So will this coumpany be bound by any restrictions as to what they can report on?
In an interview, the company can not legally ask me about certain things: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, birthplace, age, disability, Marital/family status, etc. Some of these things they can probably guess pretty accurately by looking at me when I walk in the door, but they aren't allowed to ask and damn well better not be using as hiring criteria.
If the company will be getting that info as part of the background check, it will make it very difficult to prove discrimination claims, because they can fall back on the "we knew about X, but that is not the reason we fired him."
Background checks for employment should be more heavily restricted: only reporting to the company what is legal for the company to make employment/termination decisions based on. If the employer is getting a list of lots of information about my outside life, it leads to the natural assumption that the company is using that information.
Not that we would put it past any government to say "the web robots caught you," rather than revealing that broad wiretaps or informants are the real source of info.
This is more like, once you figure out how to operate a telephone, realizing that you could just type in a different number, and it would call someone else, even if you didn't find the number in a listing.
Is the problem that we don't have enough engineers, or that they aren't doing enough engineering?
Everything I've been told seems to indicate that as soon as you get any good at being an engineer, they want you to be managing others. Project management. Program Management. Product Management. Maybe the prestige (and pay) of engineers should be increased, so that they can keep doing what they are best at, actual engineering.
If the engineers had more power than the accountants, marketing, sales, and management, they wouldn't be tempted to try to cross over to those areas.
Or maybe just separate the schools, so they can teach one or the other, but not both. different core curriculum, different hours requirements, different grading standards. They'll sort themselves out quickly.
the most common use of this will be to find more pictures of that one girl you can't remember the name of from that pic you found online.....
How long before someone uses this to identify, track, and hunt down a photobomber?
What if we assume they are being used over a much shorter range, i.e. within a km or so of the checkpoint, or maybe less?
How hard would it be for the Chinese government to set up a series of receivers along a few major roads, and have these devices cranked town to transmit only, say, 500 meters? Suddenly the power requirements are much less, and it looks like that could still get pretty good coverage for almost any conversation that would take place on or near a highway.
If it was only for quarantine/customs data, it would have been build much smaller - this is clearly more sophisticated than it needs to be. I wonder if someone has measured the output from it? The antenna built on the inside seems to be an afterthought ("maybe we should hide that")
or "sorry, our corporate customers were more important than the random individuals we shut off today. We knew they would have their paid-for legislators ruin us if we cost them any downtime, but you as an individual are expendable."
I think what bothers the various religious groups is the idea of people wanting to have sex without the procreative aspect of it. Or knowing the partner's names.
Local news was killed in suicide decades ago when they stopped reporting actual facts and switched to 'commentary'.
Internet is just helping clean the mess up.
More like, internet took over and does commentary and unfounded speculation better and in more volume, but newspapers had nothing to fall back on, since they'd gotten rid of journalists years before.
which definition of "assault rifle" and "submachine gun" are you using? You might be surprised what they actually mean.
They certainly aren't buying their grenades at gun shows in Texas. They are importing the bulk of their guns from sources other than the US.
70% of the guns that could be traced back to the US were purchased in the US. What percent of total guns is that?
The bulk of the guns the cartels have were imported directly by them from countries other than the U.S., or taken/bought directly from the Mexican military/police (which gets many of its guns from the U.S.)
They aren't buying those grenades at gun shows in Texas. The full-auto anythings, either.
Are you proposing they do background checks, do an interview, maybe a test-seating, before they accept her as a customer?
This isn't a fucking job, they won't evaluate her during an internship. They accept her as a customer based on her implied agreement to certain behavior during that time. Once they sell her the seat, they can't resell it. The fact that she couldn't keep up her end of the arrangement does not mean the theater should be out the money.
Change orders cost money. If construction is ongoing, they have purchased materials and are paying people an hourly rate to build something. If you keep changing the design, you will pay for those changes, or they will build it as originally specified per the original contract.
If you change your mind after something is built, you don't get a refund on the parts they have to demolish.
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong.
Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?
When they sold her the ticket, that meant they couldn't sell someone else the ticket the seat is filled. They can't resell it once the movie starts, and they are under no obligation to buy the ticket back from her, when SHE breaks the contract/agreement regarding what the ticket confers. If they kicked her out without a reason, i.e. they didn't like her, they wanted the seat for someone else, etc., then she might have some argument for getting a refund, but they kicked her out so that she wouldn't be disturbing the other patrons i.e. reducing the value they receive in exchange for the money they paid. Maybe if she had left after the first warning and demanded a refund, the moral argument could be different, but as it is she has no valid argument to expect a refund.
Slashdot Mirror
In an interview, the company can not legally ask me about certain things: race, color, sex, religion, national origin, birthplace, age, disability, Marital/family status, etc. Some of these things they can probably guess pretty accurately by looking at me when I walk in the door, but they aren't allowed to ask and damn well better not be using as hiring criteria.
If the company will be getting that info as part of the background check, it will make it very difficult to prove discrimination claims, because they can fall back on the "we knew about X, but that is not the reason we fired him."
Background checks for employment should be more heavily restricted: only reporting to the company what is legal for the company to make employment/termination decisions based on. If the employer is getting a list of lots of information about my outside life, it leads to the natural assumption that the company is using that information.
Not that we would put it past any government to say "the web robots caught you," rather than revealing that broad wiretaps or informants are the real source of info.
Your ears are made of finite components that are not infinitely divisible, and have definite acoustic properties.
If something is truly too big to fail (without dragging the rest of us with it), sounds like it is well past time to break it up into smaller bits.
This is more like, once you figure out how to operate a telephone, realizing that you could just type in a different number, and it would call someone else, even if you didn't find the number in a listing.
All human male activity boils down to competitiveness for apparent sexual advantage. Even apparent as opposed to actual advantage.
Everything I've been told seems to indicate that as soon as you get any good at being an engineer, they want you to be managing others. Project management. Program Management. Product Management. Maybe the prestige (and pay) of engineers should be increased, so that they can keep doing what they are best at, actual engineering.
If the engineers had more power than the accountants, marketing, sales, and management, they wouldn't be tempted to try to cross over to those areas.
Or maybe just separate the schools, so they can teach one or the other, but not both. different core curriculum, different hours requirements, different grading standards. They'll sort themselves out quickly.
At last, we can get an accurate goatse census.
(I'm surprised that there isn't a dangerous search mode that only shows results that would be blocked by safe search.)
You aren't the only one. Maybe a "pick your range" option. Some sort of sliding scale, you set high and low limits?
the most common use of this will be to find more pictures of that one girl you can't remember the name of from that pic you found online..... How long before someone uses this to identify, track, and hunt down a photobomber?
I think there's an App for that.
Is that the state buying it for you, or a private contractor/operator that runs the toll roads "on behalf of the state?"
What if we assume they are being used over a much shorter range, i.e. within a km or so of the checkpoint, or maybe less?
How hard would it be for the Chinese government to set up a series of receivers along a few major roads, and have these devices cranked town to transmit only, say, 500 meters? Suddenly the power requirements are much less, and it looks like that could still get pretty good coverage for almost any conversation that would take place on or near a highway.
If it was only for quarantine/customs data, it would have been build much smaller - this is clearly more sophisticated than it needs to be. I wonder if someone has measured the output from it? The antenna built on the inside seems to be an afterthought ("maybe we should hide that")
Minutiae may be silly, but menudo never is.
And the part about not reporting in to their bosses, as to who they've been following and why?
or "sorry, our corporate customers were more important than the random individuals we shut off today. We knew they would have their paid-for legislators ruin us if we cost them any downtime, but you as an individual are expendable."
I think what bothers the various religious groups is the idea of people wanting to have sex without the procreative aspect of it. Or knowing the partner's names.
Local news was killed in suicide decades ago when they stopped reporting actual facts and switched to 'commentary'.
Internet is just helping clean the mess up.
More like, internet took over and does commentary and unfounded speculation better and in more volume, but newspapers had nothing to fall back on, since they'd gotten rid of journalists years before.
which definition of "assault rifle" and "submachine gun" are you using? You might be surprised what they actually mean. They certainly aren't buying their grenades at gun shows in Texas. They are importing the bulk of their guns from sources other than the US.
More violence wins the war. Taliban shut down opium production in Afghanistan.
The problem is that you afraid of violence too much.
Until they realized they could profit from it.
70% of the guns that could be traced back to the US were purchased in the US. What percent of total guns is that? The bulk of the guns the cartels have were imported directly by them from countries other than the U.S., or taken/bought directly from the Mexican military/police (which gets many of its guns from the U.S.) They aren't buying those grenades at gun shows in Texas. The full-auto anythings, either.
This isn't a fucking job, they won't evaluate her during an internship. They accept her as a customer based on her implied agreement to certain behavior during that time. Once they sell her the seat, they can't resell it. The fact that she couldn't keep up her end of the arrangement does not mean the theater should be out the money.
If you change your mind after something is built, you don't get a refund on the parts they have to demolish.
She cost them money by making the experience worse for other patrons
That's called a cost of doing business. If they want to end the disruption sooner than the end of the movie, they can stump up to refund what she paid them to be allowed to be there. Legally, maybe the 'rules' get incorporated into the contract with the patron, but it's still pathetic and still wrong. The fundamental agreement is that the customer pays their money, and watches the movie - any attempt to include a clause which allows one party to declare unreasonable conduct on the part of the other and then, not just cancel the contract, but get themselves out of performing their obligations under it whilst requiring the other party still to perform theirs is just plain wrong. Imagine if you paid on your way out of the theater, rather than on the way in - and on management escorting someone out they expected them to stop at the cash-desk and pay for the movie they were being escorted out of. It would be both insane and unenforceable. This is exactly the same principle, it's just that people have paid up-front.
Why is the fact that ballpark operators are equally unreasonable an argument against what I said, or remotely relevant?
When they sold her the ticket, that meant they couldn't sell someone else the ticket the seat is filled. They can't resell it once the movie starts, and they are under no obligation to buy the ticket back from her, when SHE breaks the contract/agreement regarding what the ticket confers. If they kicked her out without a reason, i.e. they didn't like her, they wanted the seat for someone else, etc., then she might have some argument for getting a refund, but they kicked her out so that she wouldn't be disturbing the other patrons i.e. reducing the value they receive in exchange for the money they paid. Maybe if she had left after the first warning and demanded a refund, the moral argument could be different, but as it is she has no valid argument to expect a refund.