Sorry, it's not Troll Tuesday*. Though maybe we can extend it...:-)
(* Definition of Troll Tuesday: not really trolling (except for people with no sense of humor, who tend to get a mite upset), we "troll" to put a smile on people's faces while making relevant comments, not baiting people for emotional outbursts. Pretty much the opposite of trolling.)
Blackberrys have a "developer mode", there is zero reason to root them. Quite unlike the flashy, but locked-down Android and iPhone alternatives.
Developer mode can easily be enabled on Android. Settings | About Phone | Build Number (Build number may also be in another submenu, depending on your manufacturer, such as Settings | About device | Build number or Settings | About phone | Software information | Build number or Settings | About | Software information | More | Build number)
Tap the Build Number 7 times and you're now a developer, can upload your test apps to the phone via usb, debug, etc.
How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade
Sex work should not be criminal, period.
While I agree with you, not everyone who's in the sex trade is there by choice. You're young and foolish, get busted for something minor, get a record, and all of a sudden many job opportunities are closed to you. You've got to eat. You've got to have a place to live. What do you do? It's a real-life example of a Hobsons Choice.
Other studies give similar figures for the 30% of adults having a criminal record. The 40% of working-age adults having a criminal record is due to the simple fact that there are more younger people working, and the application of the law has become arbitrary.
Businesses and individuals discriminate very little due to free market not approving of it.
I hope you don't really believe that. All the evidence says otherwise.
as long as a business can be sued in court for money by anybody claiming that business caused them damage by hiring an ex con and the client somehow lost something and now wants retribution and government allows him to sue because business maybe hired an ex fellon, as long as that is the case (and it is happening all the time), you bet businesses will not hire ex cons.
There's a program that not only bonds the employer against loss by hiring an ex-con, but also give them a tax break. So, if they're bonded and get sued, it's not their problem.
As another person pointed out, even in the US, there are laws against discrimination based on criminal record that apply to minority groups, which is a good thing because of all the stupid DWB stops that lead to confrontations which escalate into legal stupid-land.
Yes, we do better up here in Kanuckistan, but as much as we could. Some European countries "get it" more than we do, even though the logic is quite simple - if you want someone to not re-offend, the minimal thing to do is reduce the barriers to employment so they have less reason to re-offend.
Put someone on the street with no hope of employment, of course they'll re-offend. What other choice do they have? At least that way they get a roof over their head and food.
No, I was referring to another article. I even posted the link, but here's another reply, including both a link a quote that cites the stats from the US Dept of justice. Linky
.
This does not include juveniles, or those where were just arrested, but adults with a criminal record (30% of all adults) and adults of working age with a criminal record (40% - which includes retirees, etc).
The FBI estimates that 50 percent of its criminal records contain errors. No HR professional wants to hire a person with DUI convictions to drive a vehicle or someone convicted of child abuse to work in a school. But disqualifying every applicant with a criminal record for every job is unnecessary.
This is especially true because of profound changes in the criminal-justice system. When I was 17, I punched another young man in an argument in the local pool hall. The security guards promptly "escorted" me to the manager’s office. The manager called my father, who assured the manager that if he would allow my father to handle the situation, I would never enter his establishment for the rest of my life. To this day, I have never returned. If my son were to repeat my foolish mistake, he would unquestionably be arrested for assault and battery, and the conviction would follow him for the rest of his life. Literally millions of people in the United States today have criminal records because they were caught smoking marijuana at a rock concert 10 years ago, accidentally bounced a check, or got into a shoving match with another driver after a fender bender. Many of these people can be excellent employees.
Consequences
Refusing to hire anyone with a record is not only unnecessary, it takes a huge bite out of the applicant pool. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 30 percent of America’s adult population has a criminal record. Among people of working age, about 40 percent have criminal records. For some demographic groups, the rate is even higher. More than 50 percent of Black males have a criminal record. As the United States’ demographics continue to change, the problem presented by using criminal records as an employment screen will continue to grow.
Enforcement of the law is still highly selective. How many banksters went to jail?
The majority of Americans with criminal records are for minor offenses.
I doubt a bank robber would want to work in a bank, knowing that every time something goes wrong, their name will immediately be put at the top of the "sh*t list."
No, but they'll have an advantage over non-criminals entering the field - subsidies to the employer, training directed to job market needs, and no student debt. They can afford to work for less. Much less.
The US is only 5% of the world's population. Maybe it's time to see how other countries with less than 40% of the adult working-age population having criminal records (pretty much all of the rest of the world), do it.
Other countries do it, and have far lower prison populations per capita. 40% of all working-age Americans have a criminal record. Do you really want them all to be unemployable, and having to return to crime to survive?
Believing that it is not possible for someone to reform is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you then also enact policies that actively drive them back to crime. Not too smart, especially when many of the crimes are minor. How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade if you cut her off from the alternatives that are open to everyone else? Or anyone else who has a criminal record, for that matter?
We had a police captain here who was caught stealing cocaine from the evidence locker. Arrested, convicted, did his time, and while inside learned how to be an accountant. Got a job while living in a half-way house. Now he's a tax-payer again. Win-win for everyone.
Or you can keep building jails. Just remember, you're the one footing the bill for it.
Eventually, some of these "low-rate bottom-of-the-barrel" coders will get better, same as you were once not so hot at what you do today. This will drive wages down, same as always when the supply/demand curve has more supply than demand. Same as all these initiatives to teach everyone to code whether they want to or not.
Perhaps it's time to think ahead and figure out what, if anything, your next career will be.
If they can hire 10 really motivated coders (and after a few years in "the big house", they'll be motivated), for next to nothing after taking into account subsidies, for less than 1 of you, many will take the chance, because the bottom line is the bottom line.
Not if the government is the one suing, because it's in the interest of society as a whole to make it possible for former criminals to actually be rehabilitated and contribute to the system.
Since such discrimination is illegal, and the government (and society) has an interest in getting these people jobs, expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts.
For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?
Slashdot Mirror
Factor one: Something you have - your phone.
Factor two: Something you know - the text code.
Just don't lend your phone to evil people.
Burma Shave?
Sorry, it's not Troll Tuesday*. Though maybe we can extend it ... :-)
(* Definition of Troll Tuesday: not really trolling (except for people with no sense of humor, who tend to get a mite upset), we "troll" to put a smile on people's faces while making relevant comments, not baiting people for emotional outbursts. Pretty much the opposite of trolling.)
lol Blackberry... no US tech (software or hardware) is considered secure in the rest of the world. OMG please wake up...
Blackberry isn't US, and never has been. It's head office is still in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada :-)
Blackberrys have a "developer mode", there is zero reason to root them. Quite unlike the flashy, but locked-down Android and iPhone alternatives.
Developer mode can easily be enabled on Android. Settings | About Phone | Build Number (Build number may also be in another submenu, depending on your manufacturer, such as Settings | About device | Build number or Settings | About phone | Software information | Build number or Settings | About | Software information | More | Build number)
Tap the Build Number 7 times and you're now a developer, can upload your test apps to the phone via usb, debug, etc.
You're confusing transsexuals with cross-dressers again. Tsk, tsk. Also, the law disagrees with you.
How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade
Sex work should not be criminal, period.
While I agree with you, not everyone who's in the sex trade is there by choice. You're young and foolish, get busted for something minor, get a record, and all of a sudden many job opportunities are closed to you. You've got to eat. You've got to have a place to live. What do you do? It's a real-life example of a Hobsons Choice.
Other studies give similar figures for the 30% of adults having a criminal record. The 40% of working-age adults having a criminal record is due to the simple fact that there are more younger people working, and the application of the law has become arbitrary.
Businesses and individuals discriminate very little due to free market not approving of it.
I hope you don't really believe that. All the evidence says otherwise.
as long as a business can be sued in court for money by anybody claiming that business caused them damage by hiring an ex con and the client somehow lost something and now wants retribution and government allows him to sue because business maybe hired an ex fellon, as long as that is the case (and it is happening all the time), you bet businesses will not hire ex cons.
There's a program that not only bonds the employer against loss by hiring an ex-con, but also give them a tax break. So, if they're bonded and get sued, it's not their problem.
Who may still owe 50k in restitution?
In that case, all the more reason to reduce barriers to employment so they can compensate their victims.
As another person pointed out, even in the US, there are laws against discrimination based on criminal record that apply to minority groups, which is a good thing because of all the stupid DWB stops that lead to confrontations which escalate into legal stupid-land.
Yes, we do better up here in Kanuckistan, but as much as we could. Some European countries "get it" more than we do, even though the logic is quite simple - if you want someone to not re-offend, the minimal thing to do is reduce the barriers to employment so they have less reason to re-offend.
Put someone on the street with no hope of employment, of course they'll re-offend. What other choice do they have? At least that way they get a roof over their head and food.
No, I was referring to another article. I even posted the link, but here's another reply, including both a link a quote that cites the stats from the US Dept of justice. Linky
. This does not include juveniles, or those where were just arrested, but adults with a criminal record (30% of all adults) and adults of working age with a criminal record (40% - which includes retirees, etc).
I think this is the statistic he's talking about.
psst - s/he/she/ :-)
No, this one (partial quote only)
The FBI estimates that 50 percent of its criminal records contain errors. No HR professional wants to hire a person with DUI convictions to drive a vehicle or someone convicted of child abuse to work in a school. But disqualifying every applicant with a criminal record for every job is unnecessary.
This is especially true because of profound changes in the criminal-justice system. When I was 17, I punched another young man in an argument in the local pool hall. The security guards promptly "escorted" me to the manager’s office. The manager called my father, who assured the manager that if he would allow my father to handle the situation, I would never enter his establishment for the rest of my life. To this day, I have never returned. If my son were to repeat my foolish mistake, he would unquestionably be arrested for assault and battery, and the conviction would follow him for the rest of his life. Literally millions of people in the United States today have criminal records because they were caught smoking marijuana at a rock concert 10 years ago, accidentally bounced a check, or got into a shoving match with another driver after a fender bender. Many of these people can be excellent employees.
Consequences
Refusing to hire anyone with a record is not only unnecessary, it takes a huge bite out of the applicant pool. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 30 percent of America’s adult population has a criminal record. Among people of working age, about 40 percent have criminal records. For some demographic groups, the rate is even higher. More than 50 percent of Black males have a criminal record. As the United States’ demographics continue to change, the problem presented by using criminal records as an employment screen will continue to grow.
Enforcement of the law is still highly selective. How many banksters went to jail?
You make that sound like a universal truth when it isn't.
I agree. If we don't give them a chance to go straight, how come we act so surprised when they re-offend, right?
The majority of Americans with criminal records are for minor offenses.
I doubt a bank robber would want to work in a bank, knowing that every time something goes wrong, their name will immediately be put at the top of the "sh*t list."
No, but they'll have an advantage over non-criminals entering the field - subsidies to the employer, training directed to job market needs, and no student debt. They can afford to work for less. Much less.
The US is only 5% of the world's population. Maybe it's time to see how other countries with less than 40% of the adult working-age population having criminal records (pretty much all of the rest of the world), do it.
Other countries do it, and have far lower prison populations per capita. 40% of all working-age Americans have a criminal record. Do you really want them all to be unemployable, and having to return to crime to survive?
Believing that it is not possible for someone to reform is a self-fulfilling prophecy when you then also enact policies that actively drive them back to crime. Not too smart, especially when many of the crimes are minor. How do you expect a sex worker to get out of the trade if you cut her off from the alternatives that are open to everyone else? Or anyone else who has a criminal record, for that matter?
We had a police captain here who was caught stealing cocaine from the evidence locker. Arrested, convicted, did his time, and while inside learned how to be an accountant. Got a job while living in a half-way house. Now he's a tax-payer again. Win-win for everyone.
Or you can keep building jails. Just remember, you're the one footing the bill for it.
Eventually, some of these "low-rate bottom-of-the-barrel" coders will get better, same as you were once not so hot at what you do today. This will drive wages down, same as always when the supply/demand curve has more supply than demand. Same as all these initiatives to teach everyone to code whether they want to or not.
Perhaps it's time to think ahead and figure out what, if anything, your next career will be.
If they can hire 10 really motivated coders (and after a few years in "the big house", they'll be motivated), for next to nothing after taking into account subsidies, for less than 1 of you, many will take the chance, because the bottom line is the bottom line.
Not if the government is the one suing, because it's in the interest of society as a whole to make it possible for former criminals to actually be rehabilitated and contribute to the system.
Considering that 40% of the adult American working-age population have criminal records, many of them for completely stupid and banal offenses, do you really want to make it so impossible for someone to be honest that they have to return to crime just to eat?
Since such discrimination is illegal, and the government (and society) has an interest in getting these people jobs, expect any suspected discrimination to be challenged in the courts.
Because too many n00bs think that "on-line" == "on the 'REAL' internet".
Remember - by law, you can't discriminate against them. So, rather than have the potential liability, they'll just offshore the jobs.
For those who still want to believe that there's a long-term future in coding ... how DO you plan to compete with people who have no debt from education and will qualify for massive job subsidies?