I also feel this way. I had this discussion nearly 30 years ago at a theater when I saw this starting. When I brought this up with the manager, that they were wasting my time by showing commercials after the listed start time, I was corrected and told that they weren't "commercials" they were "entertainment shorts." Uh huh. Never went back to that theater.
Sure, for "good" schools. There are a number of schools in the US you can get into where the only requirement is that you can find a way to get the money. They'll pay lip service to very basic "qualifications" like HS diploma or GED, but in reality they are not competitive.
And no, stuff like this doesn't need to be mentioned during the job interview. (A company wouldn't want to know it, anyways, because it increases the risk of a discrimination lawsuit.)
And chances are, at his position, even though he's probably have to be in the office, he'd very likely not have to work overtime (government contractor and all).
So it's not only a temporary situation, but one that's very unlikely to happen over the two months.
And the supervisor was probably correct - it didn't matter to him and being human was the best thing possible. I've had to tell coworkers to simply go home or to not worry about things when they needed to take care of someone. Granted, I don't have the authority to do so, but I will defend my decision as a decent human being trying to be compassionate. There is no work so important that it cannot wait until the next day that cannot be temporarily handled by someone else that would justify lack of compassion.
Again, all we have here is one side of the story and I do not take it 100% at face value. I did not suggest that he would need to say his wife is sick, but if the job was described as "be here when we need you, which may be after hours from time to time" then that's the job. If he had worked there for a year and this came up, then he would have cause of action under FMLA. But if you accept a new job knowing that you are going to be a couple of months before you can meet all needs, you should be up front about that.
BTW, this may sound worse than I mean it, but saying "...very likely not have to work overtime (government contractor and all)" shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry.
BAE Systems is such a huge company. They likely have hundreds of dying spouses on their insurance at any given time. While the aggregate cost impacts their premiums, it isn't so bad that it isn't worth one more for a good crypto expert.
I believe that this is the more likely scenario: They are interviewing for a specific job. They tell him the job involves doing work that can't be done at home. They tell him the job will involve working after hours from time to time on things that cannot be done at home. He accepts the job offer and then on the first day of employment says he cannot do the job for which he was hired, rather he would like to do the job for which he would have liked to have been hired. The company says no, he cries to the media.
There is a difference between using a commercial email service like Yahoo or Gmail and using your own email server. Hillary used her own private server so she could truly delete email she didn't want being made public. This issue doesn't exist if one uses Yahoo or Gmail.
Yes, you can say that, but it doesn't matter what you, or me, or anyone else here who isn't on the SCOTUS think. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. Once they say it is, it is, until they come back later and say it isn't. This is part of the basis for the debate between the strict constitution types and the living document types.
They won't suddenly become lazy. They already are lazy, but the fear of starving and freezing to death keep them at work. I can keep my current lifestyle and quit my job if you give me something like this + free healthcare. And I would. And so would a lot of people. It won't be everyone, but it will be a significant number. It will be people like me who have a decent income but don't spend it all every month and so have a decent source of investment income and a modest lifestyle - a philosophy that has me on track to very early retirement. It will also be people like my cousin who will not work at all and become surf (ski, skydive, mountain bike) bums.
Yeah? And what about when he doesn't report to his "job?" Then what? He still hasn't done anything violent, so we still apparently shouldn't put him in jail.
Rules of evidence don't apply in this case unless they try to prosecute you for something. Denial of entry does not require the same standards as criminal prosecution.
I'm not anti-capitalist, but I am anti publicly traded companies as they exist today. Corporations should focus on their employees and their customers, not shareholders.
Are you sure? That seems like it is nearly the definition of anti-capitalist.
I was just citing an example of something that is a bad promise. Closing GitMo in the first year of someone's Presidency is also a promise that was made very clearly. It was not done. Did he have the authority to do so? I believe that he did. It was a military base and military prisoners and he was the guy in charge of the military. Could he have moved them to the US and kept them in jail? I have my doubts. So that is one where at the very least he was being naive (btw: most of us familiar with the subject knew it wouldn't happen). But when up for his second term, very few people seemed to care.
Just to be clear. I'm not suggesting people should never say they will do something that requires cooperation. Going back to the OP the point is that if I say I am going to do something, and fail to do it because people were actively working against it, that's still a failure. It is still a hit to credibility. If I didn't understand what was required to get it done or if I knew but didn't get it locked down before talking that's all on me.
"Read my lips, no new taxes" is a good one. It is something that wasn't 100% in his power but he could have vetoed the bill and claimed the high ground (even if it were to get overridden). But he signed the tax increase (to get something else he wanted) and therefore failed and was held to account.
In my old neck of the woods your argument came up over and over. The response was that it was unhealthy for the employees. Then the arguments went thus.... "Unsafe work environment." "They don't have to work there, they can go somewhere else." "That's easy for you to say, finding a job isn't always so simple." "They know full well that it is a smoking establishment when they hire on." "The same could be said for any work place hazard, but we still regulate." And on and on and on...
We aren't talking about stuff like "I promise to hold a parade on the third Thursday after I'm in power" which is then cancelled because of an earthquake. They are promising things that they are BY LAW prohibited from doing unilaterally; things that require power not granted to them by the Constitution. If the President can issue a legal executive order and make it happen, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can order as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can do in terms of setting foreign policy, that is legit. Pardons and clemency are, of course, legit.
If someone running said "we are going to build something really big and stupid and which will not go very far towards accomplishing what we are trying to do" I would be skeptical because the President cannot allocate big chunks of budget for stuff like that. If the President said "don't worry about that, I'm going to make someone else pay for it" I would likewise be skeptical. If said person failed to build this thing I would give them 0 credit against their promise, even though they tried, because they should have known when they said it what would be required.
You said it better than I would have. I would not give credit to someone who promised to do something, failed to do it, and then said "well I tried, but I don't actually have the authority to do it."
I used to do a lot of stuff in a lightweight environment called C-Shell and it was really awesome, but that was more than 30 years ago and it really didn't have a lot to do with MS.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "X is too poor an aircraft when it comes to high threat environments in which to risk the life of a pilot."
1. When I go for a bike ride, I take my phone with me. I don't want to also take a garage door opener.
2. My neighbor calls me up at work and says he wants to borrow my chain saw. I remotely open the garage so he can get it.
To be clear, I don't want this. I wouldn't trust it. But there are legitimate use cases.
I also feel this way. I had this discussion nearly 30 years ago at a theater when I saw this starting. When I brought this up with the manager, that they were wasting my time by showing commercials after the listed start time, I was corrected and told that they weren't "commercials" they were "entertainment shorts." Uh huh. Never went back to that theater.
Sure, for "good" schools. There are a number of schools in the US you can get into where the only requirement is that you can find a way to get the money. They'll pay lip service to very basic "qualifications" like HS diploma or GED, but in reality they are not competitive.
I'm pretty sure 3D has been around longer than 30 years. Sure the tech has evolved, but I find it just as much of a gimmick.
And no, stuff like this doesn't need to be mentioned during the job interview. (A company wouldn't want to know it, anyways, because it increases the risk of a discrimination lawsuit.)
And chances are, at his position, even though he's probably have to be in the office, he'd very likely not have to work overtime (government contractor and all).
So it's not only a temporary situation, but one that's very unlikely to happen over the two months.
And the supervisor was probably correct - it didn't matter to him and being human was the best thing possible. I've had to tell coworkers to simply go home or to not worry about things when they needed to take care of someone. Granted, I don't have the authority to do so, but I will defend my decision as a decent human being trying to be compassionate. There is no work so important that it cannot wait until the next day that cannot be temporarily handled by someone else that would justify lack of compassion.
Again, all we have here is one side of the story and I do not take it 100% at face value. I did not suggest that he would need to say his wife is sick, but if the job was described as "be here when we need you, which may be after hours from time to time" then that's the job. If he had worked there for a year and this came up, then he would have cause of action under FMLA. But if you accept a new job knowing that you are going to be a couple of months before you can meet all needs, you should be up front about that.
BTW, this may sound worse than I mean it, but saying "...very likely not have to work overtime (government contractor and all)" shows a complete lack of understanding of the industry.
BAE Systems is such a huge company. They likely have hundreds of dying spouses on their insurance at any given time. While the aggregate cost impacts their premiums, it isn't so bad that it isn't worth one more for a good crypto expert.
I believe that this is the more likely scenario: They are interviewing for a specific job. They tell him the job involves doing work that can't be done at home. They tell him the job will involve working after hours from time to time on things that cannot be done at home. He accepts the job offer and then on the first day of employment says he cannot do the job for which he was hired, rather he would like to do the job for which he would have liked to have been hired. The company says no, he cries to the media.
I think you are confusing "can't" with "shouldn't"
Of course it's technically feasible. It's called universally agreed upon standards and conventions.
I think you are confusing the word "feasible" with "possible"
There is a difference between using a commercial email service like Yahoo or Gmail and using your own email server. Hillary used her own private server so she could truly delete email she didn't want being made public. This issue doesn't exist if one uses Yahoo or Gmail.
Cue people queuing up to tell you...
Congratulations, but I'm not sure how that's related to the previous post.
Yes, you can say that, but it doesn't matter what you, or me, or anyone else here who isn't on the SCOTUS think. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. Once they say it is, it is, until they come back later and say it isn't. This is part of the basis for the debate between the strict constitution types and the living document types.
They won't suddenly become lazy. They already are lazy, but the fear of starving and freezing to death keep them at work. I can keep my current lifestyle and quit my job if you give me something like this + free healthcare. And I would. And so would a lot of people. It won't be everyone, but it will be a significant number. It will be people like me who have a decent income but don't spend it all every month and so have a decent source of investment income and a modest lifestyle - a philosophy that has me on track to very early retirement. It will also be people like my cousin who will not work at all and become surf (ski, skydive, mountain bike) bums.
Yeah? And what about when he doesn't report to his "job?" Then what? He still hasn't done anything violent, so we still apparently shouldn't put him in jail.
Rules of evidence don't apply in this case unless they try to prosecute you for something. Denial of entry does not require the same standards as criminal prosecution.
I'm not anti-capitalist, but I am anti publicly traded companies as they exist today. Corporations should focus on their employees and their customers, not shareholders.
Are you sure? That seems like it is nearly the definition of anti-capitalist.
I was just citing an example of something that is a bad promise. Closing GitMo in the first year of someone's Presidency is also a promise that was made very clearly. It was not done. Did he have the authority to do so? I believe that he did. It was a military base and military prisoners and he was the guy in charge of the military. Could he have moved them to the US and kept them in jail? I have my doubts. So that is one where at the very least he was being naive (btw: most of us familiar with the subject knew it wouldn't happen). But when up for his second term, very few people seemed to care.
Just to be clear. I'm not suggesting people should never say they will do something that requires cooperation. Going back to the OP the point is that if I say I am going to do something, and fail to do it because people were actively working against it, that's still a failure. It is still a hit to credibility. If I didn't understand what was required to get it done or if I knew but didn't get it locked down before talking that's all on me.
"Read my lips, no new taxes" is a good one. It is something that wasn't 100% in his power but he could have vetoed the bill and claimed the high ground (even if it were to get overridden). But he signed the tax increase (to get something else he wanted) and therefore failed and was held to account.
In my old neck of the woods your argument came up over and over. The response was that it was unhealthy for the employees. Then the arguments went thus.... "Unsafe work environment." "They don't have to work there, they can go somewhere else." "That's easy for you to say, finding a job isn't always so simple." "They know full well that it is a smoking establishment when they hire on." "The same could be said for any work place hazard, but we still regulate." And on and on and on...
We aren't talking about stuff like "I promise to hold a parade on the third Thursday after I'm in power" which is then cancelled because of an earthquake. They are promising things that they are BY LAW prohibited from doing unilaterally; things that require power not granted to them by the Constitution. If the President can issue a legal executive order and make it happen, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can order as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, that is a legit promise. If it is something the President can do in terms of setting foreign policy, that is legit. Pardons and clemency are, of course, legit.
If someone running said "we are going to build something really big and stupid and which will not go very far towards accomplishing what we are trying to do" I would be skeptical because the President cannot allocate big chunks of budget for stuff like that. If the President said "don't worry about that, I'm going to make someone else pay for it" I would likewise be skeptical. If said person failed to build this thing I would give them 0 credit against their promise, even though they tried, because they should have known when they said it what would be required.
I'm guessing you're the type of pedant that never "promises" anything he can't deliver?
Fixed that for you. Sounds like you're the other guy.
You said it better than I would have. I would not give credit to someone who promised to do something, failed to do it, and then said "well I tried, but I don't actually have the authority to do it."
I used to do a lot of stuff in a lightweight environment called C-Shell and it was really awesome, but that was more than 30 years ago and it really didn't have a lot to do with MS.
They were going to give Manning the gender reassignment surgery, now they don't have to.