There! Now they're handicapped and can park there! Problem solved!
Not quite... Just becuase you're handicapped doesn't mean you can use the spot.
You also need the paperwork in order, which generally requires a doctor's approval.
"Breaking the leg" doesn't make it legal or OK for them to be parked there.
assault,
and intentionally breaking someone's leg is a form of torture; both assault and torture
are heinous crimes, much more severe than illegitimately parking in a reserved disabled parking spot.
Although it does solve part of their problem -- now they can definitely legally get a pass,
after their leg is treated, their doctor approves, and after they go through the bureaucratic
process/fees that other disabled people with passes had to go through to get their pass.
Come to think of it... they might actually already have a disability, but didn't bother to
go through the paperwork and get the stickers to make their parking there legal.
In which case, no breaking their leg doesn't make any headway towards solving
their problem; other than possible coercive pressure, and the threat of assault..
Fun anecdote. In college, I broke my leg and was in a wheelchair for three months. The officer (state school, so the campus cops were state troopers with all of the training and abilities that go with it) still wouldn't let me have a handicap sticker.
Uhuh... the thing to do would have been to get the paperwork for your state and
talk to your doctor.
Campus cops don't make the decision about whether you need a parking pass or not.
You should've followed your state's process, and gotten the stickers from your state's office of motor vehicles.
What they should do is have license plates with RFID and E-INK on them.
If you pull into a handicapped spot, the RFID tag identifies you, and if you're not authorized
the E-INK display changes a portion of the license plate to say "ILLEGALLYPARKED IN HANDICAP"
And as soon as that happens, an officer can write the ticket at any time.
He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.
The important thing at such centers is not necessarily the exact location of the parking spot.
Cars with disabled require a lot of extra space on the right side of the car for loading/unloading
a wheelchair.
The handicapped perpendicular parking spots reserve enough area around the vehicle for loading and unloading,
By including extra space between areas for cars, usually denoted by blue crosshatch, the 4 to 5 foot
area beside the handicapped parking zone reserved for handicap unloading and loading.
A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.
They were doing you a favor, I suppose.
In many cities, the right thing to do would be to get a permit and post signs 72 hours in advance to take legal parking spots out of service, by creating a "Temporary No parking zone" you can then use for your loading.
In any case... just taking the handicapped spot isn't legal.
And the penalty for doing so is likely higher than having your car parked too close to an intersection.
Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only".
If 80% of Hybrid/Electric owners are white; if 10% of whites own hybrids, and less than 5% of non-whites do not own hybrids, then yes, it is discriminatory.
Discriminating against types of vehicles is discriminating against race, if there is a greater
statistical tendency for members of certain races to own hybrids.
By the same token, if there is a type of car, car X, that 90% of gays own and only 10% of straights own, then banning
that specific type of vehicle from a parking lot, or reserving spots for non car X, is discrimination against gays.
Why driving a certain kind of car should get you preferential treatment is beyond me, as it could be viewed as a form of discrimination--it punishes not only those who don't have a hybrid or electric car, but those who can't afford them either.
It would be interesting to see some sort of class action lawsuit on the subject.... for anticompetitive behavior / intrusion upon liberty / economic interference. With the tangible damages consisting of: cumulative cost of extra gallons of gasoline wasted/required to drive around looking for parking spots, with the lot densely populated solely due to the existence of discriminatory parking spots.
No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.
My suggestion would be to require by law that all handicapped parking zones be provided as parallel parking
with a curb protecting the access ramp area on the passenger side.
Then it would not be possible to block the vehicle's access ramp.
A lot of the time when you want stuff like that they don't know much about them
That's the company line, if you ask for cablecard... "We don't know what that is."
They've got to feign ignorance
"Just rent our $LIMITED_MACHINE_WITH_FANCY_MARKETING_MATERIAL at
$SUPER_INSANE_MARKUP per month or buy at $VASTLY_OVERSTATE_EQUIPMENT_WORTH."
Example: just rent our $2000 intentionally DRM-crippled DVR for $100/month that has a capacity of 20gb, or up to 20 hours of TV recording. Pause live TV, and record it (as long as the program doesn't have a no-record flag),
rewind, and fast forward (except through no-fast-forward sections such as sponsored messages,
where the broadcaster paid for the no-fast-forward bit).
Also comcast give out the POS Norton AV as well.
Mandatory software that the cable tech is required to offer, and encouraged to push as hard as
possible, due to company commissions received later for AV subscription renewal revenues.
VISA is enabling people who really can't afford your stuff, to buy your stuff anyway. Maybe it's not worth 3% of your revenue, but it's certainly not "absolutely nothing."
It's not exactly what VISA is doing. Especially not for a VISA debit card used as a credit card.
What VISA is doing is processing the payment.
Any loan being made is being done by the bank issuing the line of credit, not VISA.
VISA is providing convenient access to the line of credit in a manner that facilitates a sale.
Anyways, there are a lot of shoppers who won't buy from your shop without the convenience of pay by CC, because they don't carry cash around, and many shops won't accept checks anymore, so it might be "pay 3%" or don't get that business, anyways.
My local movie theatre will add a "handling fee" if you pay by credit card, even though the ticket is electronic and no handling takes place.
Adding a "handling fee" or any type of fee regardless of name for the act of paying by CC is exactly what the MC/Visa agreements forbid. Your local theatre would be in violation of the agreement, and subject to losing their privilege of accepting MC/Visa by charging a handling fee.
They would be permitted to charge a handling fee, if they charge the same fee regardless of payment method.
The only exception is a discount off the advertised price for paying in cash is permitted.
Pretty soon we'll see $3 Online Service cost recovery fee.
except named something more obscure.
Or they could just quietly add a charge an extra $5 a month to everyone logging online to review their call history
details, minutes or KBs of data used; waived for the first few months of service, so after your
60 day cool-off period for your new contract is done, the new charge begins to take effect.
you are permitted to charge a fee for a credit transaction
You can charge lots of fees, but you may not charge a fee for using a credit card, or
you would be in violation of Visa and Mastercard guidelines, and subject to losing your privilege
of processing MC/Visa, if your violation were reported by your customers:
Charges to cardholders. A merchant may not directly or indirectly require a cardholder to pay a surcharge or any part of the merchant processing fees charged in connection with a transaction. However, fees are allowable if they are charged regardless of the form of the payment, and merchants can provide a cash discount.
Minimum/maximum transaction amount prohibited. A merchant may not require, or indicate that it requires, a minimum or maximum transaction amount in order to accept a valid and properly presented MasterCard.
Spreading the number out over a large area dissipates the heat quite well.
Unless you have found a way to make electric current exceed the speed of light; a loss of
density is also a drop in the amount of computing power and efficiency that can possibly be achieved.
Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.
Well, she posted that information, and people have already had a chance to rely on what she posted.
She shouldn't get to just "erase" what she said, and pretend she never said it, while there are potentially
people still going around spreading what she had said, and relying on that information.
If someone should get questioned based on what she said, they should get to have faith that
the RipOffReport article they are citing doesn't magically disappear, because the poster has now lost confidence in it,
or its inconvenient for them personally.
RipOffReport does not need to be going around trying to shield the poster from the consequences of
their actions and hurt other people.
The responsible thing to do would be to offer the poster a mechanism to "add"
a followup to their original post, linking a correction, for example.
A sysadmin is not a programmer. The skill sets are different but are lumped under the general IT fog.
Wishful thinking.... It's true that the very most skilled IT system admins have skill sets that are a bit different from the skill sets of the most skilled programmers; in the real world, programmers usually get hit up with lots of IT duties.
Automation is a critical element of good system administration at scale, and it requires programming skills to do it properly.
A great many of the practicing system admins of any expertise are current or former programmers; often the sysadmin will be a programmer who was roped into the job.
Yes... if your a programmer your boss can tell you, that you are going to be moved to the system admin team, so study up, or vice versa.
I hear hiring managers saying things like "devops / developers make the best operators"
IT and programming have a great amount of overlap, contrary to what you've stated.
That he was dumb enough to apply his personal time and resources to company work is his problem, not theirs.
Arguably... since he was working on something job related.
This was not personal time.
It was time he wasn't supposed to be working, but he was working anyways.
The best he could reasonably ask for would be for this "personal time" to be counted as time spent working.
Assuming his use of time was efficient -- it would make sense for this to be allowed to count towards his required number of hours of work per week.
It could be used as justification to not have his pay docked for "down time" spent not working during hours that he was expected to be on the job.
So there was "personal time" that he was not supposed to be working, but actually was, and then there was "down time" where he was supposed to be working, but was slacking off.
Well, that tells me, his work time was really what he's calling "personal" time,
even if it wasn't spent at work... he took it upon himself to offset it by taking "down time", gee.
Can this comment be construed as an invitation for those effected by melting glaciers, to pack up their stuff in an RV,
and take up residence in your back yard?
Slashdot Mirror
There! Now they're handicapped and can park there! Problem solved!
Not quite... Just becuase you're handicapped doesn't mean you can use the spot. You also need the paperwork in order, which generally requires a doctor's approval.
"Breaking the leg" doesn't make it legal or OK for them to be parked there.
assault, and intentionally breaking someone's leg is a form of torture; both assault and torture are heinous crimes, much more severe than illegitimately parking in a reserved disabled parking spot.
Although it does solve part of their problem -- now they can definitely legally get a pass, after their leg is treated, their doctor approves, and after they go through the bureaucratic process/fees that other disabled people with passes had to go through to get their pass.
Come to think of it... they might actually already have a disability, but didn't bother to go through the paperwork and get the stickers to make their parking there legal.
In which case, no breaking their leg doesn't make any headway towards solving their problem; other than possible coercive pressure, and the threat of assault..
Fun anecdote. In college, I broke my leg and was in a wheelchair for three months. The officer (state school, so the campus cops were state troopers with all of the training and abilities that go with it) still wouldn't let me have a handicap sticker.
Uhuh... the thing to do would have been to get the paperwork for your state and talk to your doctor.
Campus cops don't make the decision about whether you need a parking pass or not. You should've followed your state's process, and gotten the stickers from your state's office of motor vehicles.
What they should do is have license plates with RFID and E-INK on them.
If you pull into a handicapped spot, the RFID tag identifies you, and if you're not authorized the E-INK display changes a portion of the license plate to say "ILLEGALLYPARKED IN HANDICAP"
And as soon as that happens, an officer can write the ticket at any time.
The point was it was legal to park in the spot during the grace period, before your plates are applied for and issued.
If the plate for your car has not been issued yet, how are the police going to know if it will be a handicap plate or not?
He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.
The important thing at such centers is not necessarily the exact location of the parking spot. Cars with disabled require a lot of extra space on the right side of the car for loading/unloading a wheelchair.
The handicapped perpendicular parking spots reserve enough area around the vehicle for loading and unloading, By including extra space between areas for cars, usually denoted by blue crosshatch, the 4 to 5 foot area beside the handicapped parking zone reserved for handicap unloading and loading.
A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.
They were doing you a favor, I suppose. In many cities, the right thing to do would be to get a permit and post signs 72 hours in advance to take legal parking spots out of service, by creating a "Temporary No parking zone" you can then use for your loading.
In any case... just taking the handicapped spot isn't legal. And the penalty for doing so is likely higher than having your car parked too close to an intersection.
Special parking spaces are not discriminatory, unless it said "whites only" or "straights only" or "men only".
If 80% of Hybrid/Electric owners are white; if 10% of whites own hybrids, and less than 5% of non-whites do not own hybrids, then yes, it is discriminatory.
Discriminating against types of vehicles is discriminating against race, if there is a greater statistical tendency for members of certain races to own hybrids.
By the same token, if there is a type of car, car X, that 90% of gays own and only 10% of straights own, then banning that specific type of vehicle from a parking lot, or reserving spots for non car X, is discrimination against gays.
Why driving a certain kind of car should get you preferential treatment is beyond me, as it could be viewed as a form of discrimination--it punishes not only those who don't have a hybrid or electric car, but those who can't afford them either.
It would be interesting to see some sort of class action lawsuit on the subject.... for anticompetitive behavior / intrusion upon liberty / economic interference. With the tangible damages consisting of: cumulative cost of extra gallons of gasoline wasted/required to drive around looking for parking spots, with the lot densely populated solely due to the existence of discriminatory parking spots.
No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.
My suggestion would be to require by law that all handicapped parking zones be provided as parallel parking with a curb protecting the access ramp area on the passenger side.
Then it would not be possible to block the vehicle's access ramp.
Congrats, Mr. cable guy, Larry on on youw new Net-werk specialization.
Get 'Er Done.
Or should he be saying.... Get 'Er surfing and streaming, and tweeting, now?
This should be an inspiration to cable company technicians everywhere. Go get your computer science degrees and engineering level certifications.
A lot of the time when you want stuff like that they don't know much about them
That's the company line, if you ask for cablecard... "We don't know what that is." They've got to feign ignorance
"Just rent our $LIMITED_MACHINE_WITH_FANCY_MARKETING_MATERIAL at $SUPER_INSANE_MARKUP per month or buy at $VASTLY_OVERSTATE_EQUIPMENT_WORTH."
Example: just rent our $2000 intentionally DRM-crippled DVR for $100/month that has a capacity of 20gb, or up to 20 hours of TV recording. Pause live TV, and record it (as long as the program doesn't have a no-record flag), rewind, and fast forward (except through no-fast-forward sections such as sponsored messages, where the broadcaster paid for the no-fast-forward bit).
Also comcast give out the POS Norton AV as well.
Mandatory software that the cable tech is required to offer, and encouraged to push as hard as possible, due to company commissions received later for AV subscription renewal revenues.
Doesn't the IRS charge you an extra fee if you want to pay your taxes by credit card?
The IRS doesn't charge an extra fee to 'pay your taxes by credit card', because the IRS doesn't give you any option to pay your taxes by credit card.
Now, you might be able to utilize a third party service that you pay a fee to a bank by credit card, who in turn provides the payment to the IRS...
VISA is enabling people who really can't afford your stuff, to buy your stuff anyway. Maybe it's not worth 3% of your revenue, but it's certainly not "absolutely nothing."
It's not exactly what VISA is doing. Especially not for a VISA debit card used as a credit card.
What VISA is doing is processing the payment. Any loan being made is being done by the bank issuing the line of credit, not VISA.
VISA is providing convenient access to the line of credit in a manner that facilitates a sale.
Anyways, there are a lot of shoppers who won't buy from your shop without the convenience of pay by CC, because they don't carry cash around, and many shops won't accept checks anymore, so it might be "pay 3%" or don't get that business, anyways.
My local movie theatre will add a "handling fee" if you pay by credit card, even though the ticket is electronic and no handling takes place.
Adding a "handling fee" or any type of fee regardless of name for the act of paying by CC is exactly what the MC/Visa agreements forbid. Your local theatre would be in violation of the agreement, and subject to losing their privilege of accepting MC/Visa by charging a handling fee.
They would be permitted to charge a handling fee, if they charge the same fee regardless of payment method.
The only exception is a discount off the advertised price for paying in cash is permitted.
Pretty soon we'll see $3 Online Service cost recovery fee.
except named something more obscure.
Or they could just quietly add a charge an extra $5 a month to everyone logging online to review their call history details, minutes or KBs of data used; waived for the first few months of service, so after your 60 day cool-off period for your new contract is done, the new charge begins to take effect.
But considering I put a nice little ;) at the end basically means I wasn't trying to stir up something all that serious
I would say plagiarism is a very serious matter, and allegations of the sort should never be tossed around lightly.
you are permitted to charge a fee for a credit transaction
You can charge lots of fees, but you may not charge a fee for using a credit card, or you would be in violation of Visa and Mastercard guidelines, and subject to losing your privilege of processing MC/Visa, if your violation were reported by your customers:
From Mastercard credit card acceptance guidelines
Spreading the number out over a large area dissipates the heat quite well.
Unless you have found a way to make electric current exceed the speed of light; a loss of density is also a drop in the amount of computing power and efficiency that can possibly be achieved.
ultimately, think of how many thousands of interconnections are in every piece of cotton clothing — you could make a fairly powerful computer!"
While that's a cute idea... a lot of transistors = a lot of heat.
Cotton fibers are not particularly known for their ability to tolerate high heat, and neither is human skin.
Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.
Well, she posted that information, and people have already had a chance to rely on what she posted.
She shouldn't get to just "erase" what she said, and pretend she never said it, while there are potentially people still going around spreading what she had said, and relying on that information.
If someone should get questioned based on what she said, they should get to have faith that the RipOffReport article they are citing doesn't magically disappear, because the poster has now lost confidence in it, or its inconvenient for them personally.
RipOffReport does not need to be going around trying to shield the poster from the consequences of their actions and hurt other people.
The responsible thing to do would be to offer the poster a mechanism to "add" a followup to their original post, linking a correction, for example.
Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".
When you "speak"; it's temporary and not viewable by the world. Posting things on the internet is more permanent.
There are still a lot of people who haven't yet learned "think before you post" or "think before you tweet"
But even people who have learned that lesson occasionally make mistakes.
Especially when intoxicated by alcohol, or by anger.
A sysadmin is not a programmer. The skill sets are different but are lumped under the general IT fog.
Wishful thinking.... It's true that the very most skilled IT system admins have skill sets that are a bit different from the skill sets of the most skilled programmers; in the real world, programmers usually get hit up with lots of IT duties.
Automation is a critical element of good system administration at scale, and it requires programming skills to do it properly.
A great many of the practicing system admins of any expertise are current or former programmers; often the sysadmin will be a programmer who was roped into the job.
Yes... if your a programmer your boss can tell you, that you are going to be moved to the system admin team, so study up, or vice versa.
I hear hiring managers saying things like "devops / developers make the best operators"
IT and programming have a great amount of overlap, contrary to what you've stated.
That he was dumb enough to apply his personal time and resources to company work is his problem, not theirs.
Arguably... since he was working on something job related. This was not personal time.
It was time he wasn't supposed to be working, but he was working anyways.
The best he could reasonably ask for would be for this "personal time" to be counted as time spent working. Assuming his use of time was efficient -- it would make sense for this to be allowed to count towards his required number of hours of work per week.
It could be used as justification to not have his pay docked for "down time" spent not working during hours that he was expected to be on the job.
So there was "personal time" that he was not supposed to be working, but actually was, and then there was "down time" where he was supposed to be working, but was slacking off.
Well, that tells me, his work time was really what he's calling "personal" time, even if it wasn't spent at work... he took it upon himself to offset it by taking "down time", gee.
Should you have a way to keep your boss from grabbing your work and then throwing you under the bus without so much as an honorable mention?
It's called code not maintainable by anyone but you -- that probably has a few minor bugs in it that will become very annoying.
Can this comment be construed as an invitation for those effected by melting glaciers, to pack up their stuff in an RV, and take up residence in your back yard?