for any possible revenue streams they can get, legitimate or not. Mafia-Like. The big near-Monopoly residential broadband providers in the world want to change their role from common carrier to Mafioso Middlemen.
Without Title II / Network neutrality regulation by the FCC.... the time has fast been approaching in the US, where if you want to go to http://www.amazon.com/ in your web browser, you would not be able to, unless Amazon made a deal with your ISP that includes a cut of every sale.
It's similar to the idea of the electric company wanting to charge a percentage of the sales of every new device, before you are allowed to plug it into the wall (Your new iPhone charger must be hardwired by a POCO-approved installer, and the install fee is $50 plus 10% of the price of the new equipment shown on the sales reciept).
The next stage is for Google to provide an Apache plugin and some custom Javascript to detect if a client has been downloading certain pages without displaying the ads; if your IP address gets in the "Ad Blocker" blacklist, then all the content provider websites can just query the blacklist and refuse to serve content until you unblock the ads.
I can hardly imagine them wanting you to use less traffic.
They're better off if you pay for much more traffic upfront than you use, like the average subscriber does --- the overages are just to catch the small number of "heavy eaters", so reducing traffic would be a win with most subscribers using a prepaid monthly expiring allowance they won't hit anyways.
You're probably right. But it could be worth it to the employer in terms of employee relations.
It can be beneficial for your counsel, for things to turn out differently, in terms of employee relations ---- it will mean more $$$ for the attorney in the future from referrals and employees talking about it if things turn out in your favor, therefore, you might at least in theory be able to make a deal such as a contingency arrangement with the attorney representing yourself against the hostage taker to help ensure that doesn't happen; make sure to have done all your anticipatory homework well in advance of the action you are pursuing legal recourse against.
Just because they can afford counsel that charges a higher rate or requires more hours: it does not necessarily mean they will get as much more for their money as they paid for, especially if there is a strong case against them. If the facts are sufficiently strongly in your favor, then they will be wasting every cent, especially once you demonstrate bad faith in attempting to drag matters out --- and recover attorneys' fees from your fmr employer as well; they can hire more people or more hours of legal work, or attorneys who are in higher demand, however they will burn through a large amount of cash, and there is a point of diminishing returns. A great plumber can charge a bit more than a bad one, but a decent plumber who charges astronomical prices can't give any kind of assurance of a more effective job, just because their prices are high.
Perhaps it helps if you yourself go get some legal creds and then pursue your fmr employer as an attorney representing yourself, then they won't have much luck running up your hourly legal costs, and with your a$$ on the line, you might put more hours a day into that one case than your adversary's "high priced attorney" dividing his/her attention across 30 clients would even be willing to work on it.
Either that, or find an associate willing to help you press the charges pro-bono, and cost the former employer as many $$$ as possible.
I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911.
These days there are purpose-built emergency phones. You don't need to charge. You use lithium batteries which last a long period of time (shelf life), as there is no draw from the cell until you need to activate the emergency-only device.
I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.
I believe in the US... once a plane crashes, it is going out of commercial service permanently, as it would need a total overhaul --- even if the body of the plane survives, they are not going to risk the potential liability of flying equipment that might not be 100%.
However... in New Zealand, there was a time when a plane crashed twice in one day; it crashed again after the supposedly minor damage from the first crash was repaired.
I do not believe this kind of scenario would play out on a commercial flight with passengers on board ---- again, too risky for the airlines to allow a crashed plane back in service after "minor" repairs. No amount of inspection will clear up the political faux pas, if a plane brought back in service after an initial crash does crash again, and passengers are injured in the 2nd crash.
How about call screening? You call in from a NSI telephone, then you are connected to an IVR.
Before you are connected to a dispatcher, you have to listen to a 5 second voice prompt, and confirm that a person's is in immediate danger of death or severe injury by saying 1 or saying 'emergency', Please press 2 or say 'support' for any other problem.
If '2' is requested, the call will be redirected to a special police non-emergency number
If '1' is requested, then a second screening stage will request caller to specify what kind of emergency, "At the tone, please say your name and press #", "At the tone, please say your year and month of birth and press #", next they will be connected to a live operator who will gather their information; if the recorded name and DOB were each an appropriate number of seconds.
This is totally a bogus reason why we can't.
I think a better strategy would be a different screening process from emergency calls in from a NSI phone, Or
tougher regulation on the distribution of NSI phones.
Perhaps new ones should have to contain a 'FCC ID CHIP', which is crypto-signed, and cannot be distributed without someone showing a drivers' license and ownership being recorded at the point of distribution.
Or require providers to initialize an "Emergency Only" service upon request for a nominal fee, which would cause the FCC ID CHIP to become registered in a national database, so all carriers have to accept the device.
There should be some system where life/death emergency call devices can be guaranteed to work for emergencies, without having to pay for full blown telephone service.
it's not illegal to fire someone for being 30 seconds late or for "no longer being a good fit for our corporate culture"
No, however if they supply a bogus reason, that won't prevent the plaintiff from pursuing their claim, and the defendant will likely be called to "prove" they legitimately found them not a good fit for their corporate culture and the reason for doing so was a non-prohibited one, neither the employee nor the court has to (or is likely to) accept an employer's claimed reason at face value without evidence -- once a substantial complaint has been made, And if the accusing party can show employees are customarily 30 seconds late or not disciplined under those conditions, then the court will find the plaintiff's claimed reason quite persuasive after seeing that this behavior is abberent with regards to the organization's policies, when combined with the evidence of supplying a false reason or reason which doesn't add up.
And even if what they do IS illegal, their lawyers can most likely beat up your lawyers.
Attempted acts of violence in or out of the courtroom would be a quick way for their lawyers to wind up in jail.
Perfectly legal to fire someone for any reason or no stated reason
No. For any non-prohibited reason, and if no reason is stated, then the court will be happy to infer the most likely reason, when the employee presses a complaint.
Since it's illegal to fire an employee over exercise of their protected employee rights, this would never get past HR. It's illegal to fire an employee in retaliation over exercise of their legal rights in court against a previous employer.
In the US. If discriminating based on another criteria personally chosen has the result of disparately affecting members of a protected class, then it is illegal to use the criteria, regardless of the intent for selecting the criteria.
For example: If members of a certain age or sexual orientation are disparately affected by filtering applicants from certain zip codes, then discriminating on zip code is legally considered prohibited discrimination against the protected class, even if the intent was to reject applicants from a high-crime area.
Just because someone found an Ad-Hoc criteria to discriminate against people based on, Does not make the criteria is lawful, just because it isn't listed in the statute as specifically prohibited.
In Washington DC it is specifically prohibited by law for an employer to discriminate based on Location of Residence, Personal Appearance, Political Affiliation, Age (over 18), Marital Status, Sexual Orientation, Enrollment in an educational institution, Gender Identity, Status of Employment, Race, Sex, Color, National Origin, Religion, Genetic Information, and a number of other protected classifications.
In other states, discrimination against Location of Residence might not have a statute on the books, but legal action can still be pursued in federal court, if the result of an employer selecting the criteria negatively affects any protected group more than it negatively affects non-protected groups.
Given that the network is the single most important component of any IT infrastructure, I'd say it's a winner.
No..... CCNA would be for a technical implementation expert, who could help support the technical work of implementing the security team's policies, not a security expert. Everything in IT is about the applications.
The network is just one of the many core resources supporting applications, and all core resources must be there for applications to work; the network is no more important than the applications themselves, and it's no more important than any other core resource. The electrical power infrastructure and data cabling in the server room is just as important as the network pieces, because you don't have squat without powered up and cooled equipment, and you can't even build a network until you've met the power and signalling path requirements. Everything in IT is ultimately supporting applications and business users, which is the justification for spending money on technology in the first place.
So no... the network is not the single most important component. It's the application.
And the business users (or customers) (living beings) that need the application to do work, that are an equally vital component of the infrastructure.
Of course the applications do not work without the network. They also do not work without a DNS server, and a Storage array.
finds out that you made life a pain for your previous employer, well, he might find another reason to skip over that candidate
You can make life a pain for your previous employer after being hired by the next one, instead of before being hired by the next one. In other words.... be patient and bide your time, so long as you don't let any statute of limitations lapse.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
Phone records were likely but a small slice of what the surveillance networks are working on.
They likely have Internet tap aggregators with black boxes in all the major POPs across the country, nay the world.
If you post something on Facebook, Twitter, or Slashdot, they likely have the data indexed within 15 seconds, And connected to all the poster's personally identifying information for 99% of users, with a single click.
No, you're not. You only give out the new one from this point forward. Keeping the old one means that you don't have to bother telling older contacts about the new email address
But you are still having to maintain two e-mail accounts now, and make sure that two accounts keep working forever, and if the old one breaks eventually, then you will have problems.
It's simpler, better, and more convenient if you can just keep the first one in the first place, And never need to change addresses in the first place.
It's even better if you Own the domain name the first e-mail address was on, but that is not very common,
But at least don't change from one e-mail address with a free provider on a domain you don't own to a new address on yet a new free provider on a domain you don't own,
"Just because"
If you have an AOL.com address, and your needs are met for that e-mail address, then there is really no good reason to change addresses in the first place with "just because" as a reason.
Just because a new service may be better for some or all users: doesn't mean it bears the weight to make it worth switching to that for everyone.
Assuming you're an engineer of any sort you've just displayed a lack of objectivity when solving a problem.
It is no more legal or appropriate to discard apps with an AOL.com address, than it is to discard apps that have a certain zip code or street name printed on them, which..... by the way, can result in the employer being sued, if this capricious hiring practice is ever discovered.
Such an act would also be showing extreme arrogance as to take intentional action aimed at applying inappropriate personal prejudices to a business process, as there does not seem to be any legitimate basis for analyzing the domain name of an applicant's contact address.
This can also rise to the level of unlawful discrimination through disparate impact: in case certain demographic groups applying are more likely to have an AOL.com e-mail address.
It is most likely to lead to claims of age-based discrimination against individuals older than 25, as a result of popularity of AOL.com e-mail addresses in earlier decades, And early internet users wishing to maintain their old e-mail address.
Slashdot Mirror
Minimum wage coupled with rent control might be workable if food and transportation costs are kept marginal.
I would prefer a "free market" solution. Require landlords to offer tenants an annual agreement valid for a minimum of 5 years that promises at least that number of years of lease extension at substantially the same terms and specifies the maximum rate increase over the next 5 years out and extendable every year.
The level of the rate increase is completely up to the landlord, their choice. HOWEVER, any rate increase specified by the agreement over the next 5 years will be presumed to be guaranteed income, which tax must be prepaid for, and only 80% of the tax amount will be eligible to be refunded under any circumstances whatsoever, including deductible expenses or if the tenant cancels their lease before that income is realized, and failing at the end of the year to add another year indicating intent to cancel the lease, will be valid, but a $1000 administrative fee must be paid to the government in order to do so, to help cover social programs, unless the tenant themself declared an intent to cancel the lease using a specific notarized form.
Besides if we let the government collect all autonomous vehicle data, we are in for some serious trouble.
I believe vehicle owners will willingly contribute the data; especially if they know it will be used to help enforce the law against miscreants who disrupted their smooth travel.
If they use that power to enforce something as frivolous as traffic violations then we have really f***ed ourselves over.
Traffic violations are not frivolous, they are a safety issue. All available sources for collecting data should be used to help enforce safety.
Traffic authorities? As autonomous vehicles increase, traffic cops will decrease.
You mean fines will increase to support law enforcement. The most minor violation from a human driver will to have to carry a heftier fine than before, and more rigorous enforcement will be possible thanks to contributions from autonomous vehicle owners.
You seem to think that DNS names being exposed in TLS negotiation was an accident.
The purpose of DNS names being exposed by the SNI extension is to facilitate name-based virtual hosting. It is not to expose additional information to 3rd parties sniffing the line; that part was clearly an accident. It can be fixed, and I see no reason why it won't be.
There are legitimate reasons for some people being able to selectively block web traffic
If someone's abusing SNI information for censorship purposes, then that's yet another reason this needs to be fixed. No a 3rd party sniffing to identify names and tampering with or "blocking" SSL traffic is not legitimate, for any reason.
being exchanged to become opaque those who want/need to block will do so using other means like IP blocks/reverse DNS lookups
One protocol at a time. There are other undergoing projects within the industry to privacy-secure DNS, so 3rd parties won't be able to intercept your DNS requests or figure out what DNS names you are looking up.
As for IP blocks, there are always methods available of proxying traffic, including ToR... these could even get built into standard web browsers as a "fallback" connection method, if for some reason, a direct connection was failing, or in due course using default proxying, for additional source IP privacy shielding.
New proxies are becoming available every day, so the major browsers just need to incorporate all available anti-censorship techniques, to ensure that network-based traffic tampering/interception won't work out of the box.
But somebody needs deal with the inevitable delays and malfunctioning signals at winter and look out the window to check people do not get stuck in the door, etc.
Translation: Get rid of drivers and replace them with safety patrol officers and maintenance workers who are trained to ensure safety and handle emergencies.
I'll relish in those years where I can drive like a mad man and all those self driving cars will part like the red sea.
And those self-driving cars who will at the same time catch you on video and upload the footage to your insurance company and local traffic authorities.....
The next stage is for users to download the ads, but don't show them on the screen.
Big data analysis will show when the number of legitimate clicks drops below expected levels for a /20 or more of IP space.
When it drops below acceptable tolerance; we'll replace content with a Captcha submission form that requires looking at an image or text shown in the Advert frame in order to successfully answer the Captcha.
If the Ad is not shown, then the user won't be able to complete the Captcha.
as the DNS names the certificates protect are passed in the clear during TLS negotiation.
A privacy issue.... Hopefully, in the future, we'll add negotiation using DH of a shared secret between client and server, then exchange a Hash of the DNS name encrypted with a shared secret during TLS negotiation, instead of the actual name.
That way, a third party cannot passively snoop on the TLS negotiation and work out the proper certificate name being expected by the client, without causing the SSL session to fail.
I noticed there are a lot of incidents of "people providing carriage" these days looking for any possible revenue streams they can get, legitimate or not. Mafia-Like. The big near-Monopoly residential broadband providers in the world want to change their role from common carrier to Mafioso Middlemen.
Without Title II / Network neutrality regulation by the FCC.... the time has fast been approaching in the US, where if you want to go to http://www.amazon.com/ in your web browser, you would not be able to, unless Amazon made a deal with your ISP that includes a cut of every sale.
It's similar to the idea of the electric company wanting to charge a percentage of the sales of every new device, before you are allowed to plug it into the wall (Your new iPhone charger must be hardwired by a POCO-approved installer, and the install fee is $50 plus 10% of the price of the new equipment shown on the sales reciept).
The next stage is for Google to provide an Apache plugin and some custom Javascript to detect if a client has been downloading certain pages without displaying the ads; if your IP address gets in the "Ad Blocker" blacklist, then all the content provider websites can just query the blacklist and refuse to serve content until you unblock the ads.
I can hardly imagine them wanting you to use less traffic.
They're better off if you pay for much more traffic upfront than you use, like the average subscriber does --- the overages are just to catch the small number of "heavy eaters", so reducing traffic would be a win with most subscribers using a prepaid monthly expiring allowance they won't hit anyways.
This. We all need to think about the toddlers a little bit more and throw some context in, instead of just starting our replies with This.
You're probably right. But it could be worth it to the employer in terms of employee relations.
It can be beneficial for your counsel, for things to turn out differently, in terms of employee relations ---- it will mean more $$$ for the attorney in the future from referrals and employees talking about it if things turn out in your favor, therefore, you might at least in theory be able to make a deal such as a contingency arrangement with the attorney representing yourself against the hostage taker to help ensure that doesn't happen; make sure to have done all your anticipatory homework well in advance of the action you are pursuing legal recourse against.
Just because they can afford counsel that charges a higher rate or requires more hours: it does not necessarily mean they will get as much more for their money as they paid for, especially if there is a strong case against them. If the facts are sufficiently strongly in your favor, then they will be wasting every cent, especially once you demonstrate bad faith in attempting to drag matters out --- and recover attorneys' fees from your fmr employer as well; they can hire more people or more hours of legal work, or attorneys who are in higher demand, however they will burn through a large amount of cash, and there is a point of diminishing returns. A great plumber can charge a bit more than a bad one, but a decent plumber who charges astronomical prices can't give any kind of assurance of a more effective job, just because their prices are high.
Perhaps it helps if you yourself go get some legal creds and then pursue your fmr employer as an attorney representing yourself, then they won't have much luck running up your hourly legal costs, and with your a$$ on the line, you might put more hours a day into that one case than your adversary's "high priced attorney" dividing his/her attention across 30 clients would even be willing to work on it.
Either that, or find an associate willing to help you press the charges pro-bono, and cost the former employer as many $$$ as possible.
I don't know anyone who spends time charging and carrying around (as a phone) a phone that can only call 911.
These days there are purpose-built emergency phones. You don't need to charge. You use lithium batteries which last a long period of time (shelf life), as there is no draw from the cell until you need to activate the emergency-only device.
I haven't heard of a plane that has crashed twice, usually once will do the job.
I believe in the US... once a plane crashes, it is going out of commercial service permanently, as it would need a total overhaul --- even if the body of the plane survives, they are not going to risk the potential liability of flying equipment that might not be 100%.
However... in New Zealand, there was a time when a plane crashed twice in one day; it crashed again after the supposedly minor damage from the first crash was repaired.
I do not believe this kind of scenario would play out on a commercial flight with passengers on board ---- again, too risky for the airlines to allow a crashed plane back in service after "minor" repairs. No amount of inspection will clear up the political faux pas, if a plane brought back in service after an initial crash does crash again, and passengers are injured in the 2nd crash.
How about call screening? You call in from a NSI telephone, then you are connected to an IVR. Before you are connected to a dispatcher, you have to listen to a 5 second voice prompt, and confirm that a person's is in immediate danger of death or severe injury by saying 1 or saying 'emergency', Please press 2 or say 'support' for any other problem.
If '2' is requested, the call will be redirected to a special police non-emergency number If '1' is requested, then a second screening stage will request caller to specify what kind of emergency, "At the tone, please say your name and press #", "At the tone, please say your year and month of birth and press #", next they will be connected to a live operator who will gather their information; if the recorded name and DOB were each an appropriate number of seconds.
This is why we can't have nice things.
This is totally a bogus reason why we can't. I think a better strategy would be a different screening process from emergency calls in from a NSI phone, Or tougher regulation on the distribution of NSI phones.
Perhaps new ones should have to contain a 'FCC ID CHIP', which is crypto-signed, and cannot be distributed without someone showing a drivers' license and ownership being recorded at the point of distribution.
Or require providers to initialize an "Emergency Only" service upon request for a nominal fee, which would cause the FCC ID CHIP to become registered in a national database, so all carriers have to accept the device.
There should be some system where life/death emergency call devices can be guaranteed to work for emergencies, without having to pay for full blown telephone service.
it's not illegal to fire someone for being 30 seconds late or for "no longer being a good fit for our corporate culture"
No, however if they supply a bogus reason, that won't prevent the plaintiff from pursuing their claim, and the defendant will likely be called to "prove" they legitimately found them not a good fit for their corporate culture and the reason for doing so was a non-prohibited one, neither the employee nor the court has to (or is likely to) accept an employer's claimed reason at face value without evidence -- once a substantial complaint has been made, And if the accusing party can show employees are customarily 30 seconds late or not disciplined under those conditions, then the court will find the plaintiff's claimed reason quite persuasive after seeing that this behavior is abberent with regards to the organization's policies, when combined with the evidence of supplying a false reason or reason which doesn't add up.
And even if what they do IS illegal, their lawyers can most likely beat up your lawyers.
Attempted acts of violence in or out of the courtroom would be a quick way for their lawyers to wind up in jail.
Perfectly legal to fire someone for any reason or no stated reason
No. For any non-prohibited reason, and if no reason is stated, then the court will be happy to infer the most likely reason, when the employee presses a complaint.
Since it's illegal to fire an employee over exercise of their protected employee rights, this would never get past HR. It's illegal to fire an employee in retaliation over exercise of their legal rights in court against a previous employer.
In the US. If discriminating based on another criteria personally chosen has the result of disparately affecting members of a protected class, then it is illegal to use the criteria, regardless of the intent for selecting the criteria.
For example: If members of a certain age or sexual orientation are disparately affected by filtering applicants from certain zip codes, then discriminating on zip code is legally considered prohibited discrimination against the protected class, even if the intent was to reject applicants from a high-crime area.
Just because someone found an Ad-Hoc criteria to discriminate against people based on, Does not make the criteria is lawful, just because it isn't listed in the statute as specifically prohibited.
In Washington DC it is specifically prohibited by law for an employer to discriminate based on Location of Residence, Personal Appearance, Political Affiliation, Age (over 18), Marital Status, Sexual Orientation, Enrollment in an educational institution, Gender Identity, Status of Employment, Race, Sex, Color, National Origin, Religion, Genetic Information, and a number of other protected classifications.
In other states, discrimination against Location of Residence might not have a statute on the books, but legal action can still be pursued in federal court, if the result of an employer selecting the criteria negatively affects any protected group more than it negatively affects non-protected groups.
Given that the network is the single most important component of any IT infrastructure, I'd say it's a winner.
No..... CCNA would be for a technical implementation expert, who could help support the technical work of implementing the security team's policies, not a security expert. Everything in IT is about the applications.
The network is just one of the many core resources supporting applications, and all core resources must be there for applications to work; the network is no more important than the applications themselves, and it's no more important than any other core resource. The electrical power infrastructure and data cabling in the server room is just as important as the network pieces, because you don't have squat without powered up and cooled equipment, and you can't even build a network until you've met the power and signalling path requirements.
Everything in IT is ultimately supporting applications and business users, which is the justification for spending money on technology in the first place.
So no... the network is not the single most important component. It's the application.
And the business users (or customers) (living beings) that need the application to do work, that are an equally vital component of the infrastructure.
Of course the applications do not work without the network. They also do not work without a DNS server, and a Storage array.
finds out that you made life a pain for your previous employer, well, he might find another reason to skip over that candidate
You can make life a pain for your previous employer after being hired by the next one, instead of before being hired by the next one. In other words.... be patient and bide your time, so long as you don't let any statute of limitations lapse.
Is anyone going to really believe it's all been mothballed at the stroke of a pen?
Phone records were likely but a small slice of what the surveillance networks are working on.
They likely have Internet tap aggregators with black boxes in all the major POPs across the country, nay the world.
If you post something on Facebook, Twitter, or Slashdot, they likely have the data indexed within 15 seconds, And connected to all the poster's personally identifying information for 99% of users, with a single click.
No, you're not. You only give out the new one from this point forward. Keeping the old one means that you don't have to bother telling older contacts about the new email address
But you are still having to maintain two e-mail accounts now, and make sure that two accounts keep working forever, and if the old one breaks eventually, then you will have problems.
It's simpler, better, and more convenient if you can just keep the first one in the first place, And never need to change addresses in the first place.
It's even better if you Own the domain name the first e-mail address was on, but that is not very common, But at least don't change from one e-mail address with a free provider on a domain you don't own to a new address on yet a new free provider on a domain you don't own, "Just because"
If you have an AOL.com address, and your needs are met for that e-mail address, then there is really no good reason to change addresses in the first place with "just because" as a reason.
Just because a new service may be better for some or all users: doesn't mean it bears the weight to make it worth switching to that for everyone.
Assuming you're an engineer of any sort you've just displayed a lack of objectivity when solving a problem.
It is no more legal or appropriate to discard apps with an AOL.com address, than it is to discard apps that have a certain zip code or street name printed on them, which..... by the way, can result in the employer being sued, if this capricious hiring practice is ever discovered.
Such an act would also be showing extreme arrogance as to take intentional action aimed at applying inappropriate personal prejudices to a business process, as there does not seem to be any legitimate basis for analyzing the domain name of an applicant's contact address.
This can also rise to the level of unlawful discrimination through disparate impact: in case certain demographic groups applying are more likely to have an AOL.com e-mail address.
It is most likely to lead to claims of age-based discrimination against individuals older than 25, as a result of popularity of AOL.com e-mail addresses in earlier decades, And early internet users wishing to maintain their old e-mail address.
You forgot to read the fine print. Text only email, no HTML, or it counts against your 25MB limit!
Every byte counts against the 25MB per message limit, regardless of whether it is text or HTML, or text with attachments, or HTML with attachments.
Furthermore, that's how it works with all the major providers, in regards to the attachment limit.
Finally, AOL.com advertises unlimited mailbox storage space, not like Gmail where there is a 9GB fixed limit.