Associated but not correlated. Those concerned would lose money anyway it's only a question of who buys the stock (or whatever) at the new price first.
Companies and thus national societies benefit from investment but that being said there should be only real assets at stake not virtual ones resold however many times over.
With regard to the article: 1) Who gets the oil found en route? 2) "...with a smattering of branches that will provide high-speed internet access to a handful of Arctic Circle communities. " - naturally cooled datacenters anyone? 3) "The latency drop will mainly benefit algorithmic stock market traders" - I certainly hope my tax dollars aren't paying for this. Also, fuck the algorithmic stock market traders generally speaking. 4) "If a ship were to drag an anchor across the wrong patch of seabed, billions of people could wake up to find themselves either completely disconnected from the internet or surfing with dial-up-like speeds." - True only if the Internet routed using static routes with no OAM, no BFD, no physical interface down detection. Real world BGP will reroute to the paths in use today. 5) Did I mention fuck the algorithmic traders? 6) Profit! (obligatory)
This is obviously to avoid pissing off people who have the power to hurt the TSA such as, for example, Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna who got angry at the TSA for groping her and introduced legislation against TSA searches.
It's not exactly like that, and it's not exactly new. First you have to pass a rigorous background check, the same one I passed to work for an airline.
Yeah, exactly, you have a pass a rigorous background check that will ensure that under no circumstances can you be bribed or threatened into bringing a bomb onto a plane by threatening or giving a pile of money to your family. First rule of security. Treat all people the same. Anyone getting special treatment is a huge liability.
This applies just as well to the TSA themselves. As it's said, who watches the watchers?
The burden of proof would be on the company hitting you with the non-compete but yes, that's the way our capitalist system works.
With regard to the new company...you would still be working unless the judge granted an injunction against so not sure.
Unless you're really trying to fuck the company you left, in which case the non compete would be valid, I doubt that they would bother to harass you in any case.
Absolutely and I did say worst case. I would like to think, as cynical as I am, that any judge would block a non-compete that keeps someone from earning a living whereas I could see a judge allowing a non-compete if someone starts up a new business and tries to sell to all the existing businesses customers or whatever.
Technically you're right but in reality non-competes are limited. Worst case I guess people would have to move out of state if the court actually upheld the non-compete.
VA: "a Plaintiff must show that it is not unduly harsh or oppressive in restricting the employee's ability to earn a living. In Virginia, a CNC is not unduly harsh or oppressive if balancing its function, geographic scope and duration the employee is not precluded from (1) working in a capacity not in competition with the employer within the restricted area or (2) providing similar services outside the restricted area.[8]"
MA: "Even when a CNC is limited in duration, geographic reach, and scope, it will be enforced “only to the extent . . . necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer.” [23] Recognized legitimate business interests are generally identified as the protection of trade secrets, confidential information, and goodwill.[24]"
I've been an employee for a total of about nine months of my life and both times I got screwed. It was enough to learn the lesson and I've been working as an independent ever since (1989) and have always seen to my own training, medical insurance, retirement planning, etc.
I don't trust companies or governments to look after my well being in any way that doesn't benefit them and what benefits companies or governments doesn't generally benefit the small folk like you and me.
"I would like to see a complete end to visas for importing foreigners to do local jobs - then companies might be forced to hire people and train them to do their jobs the way things used to be done."
But that would be socialism!!!
I happen to agree with you by the way, but the people making the rules won't because they're the people who own the companies that benefit from cheap foreign labor.
If you are not willing to move on and get another job, don't whine to everyone else about it.
Non-compete clauses prevent that for many people who don't know that they're usually non-enforceable. The system is rigged in favor of the employers but people should find out what their options are regardless.
Universities, which are also businesses, also aren't the answer as things stand. They protect 'their' IP and go and make money on it just like any other type of business.
The answer is putting patent law back the way it should be and having reasonable limits on how long innovation is protected before it should become public.
Bayer's profit margin is about 6%. Far less than Apple or Google or the like. Greedy? I hope so - far more people are motivated by greed than altruism, and I want whatever motivation cures cancer! I would you prefer eveyrone was nice to one another, and no cure for cancer?
Source(s) of your statistic please?
Also, is that before or after executive bonuses and dividends payouts?
Postal voting takes effort relative to online voting which will discourage the sort of person who would sell their vote for a dollar.
I don't particularly like the current postal voting system as I get no feedback when I vote and thus zero idea if my vote was received never mind actually counted, but I still trust written records more than electronic.
For those saying this will be secure in the future...it will then become insecure in the future as well.
Have you lived it or are you just thinking about it?
I grew up in a slum, without parents and without any realistic hope of help from 'the authorities.. I know very well about violence. I also know that if you let bullies get away with it they'll keep doing it but if you fight back then they'll find easier prey.
Have to agree with the other reply you got sorry...best that you have your kid fight back both for his own self confidence and for his ability to deal with bullies if you're not around.
One with your real name and bullshit minimum information that you don't care if anyone sees.
The second with a fake name (fuck you facebook) and your real life, as much as you don't care gets shown though it'll be more difficult to tie it back to you if you bullshit the essentials.
Anyone who puts anything on facebook has to assume it's private. Facebook doesn't give a shit for anyone's privacy.
I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.
They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.
The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.
Slashdot Mirror
Associated but not correlated. Those concerned would lose money anyway it's only a question of who buys the stock (or whatever) at the new price first.
Companies and thus national societies benefit from investment but that being said there should be only real assets at stake not virtual ones resold however many times over.
With regard to the article:
1) Who gets the oil found en route?
2) "...with a smattering of branches that will provide high-speed internet access to a handful of Arctic Circle communities. " - naturally cooled datacenters anyone?
3) "The latency drop will mainly benefit algorithmic stock market traders" - I certainly hope my tax dollars aren't paying for this. Also, fuck the algorithmic stock market traders generally speaking.
4) "If a ship were to drag an anchor across the wrong patch of seabed, billions of people could wake up to find themselves either completely disconnected from the internet or surfing with dial-up-like speeds." - True only if the Internet routed using static routes with no OAM, no BFD, no physical interface down detection. Real world BGP will reroute to the paths in use today.
5) Did I mention fuck the algorithmic traders?
6) Profit! (obligatory)
Most likely, this is aimed at greedy and ignorant politicians wanting to tap an inflow of money and has nothing to do with targeting money laundering.
FTFY
This is obviously to avoid pissing off people who have the power to hurt the TSA such as, for example, Alaska State Rep. Sharon Cissna who got angry at the TSA for groping her and introduced legislation against TSA searches.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/23/1641251/state-legislatures-attempt-to-limit-tsa-searches
You do realize that by posting this you've probably guaranteed that you're on their no fly list?
It's not exactly like that, and it's not exactly new. First you have to pass a rigorous background check, the same one I passed to work for an airline.
Yeah, exactly, you have a pass a rigorous background check that will ensure that under no circumstances can you be bribed or threatened into bringing a bomb onto a plane by threatening or giving a pile of money to your family. First rule of security. Treat all people the same. Anyone getting special treatment is a huge liability.
This applies just as well to the TSA themselves. As it's said, who watches the watchers?
The burden of proof would be on the company hitting you with the non-compete but yes, that's the way our capitalist system works.
With regard to the new company...you would still be working unless the judge granted an injunction against so not sure.
Unless you're really trying to fuck the company you left, in which case the non compete would be valid, I doubt that they would bother to harass you in any case.
Absolutely and I did say worst case. I would like to think, as cynical as I am, that any judge would block a non-compete that keeps someone from earning a living whereas I could see a judge allowing a non-compete if someone starts up a new business and tries to sell to all the existing businesses customers or whatever.
Yes yes but how does it taste?
Technically you're right but in reality non-competes are limited. Worst case I guess people would have to move out of state if the court actually upheld the non-compete.
VA:
"a Plaintiff must show that it is not unduly harsh or oppressive in restricting the employee's ability to earn a living. In Virginia, a CNC is not unduly harsh or oppressive if balancing its function, geographic scope and duration the employee is not precluded from (1) working in a capacity not in competition with the employer within the restricted area or (2) providing similar services outside the restricted area.[8]"
MA:
"Even when a CNC is limited in duration, geographic reach, and scope, it will be enforced “only to the extent . . . necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of the employer.” [23] Recognized legitimate business interests are generally identified as the protection of trade secrets, confidential information, and goodwill.[24]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
I would have guessed "I like to eat Natalie Portman' first actually, regardless of entropy...
I've been an employee for a total of about nine months of my life and both times I got screwed. It was enough to learn the lesson and I've been working as an independent ever since (1989) and have always seen to my own training, medical insurance, retirement planning, etc.
I don't trust companies or governments to look after my well being in any way that doesn't benefit them and what benefits companies or governments doesn't generally benefit the small folk like you and me.
"I would like to see a complete end to visas for importing foreigners to do local jobs - then companies might be forced to hire people and train them to do their jobs the way things used to be done."
But that would be socialism!!!
I happen to agree with you by the way, but the people making the rules won't because they're the people who own the companies that benefit from cheap foreign labor.
If you are not willing to move on and get another job, don't whine to everyone else about it.
Non-compete clauses prevent that for many people who don't know that they're usually non-enforceable. The system is rigged in favor of the employers but people should find out what their options are regardless.
FTFY
Universities, which are also businesses, also aren't the answer as things stand. They protect 'their' IP and go and make money on it just like any other type of business.
The answer is putting patent law back the way it should be and having reasonable limits on how long innovation is protected before it should become public.
Bayer's profit margin is about 6%. Far less than Apple or Google or the like. Greedy? I hope so - far more people are motivated by greed than altruism, and I want whatever motivation cures cancer! I would you prefer eveyrone was nice to one another, and no cure for cancer?
Source(s) of your statistic please?
Also, is that before or after executive bonuses and dividends payouts?
The US IS a Christian nation.
Historically speaking, being Christian (or any other religion for that matter) does not in any way correlate to being nice or fair.
Or in the case of the USA, the not really democratic system.
Postal voting takes effort relative to online voting which will discourage the sort of person who would sell their vote for a dollar.
I don't particularly like the current postal voting system as I get no feedback when I vote and thus zero idea if my vote was received never mind actually counted, but I still trust written records more than electronic.
For those saying this will be secure in the future...it will then become insecure in the future as well.
...and the other half they're jackoffs being offensive for no good reason...
Have you lived it or are you just thinking about it?
I grew up in a slum, without parents and without any realistic hope of help from 'the authorities.. I know very well about violence. I also know that if you let bullies get away with it they'll keep doing it but if you fight back then they'll find easier prey.
Have to agree with the other reply you got sorry...best that you have your kid fight back both for his own self confidence and for his ability to deal with bullies if you're not around.
Don't care.
If my kid gets in trouble with the school for fighting back I will back him 100%. Self defense is legal justification for whatever might happen.
The issue here is getting the bullies to back off. The ONLY way to do that is to get their respect or their fear.
One with your real name and bullshit minimum information that you don't care if anyone sees.
The second with a fake name (fuck you facebook) and your real life, as much as you don't care gets shown though it'll be more difficult to tie it back to you if you bullshit the essentials.
Anyone who puts anything on facebook has to assume it's private. Facebook doesn't give a shit for anyone's privacy.
Tell the that's the same as asking to know your age, religion and national origin and you intend to file a claim with the EEOC.
Yep, that'll get you the job for sure!
I have to disagree a bit here. I had similar issues and I was jumped by five boys after school one day. I fought back out of sheer terror and ended up putting two of them in the hospital.
They nor anyone else in the school ever bothered me again.
The only way to deal with bullies is to hurt them badly enough that they're too afraid to come back.