If you want to work for XYZ Corporation, then XYZ Corporation has a right to make sure you aren't stoned when you come to work.
I agree. The pee test doesn't tell you that, and being around people smoking (but not smoking yourself) is enough to spike a positive.
The question I have, is do you want the job more than you want to smoke pot, or not.
You've missed my point. The issue is not whether or not I would pass the screen. The issue is that it's invasive, humiliating, and unnecessary. The issue is that it's one more way for your employer to control your life. The issue is that a joint on the weekends isn't going to make you a dangerous/bad worker. The issue is that it's not a crime in a lot of states. The issue is that it's none of their fucking business if it doesn't impact your ability to do your job, and it doesn't. We don't keep people from working if they drink a beer (or 17) on the weekends, and having an alcoholic on your payroll is worse than having someone who's used pot an indeterminant number of times in the last 30 days. But we don't test for alcohol.
But, keep buying into the Reefer Madness hysteria if you want. History will make a fool of you.
What they're really doing when you get forced to take a pre-employment piss test is asserting their power over you, even before they start paying you. You're a criminal/drug addict until you provide a bodily fluid to "prove" otherwise (as urine tests have varying degrees of accuracy). With marijuana especially, they're asserting control over your body (as you could smoke on the first of the month and spike a positive for pot at the end of the month) even during the hours you're not working for them (although, if you're an "exempt" employee, there are no hours that are truly yours; being an "exempt" employee means that you trade having to punch a clock for a fixed salary, no overtime, and the possibility of being required to work 120 hours a week, all legal).
It's time we stood up to our corporate masters and told them "It's none of your fucking business what's in my urine."
Our biggest problem is willingness to relocate - candidates who are already on the West Coast are so hammered by recruiters that it's hard to find anyone actually looking, but there are plenty of qualified engineers elsewhere.
Then hire remote developers. You'll open up your talent pool from your immediate area to the entire world (or USA if that's your choice). If HR or Accounting balks, remind them that someone who would require $120k/year living and working in the Valley can live in similar style for $60k in some flyover state. Once they see the dollar signs, well, let's be fair, they don't understand or care about anything else with regards to the open position. If they can pay 50% less, then having the developer physically in an office becomes much less important.
Most of your resistance will probably come from middle managers who are convinced that unless they're helicopter managers then the workers won't get anything done. Micromanagement uber alles.
A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
1) A scientific mindset is not a set of beliefs. Scientists do not worship what they cannot understand; they only seek to understand it. 2) Scientists do not consider the cause or purpose of the universe, only its nature. Cause or purpose implies an intelligent creator. We do not have any objective evidence that one exists. The Bible is not objective evidence, only philosophy, narrative, and metaphor. Even if it were, the current versions of the work have been translated and interpreted so many times by so many people with so many different agendas to push that the original meaning has been lost for thousands of years. 3) There is no objective evidence that a superhuman agency or agencies created the universe. There is conjecture and hypothesis. The problem is that the zealots insist that you prove a negative when you express an opinion on the subject. As we all know, proving a negative is impossible. Thinking that something is possible doesn't mean you believe it to actually be the case. We do not know what was happening before the Big Bang happened, as current technology does not exist to look beyond the singularity. Nothing can be proven or disproven about the origin of the Big Bang at the moment, and that is not a concession of a weak argument; the three most important words in science are "I don't know". 4) Exactly what devotional and ritual observances do scientists engage in? The closest I can come up with is getting your morning coffee. 5) Scientifically based solutions and practices are not the same as a moral code. Morals are arbitrary rules of conduct that a particular slice of humanity has decided are worth upholding, and as such, cannot by definition be associated with science. Nothing in science says you can't have sex before marriage, for example, or stone the gays to death, or beat your wife, or kill your slaves..
I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about.
What the deniers dispute is humans having a majoritive effect on climate change. The science on that is not settled.
It's settled. Getting 97% of scientists to agree on something is virtually impossible if there is no objective evidence. CO2 in the atmosphere makes temperatures rise. We're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the billions of tons. Therefore, more heat from the sun is trapped in the atmosphere, making global temperature rise. Honestly, it's not a difficult concept, and if you need an example of a greenhouse effect gone mad, take a look at Venus. It's like 863 degrees F / 462 degrees C on the surface, in large part to the atmosphere being 96% CO2. The origins of the high levels of CO2 on Venus are different from those on Earth, but they share a similar problem in that there is insufficient biomass to recapture the carbon in the atmosphere.
especially when new papers are being published trying to explain a hiatus in the warming trend and the significance of the oceans in the atmospheric temperature.
Please link to some of those papers; if they're not in reputable peer-reviewed publications, though, don't bother.
If the science on that was settled there would be no use for continued research.
You are failing to grasp the nature of scientific endeavor. We will never know everything about a particular topic; there is always more knowledge to be obtained. If 97% (or even a significant majority) of the new research contradicts the human-caused theory of global warming, then a conclusio
"Religion". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Nye has no patience for people who deny climate change because they're flat-out, provably, scientifically-settled wrong. It's like someone being expected to have patience with someone insisting the sky is yellow with purple polka dots. (Although, you might have patience with them because they're clearly deranged mentally. Do your own comparison of the zealots and the mentally ill here.)
As do banks, just not the same protections. Your bank account is FDIC protected up to $250k. So, which has better protections, and why?
IMHO the most important protection to consumers who use these accounts is access to their money while fraud is investigated. It's waaaaay easier to get your credit card issuer to put a temporary refund on your account while the matter is investigated than it is to get the bank where you have your checking account to return your funds while the investigation goes on. Some states have the same maximum liability protection on debit cards as they have on credit cards, but not all.
Also, if your credit card is maxed out, it doesn't keep you from paying your bills some other way, providing you have income. But someone emptying your checking account makes it a lot harder to pay your bills.
That said, I do use my debit card all the time; it has the same protections as my credit card, both are processed through the Mastercard network. I always use my credit card online, however.
Another symptom is the extent to which people will come to work, do exactly what they've been asked to do, and nothing more.
Because that's what they're being paid to do, and nothing more. There is virtually no incentive to go outside what you've been assigned. You will not get paid any more for doing more work than you have already been assigned; all that will happen if you do that is that you will be assigned that extra work permanently in the future (with no commensurate raise in pay). Congratulations, you devalued your own labor, saving the system the trouble.
People will say that that's lazy, that you should take on more on your own initiative because that will benefit the employer, and, in theory, you.
Those people are wrong.
Let's say you've been assigned the task of assembling 450 widgets in a day. You have become more skilled at that task, so it only takes you 7 hours instead of 8. (Assuming, naively, that they let you stick to an 8 hour day.) So, on your own initiative, you take on more work and get to 500 widgets a day. Congratulations, your labor is now worth less, since they got more work out of you for the same pay. Leaving aside that you're a massive chump if you do that, your extra labor does not benefit you. The company can sell 50 more widgets than they would have previously, so obviously that extra profit goes into your paycheck. Oh, wait, it doesn't. No, that profit goes to the rich folks that own your company, while you eat a 2%-raise shit sandwich.
A big knock against the auto worker unions is that the amount of work a union member is assigned over the course of a work day is negotiated. If they have been assigned 450 widgets to assemble, they assemble those 450 widgets and go home. Usually early. Then they get called lazy for not doing more work than they have been assigned. What they've really done is work to the letter of the contract. They have done the work that they have been paid for doing. You don't go into a butcher shop, buy a steak, and say "Oh, also, I'd like those short ribs for free." You'll get laughed out of there.
Often, there's no curiosity about the role that they're playing within the company, about how their role could be expanded or refined, or somehow changed.
Because they're not being paid to do that, and they have no incentive to do so independently. Your role? Cog. Expanded role? Same pay, more responsibility. Changed? The only way it changes is if you quit or get fired.
Even the better employees are generally those who just follow instructions, and those people rarely seem to grasp why they were provided those specific instructions, let alone figure out a better set of instructions for themselves.
They follow the instructions because they will be fired if they don't. They follow those instructions because that is what they are paid to do. Usually they're being paid to do it, not figure out another way to do it, because while they're figuring that out, they're not doing the work they're getting paid to do.
And if they had come up with a better solution, they rarely suggest it to their boss.
Because 1) they have no incentive to do so other than to kiss up to the boss, and 2) their boss will usually steal the idea and take credit for it themselves.
The American groupthink of the worker class has been subtly engineered over the last fifty years or so to remove the idea that as your company is more successful, you will share in that success. It's considered un-American to think that the CEO shouldn't get paid more than 2000 times what the front-line workers make, because freedom, eagles, free market, etc. Don't question your betters, get back to work, citizen. Oh, and don't get any ideas, or we'll remove your ability to pay your rent and take your kid to the doctor when they're sick.
We have this amazing human ability to think; why do so many people show up for work unable to do it?
Because (in the USA anyway), thinking is not valued. Entire political parties continue to exist by labeling anti-intellectualism as "loyalty" or "patriotism" or "MURICA". Consequently, at most workplaces (and some jobs more than others), the ability to think is not marketable. You rarely see "must be an independent thinker" or "must have the ability to speak truth to power" in a job description, because they don't want that. As someone said above, they want cogs. Cogs don't think, they file their TPS reports on time and with the new cover page. Upper management then takes the information that they've compiled and looks for new and interesting ways to fire people.
Why in the world would Tesla believe in "open and productive dialog" with morons that are bought-and-paid for politicians.
PR. If they go to the pols (in a public forum) and ask the uncomfortable questions (as in, who owns your vote today, Senator), and they get stonewalled, they look like the victims (which, in fairness, they are in this case). People already hate politicians so much that making them look like assholes is like shooting fish in a barrel.. with an RPG. Also, they'll probably get overpaid PR flacks from the legacy automotive industry to demonstrate how out of touch they are when it comes to just how much their customers hate dealing with dealerships; this is useful in swaying public opinion away from the bullshit "local business that supports little league teams" argument that dealers like to make.
So, between making the pols look like unreasonable assholes, and making the dealers look like lying bumblefucks (neither of which is difficult), they're well on their way to winning in the court of public opinion, and could potentially have referendums on a ballot that would override what the bought-and-paid-for pols want to do.
Of course the Republican Party was the one that opened pandora's box with the patriot act, and country wide domestic spying.
Stay on topic, please. There are plenty of places to talk about privacy politics elsewhere on the net.
That's great that it works for you, however there is no "all the gas I'd burn otherwise" for me, and for what I do there is certainly no economic incentive to buy a car that costs more than my VW and is less capable.
Then don't buy one. Why are you even here? The story was about government restricting a business model, not "OMG everyone should buy an electric car because you're a bad person if you don't". Clearly your use case isn't a good one for an electric car. Not everyone's is. Lots of people's are (including mine, if the Model 3 hits the market for under $30k, it's worth the extra $5-10K as opposed to the equivalent gas-powered car for me never having to set foot in a car dealership).
Then clearly the Smart isn't meeting your needs. That's fine. A Honda Fit can't do the same job as an Odyssey.
It really sounds like you might be better off renting for those big trips, if your insurance is relatively expensive. Or, flying, it's an 800 mile trip.
It's not possible for my coworkers to remember them all
Yes it is, physically. They just don't want to.
so they get written down
Terminable offense. I bet once someone gets fired over it the rest will stop.
Many times people keep their passwords in their phones
IMHO keeping the passwords in a vault app on your phone is OK so long as the password to get into the vault is strong.
Then, to top it off, some require the password to change every 30 days. Some every 60 days. Some every 90 days.
Probably disparate systems that have different capabilities. Having to change your password every 30 days is probably the lower limit (but all passwords should expire after at most 60).
These insane attempts to force password security have actually destroyed it.
No, lazy users have destroyed password security. We've come to accept lazy users, IMHO we shouldn't. IT security is useless unless the policy has some teeth behind it.
I've already said that I'm offended by you having the freedom to express an opinion - by your logic you must now apologise for exposing me to your opinion and run away and express your opinion elsewhere. I mean, that's exactly what you said must be done if you've offended someone, right?
No, what I said was quietly apologize and then be quiet. Arguing over who has a right to be offended, like we're doing right now, is a waste. I think your reliance on the law to be the end-all and be-all of acceptable behavior has some pretty disturbing possibilities, as well as being massively impractical.
I'm afraid I'm going to side with western law and modern civilisation on this particular point - consensus being that your feelings are your problem, not mine.
And I think that's what you need to work on. If you can't be concerned with the feelings of others, well, you're part of the problem.
Hang one, why is her point of view more legitimate than mine?
The problem is that you're trying to decide who's right. Who is right is not important when you're talking about a long-term relationship. If you go through every interaction with your wife based on what YOU think is right or not, you're going to have a bad time. People (men AND women) are irrational, illogical, emotional beings who can't be corraled into binary logic.
Well, tough for them - I don't have to do anything if someone is offended by me - they have freedom of association to go associate with someone else. Very tough shit - they get to put up with it or leave.
No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.
A) No one has the right to not be offended. You don't have that right, I don't have that right and some random female who wants to jog directly in front of me doesn't have that right. If you think everyone has a right to be offended and must be apologised to, then please know that I am offended by your right to an opinion (hence, by your own fucked-up logic, I deserve an apology).
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
B) Just because someone "feels" offended, intimidated or ogled doesn't mean that they actually are offended, intimidated or ogled.
How can you possibly know that? You're telepathic?
Come back and argue this point when those things can be measured independently of what the subject feels.
You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology. If someone says they are offended, then they are.
Until then all you're doing is pandering to whoever convinces you that they are the bigger "victim", and thus the system you propose will only reward professional victims disproportionately more.
Being polite and conscious of the feelings of others is not the same as encouraging victimhood. You are free to say and act any way you like; similarly, others are free to call you out for it.
C) You are free to do whatever the fuck you want to; however until I break a law you, and the person who "feels" harrassed, intimidated or whatever can go fuck yourselves. Courts and society agree with me on this one - it's a free country and you cannot prevent someone standing in a public place simply because your unmeasurable and unexplainable "feels" are being violated by their eyes.
Like I said above, you are free to spout whatever nonsense you wish anyplace you wish. As are others. Others may choose to call you an asshole for what you've done. That is their right.
It's really kind of telling how you want the right to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive others may find it, but when others criticize you for your speech, you suddenly are the victim yourself. You want to be able to do whatever you want free of criticism (or, dare I say it, harassment). What makes you so special? Why does there need to be a law describing what is and isn't harassment? Can't you, you know, stop being an asshole? Or, don't, and learn to deal with the consequences of your actions?
I don't think that's obvious. The rest of the world looks at the USA the same way the USA looks at Texas. We are not better than anyone else, we have just as much reprehensible shit in our history as other countries do. A little humility would not kill us.
Nonsense - looking at someone's fully clothed behind doesn't necessitate any apology
It does if the attention is unwanted and intimidating. People of both genders have a right to not be ogled.
As for corrections, she is free to move to another treadmill that is not in front of me - the gym is filled with 'em.
Anyone should be able to do what they want and be free from unwanted attention. Yes, she can move. Should she have to? No. Her choice. Making the choice to stay where she is does not mean she's agreeing to be stared at, it just means that you should fucking control yourself.
I'm sorry, that's not inappropriate behaviour. She is free to leave.
She should leave because someone is staring at her? Really? Do you not see how that's unfair? Reverse the gender roles; if a man is being stared at in an unwanted way, he should leave? She's paid her dues to the gym, she should be able to use the gym without being stared at.
If you follow her then THAT is inappropriate behaviour.
Oh, I see. The line is drawn when you get rapey. You can be a pig all you want, so long as you don't get rapey.
If she persists in staying directly in front of you and then complaining about being looked at then SHE is the problem, not you.
No, she is not the problem. She has the right to not be stared at. If you can't be an adult and keep your eyes to yourself, YOU are the problem. You can move. She shouldn't have to. Like I said above, the fact that she stays where she is does not mean she's OK with being stared at.
That's the entire problem - what someone takes offense at. Just because someone was offended by you does not mean that you were offensive.
Yes, it does. You can be offensive to someone without thinking you are doing so. Intent does not matter. If someone tells you you are being offensive, your first reaction should not be whether their offense is justified or not. You don't know how it feels to be them. Stop doing what they consider offensive, justified or not, and move on. This is an extension of realizing that there are other people in the world, and they have different experiences than you, and what they consider offensive is not necessarily what you consider offensive. There is no absolute, objective standard of what is offensive. When you are dealing with human emotions, there is no objective standard. You do not get to decide if someone's offense is justified. The polite thing to do is to stop it and STFU. It will not kill you to do so.
By the same token, just because my wife feels neglected does not mean that I neglect her and just because my wife feels unloved does not mean that I do not love her.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together. It's not something you can ignore because you don't think it's justified. If you can't handle that, don't get married.
Why is a females subjective opinion more important than a males subjective opinion?
It isn't. If you re-read my comment, and actually READ it instead of seeing what you want to see, you'll see that I put the opinions of both genders on the same footing. If someone feels uncomfortable because of the way someone else is looking at them, and they ask the looker to stop, then that person should stop. Male or female, doesn't matter.
You really need to grow up. Emotions are not something you can boil down to a logical core. Human beings do not work that way. If you think someone's being ridicul
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to. Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.
This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention, but they have a right not to be stared at like a piece of meat. Just because he chooses not to exercise the right doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. (And that works the other way. If a woman sees that a man is staring, and doesn't object, it doesn't mean she loses the right to object in that situation or any other.)
Mankind has been locked in a struggle between the reptile brain (which is probably what started you staring in the first place without consciously realizing it) and the mammal brain (which should know better) for thousands of years. This is not to say that this struggle excuses any behavior, of course. You are responsible for your own actions, regardless of the biology involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I already do. Most employers in my field have figured out that there's no reason to test if there aren't signs of a problem.
Not everyone that smokes pot is a "pothead". That's like saying everyone who likes a beer or two is an alcoholic.
I agree. The pee test doesn't tell you that, and being around people smoking (but not smoking yourself) is enough to spike a positive.
You've missed my point. The issue is not whether or not I would pass the screen. The issue is that it's invasive, humiliating, and unnecessary. The issue is that it's one more way for your employer to control your life. The issue is that a joint on the weekends isn't going to make you a dangerous/bad worker. The issue is that it's not a crime in a lot of states. The issue is that it's none of their fucking business if it doesn't impact your ability to do your job, and it doesn't. We don't keep people from working if they drink a beer (or 17) on the weekends, and having an alcoholic on your payroll is worse than having someone who's used pot an indeterminant number of times in the last 30 days. But we don't test for alcohol.
But, keep buying into the Reefer Madness hysteria if you want. History will make a fool of you.
Then they're lucky. Most places it's "These are the terms of the job, if you don't like them, fuck off."
What they're really doing when you get forced to take a pre-employment piss test is asserting their power over you, even before they start paying you. You're a criminal/drug addict until you provide a bodily fluid to "prove" otherwise (as urine tests have varying degrees of accuracy). With marijuana especially, they're asserting control over your body (as you could smoke on the first of the month and spike a positive for pot at the end of the month) even during the hours you're not working for them (although, if you're an "exempt" employee, there are no hours that are truly yours; being an "exempt" employee means that you trade having to punch a clock for a fixed salary, no overtime, and the possibility of being required to work 120 hours a week, all legal).
It's time we stood up to our corporate masters and told them "It's none of your fucking business what's in my urine."
Fuck you.
Then hire remote developers. You'll open up your talent pool from your immediate area to the entire world (or USA if that's your choice). If HR or Accounting balks, remind them that someone who would require $120k/year living and working in the Valley can live in similar style for $60k in some flyover state. Once they see the dollar signs, well, let's be fair, they don't understand or care about anything else with regards to the open position. If they can pay 50% less, then having the developer physically in an office becomes much less important.
Most of your resistance will probably come from middle managers who are convinced that unless they're helicopter managers then the workers won't get anything done. Micromanagement uber alles.
1) A scientific mindset is not a set of beliefs. Scientists do not worship what they cannot understand; they only seek to understand it.
2) Scientists do not consider the cause or purpose of the universe, only its nature. Cause or purpose implies an intelligent creator. We do not have any objective evidence that one exists. The Bible is not objective evidence, only philosophy, narrative, and metaphor. Even if it were, the current versions of the work have been translated and interpreted so many times by so many people with so many different agendas to push that the original meaning has been lost for thousands of years.
3) There is no objective evidence that a superhuman agency or agencies created the universe. There is conjecture and hypothesis. The problem is that the zealots insist that you prove a negative when you express an opinion on the subject. As we all know, proving a negative is impossible. Thinking that something is possible doesn't mean you believe it to actually be the case. We do not know what was happening before the Big Bang happened, as current technology does not exist to look beyond the singularity. Nothing can be proven or disproven about the origin of the Big Bang at the moment, and that is not a concession of a weak argument; the three most important words in science are "I don't know".
4) Exactly what devotional and ritual observances do scientists engage in? The closest I can come up with is getting your morning coffee.
5) Scientifically based solutions and practices are not the same as a moral code. Morals are arbitrary rules of conduct that a particular slice of humanity has decided are worth upholding, and as such, cannot by definition be associated with science. Nothing in science says you can't have sex before marriage, for example, or stone the gays to death, or beat your wife, or kill your slaves..
I'm positive you don't know what you're talking about.
It's settled. Getting 97% of scientists to agree on something is virtually impossible if there is no objective evidence. CO2 in the atmosphere makes temperatures rise. We're dumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the billions of tons. Therefore, more heat from the sun is trapped in the atmosphere, making global temperature rise. Honestly, it's not a difficult concept, and if you need an example of a greenhouse effect gone mad, take a look at Venus. It's like 863 degrees F / 462 degrees C on the surface, in large part to the atmosphere being 96% CO2. The origins of the high levels of CO2 on Venus are different from those on Earth, but they share a similar problem in that there is insufficient biomass to recapture the carbon in the atmosphere.
Please link to some of those papers; if they're not in reputable peer-reviewed publications, though, don't bother.
You are failing to grasp the nature of scientific endeavor. We will never know everything about a particular topic; there is always more knowledge to be obtained. If 97% (or even a significant majority) of the new research contradicts the human-caused theory of global warming, then a conclusio
"Religion". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Nye has no patience for people who deny climate change because they're flat-out, provably, scientifically-settled wrong. It's like someone being expected to have patience with someone insisting the sky is yellow with purple polka dots. (Although, you might have patience with them because they're clearly deranged mentally. Do your own comparison of the zealots and the mentally ill here.)
IMHO the most important protection to consumers who use these accounts is access to their money while fraud is investigated. It's waaaaay easier to get your credit card issuer to put a temporary refund on your account while the matter is investigated than it is to get the bank where you have your checking account to return your funds while the investigation goes on. Some states have the same maximum liability protection on debit cards as they have on credit cards, but not all.
Also, if your credit card is maxed out, it doesn't keep you from paying your bills some other way, providing you have income. But someone emptying your checking account makes it a lot harder to pay your bills.
That said, I do use my debit card all the time; it has the same protections as my credit card, both are processed through the Mastercard network. I always use my credit card online, however.
Because that's what they're being paid to do, and nothing more. There is virtually no incentive to go outside what you've been assigned. You will not get paid any more for doing more work than you have already been assigned; all that will happen if you do that is that you will be assigned that extra work permanently in the future (with no commensurate raise in pay). Congratulations, you devalued your own labor, saving the system the trouble.
People will say that that's lazy, that you should take on more on your own initiative because that will benefit the employer, and, in theory, you.
Those people are wrong.
Let's say you've been assigned the task of assembling 450 widgets in a day. You have become more skilled at that task, so it only takes you 7 hours instead of 8. (Assuming, naively, that they let you stick to an 8 hour day.) So, on your own initiative, you take on more work and get to 500 widgets a day. Congratulations, your labor is now worth less, since they got more work out of you for the same pay. Leaving aside that you're a massive chump if you do that, your extra labor does not benefit you. The company can sell 50 more widgets than they would have previously, so obviously that extra profit goes into your paycheck. Oh, wait, it doesn't. No, that profit goes to the rich folks that own your company, while you eat a 2%-raise shit sandwich.
A big knock against the auto worker unions is that the amount of work a union member is assigned over the course of a work day is negotiated. If they have been assigned 450 widgets to assemble, they assemble those 450 widgets and go home. Usually early. Then they get called lazy for not doing more work than they have been assigned. What they've really done is work to the letter of the contract. They have done the work that they have been paid for doing. You don't go into a butcher shop, buy a steak, and say "Oh, also, I'd like those short ribs for free." You'll get laughed out of there.
Because they're not being paid to do that, and they have no incentive to do so independently. Your role? Cog. Expanded role? Same pay, more responsibility. Changed? The only way it changes is if you quit or get fired.
They follow the instructions because they will be fired if they don't. They follow those instructions because that is what they are paid to do. Usually they're being paid to do it, not figure out another way to do it, because while they're figuring that out, they're not doing the work they're getting paid to do.
Because 1) they have no incentive to do so other than to kiss up to the boss, and 2) their boss will usually steal the idea and take credit for it themselves.
The American groupthink of the worker class has been subtly engineered over the last fifty years or so to remove the idea that as your company is more successful, you will share in that success. It's considered un-American to think that the CEO shouldn't get paid more than 2000 times what the front-line workers make, because freedom, eagles, free market, etc. Don't question your betters, get back to work, citizen. Oh, and don't get any ideas, or we'll remove your ability to pay your rent and take your kid to the doctor when they're sick.
Because (in the USA anyway), thinking is not valued. Entire political parties continue to exist by labeling anti-intellectualism as "loyalty" or "patriotism" or "MURICA". Consequently, at most workplaces (and some jobs more than others), the ability to think is not marketable. You rarely see "must be an independent thinker" or "must have the ability to speak truth to power" in a job description, because they don't want that. As someone said above, they want cogs. Cogs don't think, they file their TPS reports on time and with the new cover page. Upper management then takes the information that they've compiled and looks for new and interesting ways to fire people.
PR. If they go to the pols (in a public forum) and ask the uncomfortable questions (as in, who owns your vote today, Senator), and they get stonewalled, they look like the victims (which, in fairness, they are in this case). People already hate politicians so much that making them look like assholes is like shooting fish in a barrel.. with an RPG. Also, they'll probably get overpaid PR flacks from the legacy automotive industry to demonstrate how out of touch they are when it comes to just how much their customers hate dealing with dealerships; this is useful in swaying public opinion away from the bullshit "local business that supports little league teams" argument that dealers like to make.
So, between making the pols look like unreasonable assholes, and making the dealers look like lying bumblefucks (neither of which is difficult), they're well on their way to winning in the court of public opinion, and could potentially have referendums on a ballot that would override what the bought-and-paid-for pols want to do.
Stay on topic, please. There are plenty of places to talk about privacy politics elsewhere on the net.
Then don't buy one. Why are you even here? The story was about government restricting a business model, not "OMG everyone should buy an electric car because you're a bad person if you don't". Clearly your use case isn't a good one for an electric car. Not everyone's is. Lots of people's are (including mine, if the Model 3 hits the market for under $30k, it's worth the extra $5-10K as opposed to the equivalent gas-powered car for me never having to set foot in a car dealership).
Then clearly the Smart isn't meeting your needs. That's fine. A Honda Fit can't do the same job as an Odyssey.
It really sounds like you might be better off renting for those big trips, if your insurance is relatively expensive. Or, flying, it's an 800 mile trip.
Verbing wierds language.
Probably doesn't, but it reminds the users who the boss is where IT is concerned.
Yes it is, physically. They just don't want to.
Terminable offense. I bet once someone gets fired over it the rest will stop.
IMHO keeping the passwords in a vault app on your phone is OK so long as the password to get into the vault is strong.
Probably disparate systems that have different capabilities. Having to change your password every 30 days is probably the lower limit (but all passwords should expire after at most 60).
No, lazy users have destroyed password security. We've come to accept lazy users, IMHO we shouldn't. IT security is useless unless the policy has some teeth behind it.
No, what I said was quietly apologize and then be quiet. Arguing over who has a right to be offended, like we're doing right now, is a waste. I think your reliance on the law to be the end-all and be-all of acceptable behavior has some pretty disturbing possibilities, as well as being massively impractical.
And I think that's what you need to work on. If you can't be concerned with the feelings of others, well, you're part of the problem.
The problem is that you're trying to decide who's right. Who is right is not important when you're talking about a long-term relationship. If you go through every interaction with your wife based on what YOU think is right or not, you're going to have a bad time. People (men AND women) are irrational, illogical, emotional beings who can't be corraled into binary logic.
No, you don't have to do anything. You are free to be as big an asshole as you want. Just don't be surprised when you get called out on it. They are free to 1) not leave and 2) call you a self-centered, rude, obnoxious, offensive asshole. If you're OK with that, well, go on with your bad self. Just don't claim victimhood when they do.
I'm sorry that you feel that way.
How can you possibly know that? You're telepathic?
You're missing the point entirely. That is not a possible thing to do given today's technology. If someone says they are offended, then they are.
Being polite and conscious of the feelings of others is not the same as encouraging victimhood. You are free to say and act any way you like; similarly, others are free to call you out for it.
Like I said above, you are free to spout whatever nonsense you wish anyplace you wish. As are others. Others may choose to call you an asshole for what you've done. That is their right.
It's really kind of telling how you want the right to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive others may find it, but when others criticize you for your speech, you suddenly are the victim yourself. You want to be able to do whatever you want free of criticism (or, dare I say it, harassment). What makes you so special? Why does there need to be a law describing what is and isn't harassment? Can't you, you know, stop being an asshole? Or, don't, and learn to deal with the consequences of your actions?
Again, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I don't think that's obvious. The rest of the world looks at the USA the same way the USA looks at Texas. We are not better than anyone else, we have just as much reprehensible shit in our history as other countries do. A little humility would not kill us.
It does if the attention is unwanted and intimidating. People of both genders have a right to not be ogled.
Anyone should be able to do what they want and be free from unwanted attention. Yes, she can move. Should she have to? No. Her choice. Making the choice to stay where she is does not mean she's agreeing to be stared at, it just means that you should fucking control yourself.
She should leave because someone is staring at her? Really? Do you not see how that's unfair? Reverse the gender roles; if a man is being stared at in an unwanted way, he should leave? She's paid her dues to the gym, she should be able to use the gym without being stared at.
Oh, I see. The line is drawn when you get rapey. You can be a pig all you want, so long as you don't get rapey.
No, she is not the problem. She has the right to not be stared at. If you can't be an adult and keep your eyes to yourself, YOU are the problem. You can move. She shouldn't have to. Like I said above, the fact that she stays where she is does not mean she's OK with being stared at.
Yes, it does. You can be offensive to someone without thinking you are doing so. Intent does not matter. If someone tells you you are being offensive, your first reaction should not be whether their offense is justified or not. You don't know how it feels to be them. Stop doing what they consider offensive, justified or not, and move on. This is an extension of realizing that there are other people in the world, and they have different experiences than you, and what they consider offensive is not necessarily what you consider offensive. There is no absolute, objective standard of what is offensive. When you are dealing with human emotions, there is no objective standard. You do not get to decide if someone's offense is justified. The polite thing to do is to stop it and STFU. It will not kill you to do so.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not married to you. Part of being married is understanding that the other person's feelings, however justified (or not), are more important than you're stating here. If she feels neglected, it doesn't matter if she actually IS neglected or not. It's a problem that you and she need to work on together. It's not something you can ignore because you don't think it's justified. If you can't handle that, don't get married.
It isn't. If you re-read my comment, and actually READ it instead of seeing what you want to see, you'll see that I put the opinions of both genders on the same footing. If someone feels uncomfortable because of the way someone else is looking at them, and they ask the looker to stop, then that person should stop. Male or female, doesn't matter.
You really need to grow up. Emotions are not something you can boil down to a logical core. Human beings do not work that way. If you think someone's being ridicul
I think that both genders have a right not to be stared at if they don't want to be. The way I look at it, the way men are wired (yes, there are biological differences between the genders, shock horror) to stare more than women are, and sometimes we don't realize (consciously) that we're doing it. That happens. I've done it without realizing. The important part is how you react once you're called on it, once you're consciously aware that you're doing it, and that you've made the woman in question uncomfortable. IN MY OPINION, the appropriate reaction is to quietly apologize, make corrections to the situation as warranted (for example, if you're on a treadmill that's behind a woman in yoga pants, and you got caught staring at her behind, offer to move to another treadmill), and let her vent a bit at you if she wants to. Don't accept abuse, you've already apologized, but accepting a dressing-down for inappropriate behavior will not kill you.
This applies in the other direction, too. A man should not be objectified or stared at either, IF he does not wish it. Culturally, IN MY OPINION, men are less likely to take offense at the attention, but they have a right not to be stared at like a piece of meat. Just because he chooses not to exercise the right doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. (And that works the other way. If a woman sees that a man is staring, and doesn't object, it doesn't mean she loses the right to object in that situation or any other.)
Mankind has been locked in a struggle between the reptile brain (which is probably what started you staring in the first place without consciously realizing it) and the mammal brain (which should know better) for thousands of years. This is not to say that this struggle excuses any behavior, of course. You are responsible for your own actions, regardless of the biology involved.
That's a reaction to American exceptionalism, which is arrogant, ignorant, and hurts our standing in the world community.