Experience+College, Experience (no degree), Self-taught limited experience, College Grad (no experience), Technical Trade School, No apparent Qualifications.
Interesting. Well, I would tend to say: dependent on the job. I would sort that differently:
Experience (College or no degree treated the same), College Grad (no experience), Self-taught limited experience, Self-taught No relevant experience, No apparent Qualifications, Technical Trade School.
I'm just considering, what it says about a person, that they chose to attend a certain trade school,
and felt it was a worthwhile use of their money.
If the job is such an entry-level duty, and requires so few skills, that the average technical trade school
student might be able to do it.... then perhaps the job really requires no special qualifications at all.
Not all jobs do require special qualifications beyond a high-school level, not even technical ones. It might be more cost effective to just train the person for their role.
And how exactly does one accurately differentiate "self taught" to an adequate extent from "No apparent qualifications" (hmmmm...)
The person with no qualifications may do just as good a job, and not be so quick to seek a high rate of pay.
The guy holding the trade school diploma that they spent lots of money on, may very well have
a delusion of getting a 7 figure salary after a few years of entry-level work.
So you could hire 50 people with no qualifications on a "trial basis", based on analysis of other factors to find the very best ones, versus 2 technical trade school people.
Determine rather quickly which ones of the 50 can fill the job or are otherwise able to provide more
value to the organization, and tell the others, sorry, it didn't work out, with a few weeks extra pay for their trouble.
"Stealing" is not the right word. A translation is covered by copyright, and can be subject to a claim of copyright separate from the original work; reproducing and distribution of the translation, without permission of BOTH the author / copyright holder of the original work and of the translator / copyright holder of the translation work, would be copyright infringement, leading to the possibility of a cause of action, resulting in a lawsuit and/or criminal charges, in certain circumstances.
. It is very likely that even the actual translator paid to do the work thought he/she might save some time!
Quite possibly a translator who is about to receive their pink slip, and possibly a lawsuit, for the costs to have the translations redone that _they_ were paid to do, but chose to supply third party translations instead.
FCC doesn't seem to care when people shit all over the bands used for WiFi in some random suburb.
The FCC pay more attention, when you actually take measures to locate where the interference, or non-compliant transmission, is coming from, and you file the formal interference complaint paperwork against the secondary unlicensed user that the offending emissions are coming from.
Http://labor.vermont.gov/LinkClick.aspx?link=http://www.slashdot.org
To me that's the bigger f'up
Why is that?
Suppose you want an efficient way of tracking which external links visitors of your site are clicking on.
A script such as LinkClick.aspx is a reasonable way of achieving that.
Limiting LinkClick.aspx to a specific list of URLs adds extra unnecessary maintenance work, and it's really not an issue to allow you to redirect yourself to any site.
Assuming there's no f'up such as 1.usa.gov allowing any.gov link.
The GOV TLD is not, and never was, a TLD you can see in a URL and be certain that you are visiting a trusted website.
The.GOV TLD is not some walled garden that is isolated from the internet, that is secured perfectly and magically immune from containing security vulnerabilities, malicious content, defacements, infections, etc.
It's also possible, too much power was being transmitted, it wasn't balanced properly, or the antenna was inefficient, resulting in signal deflection,
and heat buildup in the transmitter on the old AP, causing eventual long-term damage/degradation to the transciver.
Importance is relative to the person making a decision about ordering.
Most everyone will view their own life as more important than some unknown person.
But it's also irrelevent to this matter -- you have the right to defend your life, when necessary, with force,
even force that might place your attacker's life in jeapordy.
If someone attempts to apply deadly force to you, there will be circumstances where you will definitely die, if you do not respond with force that has a risk of killing your attacker.
It is essentially a certainty that if you don't defend against the attacker, a minimum of one life will be lost; yours, and anyone else this attacker will go after next.
If you do defend, using deadly force there is a possibility that a life will be lost; either yours, despite your defense, or the attacker's.
There's also a chance, your deadly force will just incapacitate the attacker, and you will be able to get help, there might be no loss of life then, which is an improvement.
Not to dismiss the possibility that both the attacker and the defender suffer mortal wounds, and neither survives.
But even that is a gain in the sense, that the attacker is out of commission, and not going to kill anymore people.
On most devices, IMEI numbers are traditionally burned into a soldered IC, are non-reprogrammable
chips, and the numbers cannot be changed, without replacing the phone's main PCB.
There won't be criminals specializing in reprogramming, if the cost to reprogram is so close to the revenue
to be gotten from reanimating a stolen phone
In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker.
In most jurisdictions, you have a right to defend yourself and other people using force, and under certain conditions, where it is justified, force that could potentially be deadly.
You don't have a right to use force for the purpose of killing or inflicting injury upon anyone, but under the conditions where force is allowed, force may legally be used that has a risk of that.
If you are assaulted or attacked, and your attacker happens to die, as a result of wounds inflicted by your legal self-defense, then the attacker is responsible for their death or injuries.
Unless you had provoked/exacerbated the situation or applied force that was obviously not required.
Force involving shooting an 'attacker' who had surrendered, or was already incapacitated or wounded, would be demonstrably unnecessary.
In any case, if you are ever put in a situation where you actually must use force to preserve your very survival.
The ultimate legal ramifications might be the last thing on your mind; would you actually choose to potentially let an assailant kill you, over ensuring you survive and accepting the risk of being charged with a crime?
and as such supercedes anything written in the Constitution itself.
False.
Article VI addresses this; it states
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Note that Article VI states LAWS shall be made in pursuance thereof.
However, no restriction is placed on treaties.
There is no limit on treaties; anything can be negotiated.
There is a reliance by the people on good leaders not choosing to sacrifice fundamental rights of the citizens to a foreign power.
It is possible to imagine circumstances, under which they might do so; namely, losing a war, to a country that determines as a term of peace, the country has to give up some rights for its people (such as the right to bear arms), and some of its sovereignty, as a required condition for continuing to self-govern.
But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?
If there is not absolute proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, then in that situation, Zimmerman should be released.
If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable.
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
That is sometimes, but not always the case.
We can't even use past performance to reliably predict stock prices, and the behavior of individual humans has far more uncertainty.
It would be quite unfair to all involved to rely on just a story alone, and a history of past behavior.
It's quite believable that the "poster boy for good kids everywhere" could decide do something wrong, due to known or unknown motivation; or that someone who often did bad things did not do anything wrong in this instance.
I thought the legal responsibility of any public corporation was to do any thing ethical and legal to earn money for shareholders.
Since when was there an "Ethical" qualifier?
The legal responsibility of the board and officers of a public corporation is to do any legal thing to execute their charter.
Unless they are a non-profit, it typically says something about achieving maximum possible return for the shareholders,
by any legal means.
No but they sell ads. And people want to put their ads where people will see them.
Right, and the people who want to buy ads have to agree to Google's terms.
And it's ultimately Google's discretion as to what ads get placed, and what gets placed in their search engine.
Noone can force Google to display a certain message, or take out a certain message,
because it would be a violation of Google's freedom of speech right.
That will be ignored as soon as the capability to occupy celestial bodies exists.
In the US, probably not, treaties are the supreme law of the land, as indicated in the constitution.
A signed treaty is tantamount to a constitutional amendment, and authorizes the legislature to enforce the treaty,
but not to "ignore it"
Even laws passed by congress cannot override the text of a treaty,
Because the courts have a policy of interpreting any law passed by congress in a manner so that it complies with the signed treaties,
or declaring the conflicting law null and void.
It would be necessary for the treaty to be officially rescinded first.
What's to stop companies from continuing the "private registration" feature that they already offer (often for a significant fee) to hide the domain owners name, address and other personal details?
Are you aware of the requirements that apply to domain registrars, including ones that implement that function?
Every domain registrar is Required to retain the WHOIS data, and all the pertinent details for all their customers,
and make all that information available to organizations designated by ICANN.
Buying a private registration gets you a public WHOIS listing, but all your information is still available.
Unless you have a 3rd party registrar-unaffiliated proxy service, register the domain,
own the domain in place of you, and provide their information to the registrar, instead of yours.
Then there's a risk, however, if the proxy service goes bankrupt:
ownership of the domain could get included in the proxy services' assets
and liquidated to pay creditors of the proxy service.
Remember when you were a kid and had to borrow your parents car? You don't like the rules, buy your own.
It's more like: remember when you were a parent, your car broke down and you decided not to replace it, but on occasion you reached an agreement with your next door neighbor, to pay them to take you along on their trip and drop you off in town.
But one day one of your teenaged kids offered to pay them more, and their car had only one seat available, so the kid won you didn't get to go where you needed to that day.
Start by reviewing the studies of what happens to lottery winners.
Are you referring to what lottery winners choose to do with money?
Because you would not be talking about how money works at all, but human behavior.
Currency is very simple, and obeys basic laws of arithmetic, that is, unless you are a Government
or Bank, where you can leverage the money, make virtual money out of thin air, and V2P in the amounts required.
It's hundreds of people working just to put one rich person in space. It's beyond extravagant. It's an obscene waste of time, effort and natural resources.
Those hundreds of people who are getting paid to do the work, might beg to differ.
It might be extravagant, but Brightman's extravegance means that they get to work and put food on their table,
possibly some of those people would be hungry, looking for a job if not for the "beyond extravaganct" person's huge cash purchase....
Actually, that X million spend, means that the US will be spending those millions on something else.
Hopefully something useful.....
It is a seat on the flight, not a position on the space station. The Russians can do whatever they want with their launch program. The ISS is different.
Yeah, but the point of the flight, is those on it will have access to the ISS.
So... restrict access to step aboard the ISS to scientists, and suddenly, the "tourist" demand for seats on the flight should be zero
Slashdot Mirror
What is the difference between experience and limited experience?
Limited experience implies less than 5 years full time work in the field.
Experience+College, Experience (no degree), Self-taught limited experience, College Grad (no experience), Technical Trade School, No apparent Qualifications.
Interesting. Well, I would tend to say: dependent on the job. I would sort that differently:
Experience (College or no degree treated the same), College Grad (no experience), Self-taught limited experience, Self-taught No relevant experience, No apparent Qualifications, Technical Trade School.
I'm just considering, what it says about a person, that they chose to attend a certain trade school, and felt it was a worthwhile use of their money.
If the job is such an entry-level duty, and requires so few skills, that the average technical trade school student might be able to do it.... then perhaps the job really requires no special qualifications at all.
Not all jobs do require special qualifications beyond a high-school level, not even technical ones. It might be more cost effective to just train the person for their role. And how exactly does one accurately differentiate "self taught" to an adequate extent from "No apparent qualifications" (hmmmm...)
The person with no qualifications may do just as good a job, and not be so quick to seek a high rate of pay. The guy holding the trade school diploma that they spent lots of money on, may very well have a delusion of getting a 7 figure salary after a few years of entry-level work.
So you could hire 50 people with no qualifications on a "trial basis", based on analysis of other factors to find the very best ones, versus 2 technical trade school people.
Determine rather quickly which ones of the 50 can fill the job or are otherwise able to provide more value to the organization, and tell the others, sorry, it didn't work out, with a few weeks extra pay for their trouble.
I don't think 'translating' counts as stealing.
"Stealing" is not the right word. A translation is covered by copyright, and can be subject to a claim of copyright separate from the original work; reproducing and distribution of the translation, without permission of BOTH the author / copyright holder of the original work and of the translator / copyright holder of the translation work, would be copyright infringement, leading to the possibility of a cause of action, resulting in a lawsuit and/or criminal charges, in certain circumstances.
. It is very likely that even the actual translator paid to do the work thought he/she might save some time!
Quite possibly a translator who is about to receive their pink slip, and possibly a lawsuit, for the costs to have the translations redone that _they_ were paid to do, but chose to supply third party translations instead.
FCC doesn't seem to care when people shit all over the bands used for WiFi in some random suburb.
The FCC pay more attention, when you actually take measures to locate where the interference, or non-compliant transmission, is coming from, and you file the formal interference complaint paperwork against the secondary unlicensed user that the offending emissions are coming from.
Http://labor.vermont.gov/LinkClick.aspx?link=http://www.slashdot.org
To me that's the bigger f'up
Why is that?
Suppose you want an efficient way of tracking which external links visitors of your site are clicking on. A script such as LinkClick.aspx is a reasonable way of achieving that.
Limiting LinkClick.aspx to a specific list of URLs adds extra unnecessary maintenance work, and it's really not an issue to allow you to redirect yourself to any site.
Assuming there's no f'up such as 1.usa.gov allowing any .gov link.
The GOV TLD is not, and never was, a TLD you can see in a URL and be certain that you are visiting a trusted website.
The .GOV TLD is not some walled garden that is isolated from the internet, that is secured perfectly and magically immune from containing security vulnerabilities, malicious content, defacements, infections, etc.
Oh yeah.. like they'll never find you intruding upon a frequency range used for radiolocation, whatever.....
How about a fix that doesn't involve the FCC knocking on your door in a few weeks?
It's also possible, too much power was being transmitted, it wasn't balanced properly, or the antenna was inefficient, resulting in signal deflection, and heat buildup in the transmitter on the old AP, causing eventual long-term damage/degradation to the transciver.
Your life is no more important than anyone else's
Importance is relative to the person making a decision about ordering. Most everyone will view their own life as more important than some unknown person.
But it's also irrelevent to this matter -- you have the right to defend your life, when necessary, with force, even force that might place your attacker's life in jeapordy.
If someone attempts to apply deadly force to you, there will be circumstances where you will definitely die, if you do not respond with force that has a risk of killing your attacker.
It is essentially a certainty that if you don't defend against the attacker, a minimum of one life will be lost; yours, and anyone else this attacker will go after next.
If you do defend, using deadly force there is a possibility that a life will be lost; either yours, despite your defense, or the attacker's.
There's also a chance, your deadly force will just incapacitate the attacker, and you will be able to get help, there might be no loss of life then, which is an improvement.
Not to dismiss the possibility that both the attacker and the defender suffer mortal wounds, and neither survives. But even that is a gain in the sense, that the attacker is out of commission, and not going to kill anymore people.
On most devices, IMEI numbers are traditionally burned into a soldered IC, are non-reprogrammable chips, and the numbers cannot be changed, without replacing the phone's main PCB.
There won't be criminals specializing in reprogramming, if the cost to reprogram is so close to the revenue to be gotten from reanimating a stolen phone
In most jurisdictions, the law says you have a right to defend yourself with reasonable force. You don't have a right to kill your attacker.
In most jurisdictions, you have a right to defend yourself and other people using force, and under certain conditions, where it is justified, force that could potentially be deadly.
You don't have a right to use force for the purpose of killing or inflicting injury upon anyone, but under the conditions where force is allowed, force may legally be used that has a risk of that.
If you are assaulted or attacked, and your attacker happens to die, as a result of wounds inflicted by your legal self-defense, then the attacker is responsible for their death or injuries.
Unless you had provoked/exacerbated the situation or applied force that was obviously not required. Force involving shooting an 'attacker' who had surrendered, or was already incapacitated or wounded, would be demonstrably unnecessary.
In any case, if you are ever put in a situation where you actually must use force to preserve your very survival. The ultimate legal ramifications might be the last thing on your mind; would you actually choose to potentially let an assailant kill you, over ensuring you survive and accepting the risk of being charged with a crime?
and as such supercedes anything written in the Constitution itself.
False.
Article VI addresses this; it states
Note that Article VI states LAWS shall be made in pursuance thereof. However, no restriction is placed on treaties.
There is no limit on treaties; anything can be negotiated. There is a reliance by the people on good leaders not choosing to sacrifice fundamental rights of the citizens to a foreign power.
It is possible to imagine circumstances, under which they might do so; namely, losing a war, to a country that determines as a term of peace, the country has to give up some rights for its people (such as the right to bear arms), and some of its sovereignty, as a required condition for continuing to self-govern.
But that's all we have. So what would you rather they do - release Zimmerman, drop the charges, and forget about it? Or investigate, and determine whether or not it's reasonable to believe a crime was (or wasn't) committed?
If there is not absolute proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, then in that situation, Zimmerman should be released.
If Martin is shown to be the poster boy for good kids everywhere, then it makes it far less believable.
Of course, that could be highly unfair treatment. It assumes that past behavior is a reliable predictor of future behavior.
That is sometimes, but not always the case.
We can't even use past performance to reliably predict stock prices, and the behavior of individual humans has far more uncertainty.
It would be quite unfair to all involved to rely on just a story alone, and a history of past behavior. It's quite believable that the "poster boy for good kids everywhere" could decide do something wrong, due to known or unknown motivation; or that someone who often did bad things did not do anything wrong in this instance.
Deadly force should never be used, even in self defense.
There are times that deadly force MUST sometimes be used in self defense, if you intend to survive.
I thought the legal responsibility of any public corporation was to do any thing ethical and legal to earn money for shareholders.
Since when was there an "Ethical" qualifier?
The legal responsibility of the board and officers of a public corporation is to do any legal thing to execute their charter. Unless they are a non-profit, it typically says something about achieving maximum possible return for the shareholders, by any legal means.
On top of that outright monopoly abuse
Google does not have a monopoly. There are major meaningful competitors, such as Bing and Yahoo.
No but they sell ads. And people want to put their ads where people will see them.
Right, and the people who want to buy ads have to agree to Google's terms.
And it's ultimately Google's discretion as to what ads get placed, and what gets placed in their search engine.
Noone can force Google to display a certain message, or take out a certain message, because it would be a violation of Google's freedom of speech right.
That will be ignored as soon as the capability to occupy celestial bodies exists.
In the US, probably not, treaties are the supreme law of the land, as indicated in the constitution. A signed treaty is tantamount to a constitutional amendment, and authorizes the legislature to enforce the treaty, but not to "ignore it"
Even laws passed by congress cannot override the text of a treaty,
Because the courts have a policy of interpreting any law passed by congress in a manner so that it complies with the signed treaties, or declaring the conflicting law null and void.
It would be necessary for the treaty to be officially rescinded first.
What's to stop companies from continuing the "private registration" feature that they already offer (often for a significant fee) to hide the domain owners name, address and other personal details?
Are you aware of the requirements that apply to domain registrars, including ones that implement that function?
Every domain registrar is Required to retain the WHOIS data, and all the pertinent details for all their customers, and make all that information available to organizations designated by ICANN.
Buying a private registration gets you a public WHOIS listing, but all your information is still available.
Unless you have a 3rd party registrar-unaffiliated proxy service, register the domain, own the domain in place of you, and provide their information to the registrar, instead of yours.
Then there's a risk, however, if the proxy service goes bankrupt: ownership of the domain could get included in the proxy services' assets and liquidated to pay creditors of the proxy service.
Remember when you were a kid and had to borrow your parents car? You don't like the rules, buy your own.
It's more like: remember when you were a parent, your car broke down and you decided not to replace it, but on occasion you reached an agreement with your next door neighbor, to pay them to take you along on their trip and drop you off in town.
But one day one of your teenaged kids offered to pay them more, and their car had only one seat available, so the kid won you didn't get to go where you needed to that day.
Start by reviewing the studies of what happens to lottery winners.
Are you referring to what lottery winners choose to do with money?
Because you would not be talking about how money works at all, but human behavior.
Currency is very simple, and obeys basic laws of arithmetic, that is, unless you are a Government or Bank, where you can leverage the money, make virtual money out of thin air, and V2P in the amounts required.
It's hundreds of people working just to put one rich person in space. It's beyond extravagant. It's an obscene waste of time, effort and natural resources.
Those hundreds of people who are getting paid to do the work, might beg to differ. It might be extravagant, but Brightman's extravegance means that they get to work and put food on their table, possibly some of those people would be hungry, looking for a job if not for the "beyond extravaganct" person's huge cash purchase....
Actually, that X million spend, means that the US will be spending those millions on something else. Hopefully something useful.....
It is a seat on the flight, not a position on the space station. The Russians can do whatever they want with their launch program. The ISS is different.
Yeah, but the point of the flight, is those on it will have access to the ISS. So... restrict access to step aboard the ISS to scientists, and suddenly, the "tourist" demand for seats on the flight should be zero