All of this assumes that they actually want you gone, of course.
Yeah, which makes no sense. Why would they want you gone?
You're saying I'm too trusting but you haven't come up with any reason whatsoever why they would want to get rid of someone just for letting them know they're going to be retiring soon. In other words, you're one of the people you describe as "It's paranoid to be convinced that your employer is going to screw you."
There is no logical reason for firing someone who plans to retire. The nearest I can think of where someone screws themselves by warning of an up-coming retirement is that the company is unlikely to do the things it normally does to keep people - there'll be no raises, for example. But the company obviously wants you to work for them, if it didn't you wouldn't still have a job.
If anything, your stock has slightly improved. If the company was considering laying you off anyway, well, suddenly it knows it doesn't have to, it'll be cheaper to just let you leave on your timetable.
I'd be happier with this if they settled on one or the other. 99% of the time I know that the server in the back closet is running 14.04, but I have not the slightest clue what name that was given. Even looking at/etc/apt/sources.something gives me one word, not both.
Just call it "Version Lizard", and be done with it. If you need a "short" version, use the first letter, you're doing it alphabetically anyway.
6 months of pay may be a significant thing for a smaller company
While this is true, there's presumably a reason they were paying him in the first place. Businesses are rarely evil, just sociopathic. That is, they'll make logical decisions in their best interests. Sometimes those decisions will end up screwing people over. But they won't make illogical decisions that are against their own interests just to screw people over. And, actually, even sociopaths know it's not actually in their best interests to screw people over so they tend to avoid it, and companies are the same way. Look at how normal it is to have severance packages when they're trying to reduce the number of employees, even if they operate in at-will states.
This entire comment section is utterly ridiculous, full of people absolutely convinced that the first thing a boss will do upon hearing someone is going to retire is fire them.
Why? Why would you fire someone who is leaving? Why wouldn't you take advantage of the fact you know this person is going to leave and when they're going to leave and use that to plan a transition?
This isn't hard people. I've seen it every where I work. I have literally never seen anyone fired because they gave more than two weeks notice. I've seen one person actually resign because they wanted to move across the country, and the company helped them with everything, including ensuring they had consultancy work to ease the transition while they looked for work in their new location.
Yes, there are some small businesses that are terribly run and terrible to their employees. But we're developers. We're not waitstaff. We're not retail assistants. We're not in any of those industries notorious for treating people like crap.
To the submitter: just wait until's a good time, when you'd be OK leaving now but another six months wouldn't hurt, and let the company know. It'll help them and your coworkers, it'll feel good when you leave, and, hey, you'll probably get a retirement gift.
Just don't do anything dangerous two days before retirement. That never goes well...
The discussion is about replacement options. Amazon does that too (which is why they switched a few years ago from storage measured in megabytes to one in absolute number of songs.) Plus, if you really want bit-for-bit compatibility, you can always move your music to Google Drive without penalty (they both use the same storage quota.)
I believe most of Google's services have been "integrated" with Google Drive at this point anyway (integrated meaning "You now have one pool of storage you share between all these services, mail, music, docs, pictures, videos, etc") so there's very little incentive for Google to drop it, and quite an easy workaround if they do (just, you know, copy everything to the main part of the Google Drive.)
The odd thing, from my point of view, is that the default development environment for OS X, Cocoa, is MVC based. It ought to be easy to produce a single app that supports multiple user interfaces and user interface paradigms. That is, after all, a key selling point of MVC.
You're describing the current situation. The GP was describing what should be the case. If the police's job were to protect the public, there'd be no problem with a police state. In practice however, as soon as you have a police state, the police no longer have a duty to protect the public.
I'm seeing extremes here. But I will say that I don't believe the current set up with the police makes any sense. Their first duty should be protecting the public. The numbers of unpunished needless deaths of innocents who offended their killers by doing things such as "Went to reach for license in pocket when officer was screaming at them to simultaneously keep their hands on the wheel and hand them driver's license" shows, to me, the police are far, far, removed from having the values and mandates that are appropriate.
And without those mandates there's little point in having a police force. A protection racket might offer "protection" from crime but we wouldn't tolerate that, why do we tolerate a police force that believes it has the right to kill people just because the officer was badly trained (I don't mean not trained, I mean deliberately trained terribly) and scared?
He probably didn't lie - that is, intentionally set out to deceive - but his statement was false without needing to expand the context to absurdity. Here's why.
A key plank of the ACA was making sure that the insurance people bought actually wasn't a rip-off. Before the ACA there were plans like "$5 a month gives you $5 off any doctor's visit" which made people feel like they had insurance, but in practice would have been disastrous for anyone on the plan who had a serious medical emergency.
So, the ACA introduced minimum standards, and actually templates for how insurance should be structured. That meant many plans, even legitimate plans, no longer fit within that structure and had to be discontinued. Obama knew that and should have known the obvious consequence: people were going to find, as a result of the ACA's passing, that they had to change insurance plan, and as such many would be forced to change doctor as well.
The reality is that it was a silly thing to say because even under normal circumstances, people are having to change their doctor as a result of insurance changes all the time. It would be astonishing if any reform of health insurance, even one like the Republican's attempt to abolish the mandate, didn't result in large numbers of people being forced to change doctor.
If Obama had worded it slightly differently, he could have made it passable and it would have been understood: "If you're on a good plan today, if your plan meets the minimum levels of care any reasonable person would expect from a health insurance plan, you'll be able to keep your plan, you'll be able to keep your doctor."
And that's probably what he meant to say. But he didn't.
Windows 10 has both an officially supported Ubuntu bolt-on and, of course, the availability of Cygwin and MINGW. Putty is really only necessary if you don't have a *ix subsystem like one of those three installed, and I find it surprising so few Slashdotters actually want a *ix subsystem in Windows.
Cygwin was always a life saver for me, though I've always hated its package management system. The Ubuntu subsystem is great.
They're not worried about people calling home, they're worried about people calling home without paying the astronomical costs charged by prison phone operators, who bribed the government for those exclusive contracts fair and square.
If every time Twitter bans some accounts that overlap with the Alt Right, but the worst end of the Alt Right (seriously? Britain First? The group linked to the murder of a British MP? You want to justify having them on Twitter?), regardless of whether it's because they're alt-right or simply because of ToS violations, you pretend it's a "purge of conservatives", what are you going to do if it actually happens?
Nobody will believe you.
Twitter is clamping down on extremism. But it's safe to say that even Donald Trump will continue to be a Twitter user for the foreseeable future.
People who know what serious journalism is would never write a sentence like "Serious journalism does not need to be associated with muckraking excrement"; you can reword it as "Serious journalism does not need to be associated with investigative shit" and it'll literally mean the exact same thing.
Gawker's specialty was muckraking - investigating the powerful and revealing the stuff they didn't want you to know. On rare occasions, that was abusive, such as the infamous Hogan tape. In most cases, it was relatively neutral. In some key cases, they exposed important stories nobody else did because they weren't afraid to piss off the wrong people.
And yeah, the New York Times, Washington Post, and others, sat on important stories for years because they didn't want to piss off the wrong people.
It's a testament to the power of those they pissed off that people still believe they didn't publish anything important.
Many of the sexual assault stories now coming to light were actually published years ago in Gawker.
Gawker was, in some ways, shocking to Americans but not to the rest of the world. It's similar in some ways to British newspapers like The Mirror was in, say, the 1980s. Garish, populist, and often exposing things that shouldn't.... but... one of the few that also exposed stuff happening that absolutely needed an outlet, that "respectable" newspapers wouldn't because they're corrupt.
And by corrupt, I don't mean in the classic money changing hands way, I mean most of the mainstream media will not touch stories involving powerful figures for fear their oxygen supply will be cut off. Which is why everyone from Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein got away with horrific behavior for so long.
I know this is an unpopular view here, but I'm inclined to think for a variety of reasons the Gawker lawsuit was a net loss for journalism. Gawker was far from perfect, but it was actually necessary. Removing Gawker wasn't a victory for great journalism over tabloid trash - The National Enquirer and its ilk will remain in business for a long time to come. It was a victory for the rich and powerful. That it was easy to spin as the opposite was a fault of Gawker's ethics, but it doesn't mean it was true.
The fact we saw a giant rise in homelessness during the 1980s in virtually every country that implemented Thatcherite/Reaganite economics (don't come back at me talking about Reagan's closure of mental hospitals, that didn't happen in most countries that saw the same thing) suggests that mental illness isn't what makes someone homeless. Unless you're suggesting that Thatcher went around putting lead in Coca-Cola.
The mentally ill were disproportionately affected by economic policies that cut safety nets because they, as a group, are less able to support themselves than others.
Want to end homelessness? The only way you're going to substantially reduce it is by improving welfare services and providing more social housing.
Both our (wife and mine) cars have HD Radio so I'm familiar with it and listen to it. The additional channels are bonuses, they're not always useful but they do add some choice. I don't believe they're provided locally, instead broadcasters just play a syndicated feed from somewhere.
I do wonder though, with streamed radio being so popular (I know T-Mobile doesn't meter it, no idea if other carriers are as progressive), whether the need for digital radio will disappear anyway. The only advantage FM has is to make it easier to broadcast locally, but if the digital channels are effectively national, and if everyone's just plugging their phone into their car and playing one of the numerous online radio stations, then what need is there for it?
Can HD Radio and SCA co-exist? Is SCA similarly obsolete?
Oh now come on, it's easy to make a digital radio receiver out of a naturally semiconducting crystal, three paper clips, a speaker, some copper wire, and a Raspberry Pi.
The US standard is HD Radio, which is a proprietary system (not merely patent encumbered, it's controlled by one company and uses things like a custom audio codec that's similar to, but not identical to, AAC-HE) and it remains a mystery as to why the FCC blessed it, as it was opposed by most of the industry and, like I said, is proprietary.
It is not the same as either of the European standards (they have one for FM, and one for AM). The system has one advantage over Europe's DAB for FM system, in that each station can transmit an analog signal and two or more digital channels over the same frequency. The first digital channel is always a digital version of the analog channel, while the others are alternative audio stations.
We should prosecute the Clintons because they have so many fake allegations against them that it would appear not to be "impartial" to ignore them?
All you're proving is that it's in the best interests to not merely lie about your opponent, but make stuff up about them for years on end. After a while, your supporters will see the lack of any progress proving any of the allegations as somehow proof your opponents are bad people.
Well hold on to your hat because you're about to be blown away by what I'm about to say: It's not going to government servants! That's right! It's not! It's actually going to the Treasury, it's right there in the summary!
That's not all. I went to Publix the other day and bought a five pound bag of flour... while wearing a fake chef hat! They didn't take even a moment to check that I was a real chef! This is the kind of sloppy taking short cuts thing I wouldn't expect from a respected retailer.
That's good to hear! I couldn't think of a recent Pixar thing that wasn't a sequel (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I'm looking forward to Incredibles 2, but in general it underlined the GGP's point about a lack of originality), I think even Brave was a while ago. Glad Pixar are doing well reviewed things that are original.
if the elections have really been hacked, why not void them and have a do over?
Because "elections have been hacked" can mean anything including:
1. Polling machines programmatically hacked (which nobody, so far as I can tell, is alleging.)
2. Infrastructure around polling, such as voter registrations, and tools to make available voter IDs, being hacked to suppress turnout (there were rumors the Russians might have at one point been considering doing this, but nobody has alleged they actually have done this.)
3. The pollution of information sources to ensure voters are given believable false information
Thus far, the allegations concerning the Russians have focused on (3). There's pretty much no constitutional basis for overturning an election on the basis that voters were mislead. Voters are mislead all the time, it's just usually the lies come from fellow Americans, and to some extent there's some balance. On top of that, if the election were reheld today, how many people would go to the polls saying "Well, I've since learned that Clinton was actually the victim of a 25 year long smear campaign and it's highly improbable that 90% of the bad things I've heard about her actually have any basis in reality. I was duped, and will change my vote"?
Any? Nobody willingly admits they were duped over something that basic.
At this point, the only mechanism we have for "correcting" the mistake is to elect an opposition party to power in Congress in 2018. If we consider Trump continuing to be President dangerous (and I do), we also have to hope that party also recognizes that Trump has already broken the law and should be impeached. But that's the extent of it. You can't request a do-over because voters were lied to and manipulated, that'd invalidate almost every Presidential election we've ever had. The fact it's a foreign government that did so means we need to address our relations with that government, not invalidate our own elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, which makes no sense. Why would they want you gone?
You're saying I'm too trusting but you haven't come up with any reason whatsoever why they would want to get rid of someone just for letting them know they're going to be retiring soon. In other words, you're one of the people you describe as "It's paranoid to be convinced that your employer is going to screw you."
There is no logical reason for firing someone who plans to retire. The nearest I can think of where someone screws themselves by warning of an up-coming retirement is that the company is unlikely to do the things it normally does to keep people - there'll be no raises, for example. But the company obviously wants you to work for them, if it didn't you wouldn't still have a job.
If anything, your stock has slightly improved. If the company was considering laying you off anyway, well, suddenly it knows it doesn't have to, it'll be cheaper to just let you leave on your timetable.
Why did you say it just happened to you when it didn't? Retiring, and quitting for a better job are two completely different things.
I'd be happier with this if they settled on one or the other. 99% of the time I know that the server in the back closet is running 14.04, but I have not the slightest clue what name that was given. Even looking at /etc/apt/sources.something gives me one word, not both.
Just call it "Version Lizard", and be done with it. If you need a "short" version, use the first letter, you're doing it alphabetically anyway.
While this is true, there's presumably a reason they were paying him in the first place. Businesses are rarely evil, just sociopathic. That is, they'll make logical decisions in their best interests. Sometimes those decisions will end up screwing people over. But they won't make illogical decisions that are against their own interests just to screw people over. And, actually, even sociopaths know it's not actually in their best interests to screw people over so they tend to avoid it, and companies are the same way. Look at how normal it is to have severance packages when they're trying to reduce the number of employees, even if they operate in at-will states.
This entire comment section is utterly ridiculous, full of people absolutely convinced that the first thing a boss will do upon hearing someone is going to retire is fire them.
Why? Why would you fire someone who is leaving? Why wouldn't you take advantage of the fact you know this person is going to leave and when they're going to leave and use that to plan a transition?
This isn't hard people. I've seen it every where I work. I have literally never seen anyone fired because they gave more than two weeks notice. I've seen one person actually resign because they wanted to move across the country, and the company helped them with everything, including ensuring they had consultancy work to ease the transition while they looked for work in their new location.
Yes, there are some small businesses that are terribly run and terrible to their employees. But we're developers. We're not waitstaff. We're not retail assistants. We're not in any of those industries notorious for treating people like crap.
To the submitter: just wait until's a good time, when you'd be OK leaving now but another six months wouldn't hurt, and let the company know. It'll help them and your coworkers, it'll feel good when you leave, and, hey, you'll probably get a retirement gift.
Just don't do anything dangerous two days before retirement. That never goes well...
The discussion is about replacement options. Amazon does that too (which is why they switched a few years ago from storage measured in megabytes to one in absolute number of songs.) Plus, if you really want bit-for-bit compatibility, you can always move your music to Google Drive without penalty (they both use the same storage quota.)
I believe most of Google's services have been "integrated" with Google Drive at this point anyway (integrated meaning "You now have one pool of storage you share between all these services, mail, music, docs, pictures, videos, etc") so there's very little incentive for Google to drop it, and quite an easy workaround if they do (just, you know, copy everything to the main part of the Google Drive.)
Read the article again. The article says they're proposing making it a legal right, not a human right.
The odd thing, from my point of view, is that the default development environment for OS X, Cocoa, is MVC based. It ought to be easy to produce a single app that supports multiple user interfaces and user interface paradigms. That is, after all, a key selling point of MVC.
I wonder why they're not encouraging that?
You're describing the current situation. The GP was describing what should be the case. If the police's job were to protect the public, there'd be no problem with a police state. In practice however, as soon as you have a police state, the police no longer have a duty to protect the public.
I'm seeing extremes here. But I will say that I don't believe the current set up with the police makes any sense. Their first duty should be protecting the public. The numbers of unpunished needless deaths of innocents who offended their killers by doing things such as "Went to reach for license in pocket when officer was screaming at them to simultaneously keep their hands on the wheel and hand them driver's license" shows, to me, the police are far, far, removed from having the values and mandates that are appropriate.
And without those mandates there's little point in having a police force. A protection racket might offer "protection" from crime but we wouldn't tolerate that, why do we tolerate a police force that believes it has the right to kill people just because the officer was badly trained (I don't mean not trained, I mean deliberately trained terribly) and scared?
This needs to stop.
He probably didn't lie - that is, intentionally set out to deceive - but his statement was false without needing to expand the context to absurdity. Here's why.
A key plank of the ACA was making sure that the insurance people bought actually wasn't a rip-off. Before the ACA there were plans like "$5 a month gives you $5 off any doctor's visit" which made people feel like they had insurance, but in practice would have been disastrous for anyone on the plan who had a serious medical emergency.
So, the ACA introduced minimum standards, and actually templates for how insurance should be structured. That meant many plans, even legitimate plans, no longer fit within that structure and had to be discontinued. Obama knew that and should have known the obvious consequence: people were going to find, as a result of the ACA's passing, that they had to change insurance plan, and as such many would be forced to change doctor as well.
The reality is that it was a silly thing to say because even under normal circumstances, people are having to change their doctor as a result of insurance changes all the time. It would be astonishing if any reform of health insurance, even one like the Republican's attempt to abolish the mandate, didn't result in large numbers of people being forced to change doctor.
If Obama had worded it slightly differently, he could have made it passable and it would have been understood: "If you're on a good plan today, if your plan meets the minimum levels of care any reasonable person would expect from a health insurance plan, you'll be able to keep your plan, you'll be able to keep your doctor."
And that's probably what he meant to say. But he didn't.
Windows 10 has both an officially supported Ubuntu bolt-on and, of course, the availability of Cygwin and MINGW. Putty is really only necessary if you don't have a *ix subsystem like one of those three installed, and I find it surprising so few Slashdotters actually want a *ix subsystem in Windows.
Cygwin was always a life saver for me, though I've always hated its package management system. The Ubuntu subsystem is great.
They're not worried about people calling home, they're worried about people calling home without paying the astronomical costs charged by prison phone operators, who bribed the government for those exclusive contracts fair and square.
If every time Twitter bans some accounts that overlap with the Alt Right, but the worst end of the Alt Right (seriously? Britain First? The group linked to the murder of a British MP? You want to justify having them on Twitter?), regardless of whether it's because they're alt-right or simply because of ToS violations, you pretend it's a "purge of conservatives", what are you going to do if it actually happens?
Nobody will believe you.
Twitter is clamping down on extremism. But it's safe to say that even Donald Trump will continue to be a Twitter user for the foreseeable future.
I wish people would stop getting their knowledge of constitutional law from Internet Libertarians and Sid Meier's Civilization.
People who know what serious journalism is would never write a sentence like "Serious journalism does not need to be associated with muckraking excrement"; you can reword it as "Serious journalism does not need to be associated with investigative shit" and it'll literally mean the exact same thing.
Gawker's specialty was muckraking - investigating the powerful and revealing the stuff they didn't want you to know. On rare occasions, that was abusive, such as the infamous Hogan tape. In most cases, it was relatively neutral. In some key cases, they exposed important stories nobody else did because they weren't afraid to piss off the wrong people.
And yeah, the New York Times, Washington Post, and others, sat on important stories for years because they didn't want to piss off the wrong people.
It's a testament to the power of those they pissed off that people still believe they didn't publish anything important.
Many of the sexual assault stories now coming to light were actually published years ago in Gawker.
Gawker was, in some ways, shocking to Americans but not to the rest of the world. It's similar in some ways to British newspapers like The Mirror was in, say, the 1980s. Garish, populist, and often exposing things that shouldn't.... but... one of the few that also exposed stuff happening that absolutely needed an outlet, that "respectable" newspapers wouldn't because they're corrupt.
And by corrupt, I don't mean in the classic money changing hands way, I mean most of the mainstream media will not touch stories involving powerful figures for fear their oxygen supply will be cut off. Which is why everyone from Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein got away with horrific behavior for so long.
I know this is an unpopular view here, but I'm inclined to think for a variety of reasons the Gawker lawsuit was a net loss for journalism. Gawker was far from perfect, but it was actually necessary. Removing Gawker wasn't a victory for great journalism over tabloid trash - The National Enquirer and its ilk will remain in business for a long time to come. It was a victory for the rich and powerful. That it was easy to spin as the opposite was a fault of Gawker's ethics, but it doesn't mean it was true.
The fact we saw a giant rise in homelessness during the 1980s in virtually every country that implemented Thatcherite/Reaganite economics (don't come back at me talking about Reagan's closure of mental hospitals, that didn't happen in most countries that saw the same thing) suggests that mental illness isn't what makes someone homeless. Unless you're suggesting that Thatcher went around putting lead in Coca-Cola.
The mentally ill were disproportionately affected by economic policies that cut safety nets because they, as a group, are less able to support themselves than others.
Want to end homelessness? The only way you're going to substantially reduce it is by improving welfare services and providing more social housing.
Both our (wife and mine) cars have HD Radio so I'm familiar with it and listen to it. The additional channels are bonuses, they're not always useful but they do add some choice. I don't believe they're provided locally, instead broadcasters just play a syndicated feed from somewhere.
I do wonder though, with streamed radio being so popular (I know T-Mobile doesn't meter it, no idea if other carriers are as progressive), whether the need for digital radio will disappear anyway. The only advantage FM has is to make it easier to broadcast locally, but if the digital channels are effectively national, and if everyone's just plugging their phone into their car and playing one of the numerous online radio stations, then what need is there for it?
Can HD Radio and SCA co-exist? Is SCA similarly obsolete?
Oh now come on, it's easy to make a digital radio receiver out of a naturally semiconducting crystal, three paper clips, a speaker, some copper wire, and a Raspberry Pi.
The US standard is HD Radio, which is a proprietary system (not merely patent encumbered, it's controlled by one company and uses things like a custom audio codec that's similar to, but not identical to, AAC-HE) and it remains a mystery as to why the FCC blessed it, as it was opposed by most of the industry and, like I said, is proprietary.
It is not the same as either of the European standards (they have one for FM, and one for AM). The system has one advantage over Europe's DAB for FM system, in that each station can transmit an analog signal and two or more digital channels over the same frequency. The first digital channel is always a digital version of the analog channel, while the others are alternative audio stations.
We should prosecute the Clintons because they have so many fake allegations against them that it would appear not to be "impartial" to ignore them?
All you're proving is that it's in the best interests to not merely lie about your opponent, but make stuff up about them for years on end. After a while, your supporters will see the lack of any progress proving any of the allegations as somehow proof your opponents are bad people.
Well hold on to your hat because you're about to be blown away by what I'm about to say: It's not going to government servants! That's right! It's not! It's actually going to the Treasury, it's right there in the summary!
That's not all. I went to Publix the other day and bought a five pound bag of flour... while wearing a fake chef hat! They didn't take even a moment to check that I was a real chef! This is the kind of sloppy taking short cuts thing I wouldn't expect from a respected retailer.
That's good to hear! I couldn't think of a recent Pixar thing that wasn't a sequel (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I'm looking forward to Incredibles 2, but in general it underlined the GGP's point about a lack of originality), I think even Brave was a while ago. Glad Pixar are doing well reviewed things that are original.
Because "elections have been hacked" can mean anything including:
1. Polling machines programmatically hacked (which nobody, so far as I can tell, is alleging.)
2. Infrastructure around polling, such as voter registrations, and tools to make available voter IDs, being hacked to suppress turnout (there were rumors the Russians might have at one point been considering doing this, but nobody has alleged they actually have done this.)
3. The pollution of information sources to ensure voters are given believable false information
Thus far, the allegations concerning the Russians have focused on (3). There's pretty much no constitutional basis for overturning an election on the basis that voters were mislead. Voters are mislead all the time, it's just usually the lies come from fellow Americans, and to some extent there's some balance. On top of that, if the election were reheld today, how many people would go to the polls saying "Well, I've since learned that Clinton was actually the victim of a 25 year long smear campaign and it's highly improbable that 90% of the bad things I've heard about her actually have any basis in reality. I was duped, and will change my vote"?
Any? Nobody willingly admits they were duped over something that basic.
At this point, the only mechanism we have for "correcting" the mistake is to elect an opposition party to power in Congress in 2018. If we consider Trump continuing to be President dangerous (and I do), we also have to hope that party also recognizes that Trump has already broken the law and should be impeached. But that's the extent of it. You can't request a do-over because voters were lied to and manipulated, that'd invalidate almost every Presidential election we've ever had. The fact it's a foreign government that did so means we need to address our relations with that government, not invalidate our own elections.