When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete.
Then I doubt it was working in a warehouse, was it?
No, but my point was that my comments were based on a real professional's opionion, not the usual/. legal advice. While I realize many people could not afford a lawyer there are avenues for free legal aid available as well.
In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.
Unfortunately, while that would have possibly prevented this event it opens the door to other problems because now you always have an access path to the cockpit. The problem was not the door, but the ability of a pilot to cover up medical issues and keep flying along with a single failure point (1 pilot) in the cockpit.
Perhaps they could video the cockpit (and the fuselage for that matter) and destroy the footage once the plane has safely landed. There could be streaming capability to the ground and if the feed is accessed, the pilots and crew receive a notification. Any unauthorized breach would be detected immediately. In the case of Germanwings, ground control would have been able to see what's going on once they detected the loss of altitude. It stifles me that in 2015, a young troubled copilot can end 150 lives in a way that can easily be prevented with simple technology.
While I agree a video would be useful in some cases I do agree with pilots there needs to be a balance between having information in a crash and creating a permeant record of what happens in the cockpit. Something similar to the flight data recorder where data is overwritten on a periodic basis might be a good compromise. Even so, a video record probably won't add that much information since things such as switch positions, throttle settings, instrument readings etc are already being recorded. Unless something unusual happened, such as with Germanwings, you'll basically just have a video record of who did what your audio and telemetry already says. One question is the cost worth it? Adding a few pounds of weight costs a lot of money over the life of a plane and that also needs to be factored into the equation as well.
As for preventing the Germanwings crash, how would technology such as a streaming videocamera prevent that? The pilot clearly trusted the copilot enough to leave the cockpit so all you have that that point is a video of what is going on but no way to prevent it. The type of technology that might have prevented it, an electronic medical record with automatic notification of employers when a doctor prescribes something that may indicate a lack of fitness for duty or deems a patient unfit for duty might have worked; but that would add its own set of problems nit the least of which is people would stop seeking treatment for conditions that they think could cost them their job.
So a program designed to write fake papers to unmask sham journals and conferences gets used to write fake papers to prop up sham degrees? Some what ironic; although in fairness to the authors of the paper writing program they never intended it to be used in such a manner. It would seem, as Springer acknowledged, that they should do a good peer review; which would eliminate the need to run paper through a hoax detector unless they started getting so many fake papers that their peer review process was overwhelmed. In that case, a first run through a program would be justified. A more subtle point in the article is that claimed publications from some countries, such as China, should be viewed with suspicion.
As a side note, the sham conference industry is interesting. I periodically get, via LinkedIn, invite stop attend an "important conference" and speak and get a "prestigious award" based on my "outstanding accomplishments and renowned expertise" in my field. Funny how, when I send them my speaking fee requirements they never get back to me nor mail me the award as I request if I am unable to make the conference.
Signed contracts are deemed unenforceable all the time. It's called an illegal agreement and there is hundreds of years of common law precedent around it. You're an idiot.
Exactly. When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete. His response: "Ignore it. It's unenforceable and the chances of them trying to stop you in court are nil." He said that the law is constantly changing and what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow, and unless you are senior enough or worked on a very sensitive area it's not worth the trouble to sue you; and if you were in those situations you should have a very specific non-compete, with compensation for the time you can't compete to ensure it is enforceable. The general rule is if they try to prevent you from working in an area where you have experience it will be unenforceable unless they pay you to not compete and even then it has to be for a reasonable period. Of course, IANAL and YMMV depending on jurisdiction. HAND
College might not guarantee a job, but how much harder is it for those applying for jobs where a college degree is a prerequisite?
Congratulations!
You have just made the "A college degree is not a guarantee of competence, it is a union card substitute". argument. If you don't value your degree more than that, it says a lot about how much effort you put into actually learning from your courses, and it begs the question of why I should value your degree more than that, as well.
Actually, it's more of a signaling argument where a college degree indicates a willingness to put in effort and learn and thus will probably apply those characteristics in the job. It's not a perfect signal as there are plenty of educated derelicts and smart, talent people without a degree but as a first cut it is easy and thus used.
Humans are unable to make moral decisions in a few miliseconds. They would either freeze for a least one second and hit the next car or pedestrian depending on which comes first. If they have more time, they would try to avoid collision with the human and hit the car, because you cannot really see other people in there and you do not know how many persons are in there. Also people in the car are better protected. So the safest thing is hit the car. But beside that people know when approaching an truck trailer and they cannot stop, they should aim for the wheels and not the section in the middle. However, most people are unable to implement that so why should be cars be able to do these things?
You have hit on one of the key reasons why trying to implement human reasoning in an emergency; especially since it's usually a subconscious reaction to avoid hitting the bigger, scarier thing. yo can train people to make calm decisions in an emergency situation but that takes a lot of simulator time and practice; something most drivers sorely lack before getting a license. If you wanted to follow the human reasoning it would simply be "CRAAAP.... AVOID HITTING THE BIG THING...DAMN... A PEDESTRIAN... OH WELL IT ISN'T THE BIG THING...."
It's funny that schools got along without computers for thousands of years, now all of a sudden they're required. Well how about going the non electronic route until the problem is solved...... not that hard to figure out.
They can and will. The issue is not the current ability to keep track of things but having to update the electronic records once the system is back. The electronic record is used to compile transcript, verify required attendance, select valedictorians, etc. Depending on how long it takes to restore from a backup it will take a while to catchup. Now, if the system lost the master records then they have a much bigger problem but even then a proper backup scheme would minimize the impact of such a loss.
Excellant point. The question to me is how long do you retain the data? At some point where does the potential value of having the record cease to exceed the potential damage from privacy concerns?
While I appreciate your point of view I also think that having drivers maintain some sembelance of situational awareness is worthwhile. I can fairly accurately guage my speed and inly occasionally need to look at the speedometer to validate my assessment. However, as drivers turn over more functions to automation they become less aware of what is happening around them as the come to rely on the automation to take care of things. As a result when things go wrong they may not realize it in time to take effective corrective action. In essence, automation can lull them into a sense that all is well when in reality it is not. Automation should assist, not replace, human actions.
Some really nice photos. Hard to believe their still was an A4 on a stand in 1996; it looks like it was kept up as a display. This also brings up my frustration with Kickstarter. There a lot of cool projects I'd back if only I could find out about them in time; usually I find out about them when I read a 'Kickstarter funded" tag line in an article and the funding period is over.
Your argument is the moral equivalent of saying Stalin is a good guy because he wasn't as bad as Hitler. If that's your position, then fine, we simply disagree.
As a side note, I never criticized Putin for what he did but rather said he is acting in his own interests and that once Snowden ceases to be useful Snowden may find himself out in the cold.
Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos
WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?
Sergei Magnitsky Pussy Riot Alexander Litvinenko Stanislav Markelov Anastasia Baburova
The list goes on and on...
Free press? Human rights? Rule of law? Only as long as it doesn't threaten his position.
Ask yourself this, if the rule of law was so strong why do oligarchs move as much cash as possible out of Russia? What do they fear?
I'm not sure why you are a Putin apologist but his actions speak volumes about him. Then again, as a KGB officer he learned a thing or two about survival.
So, my conclusion is he only will care about Snowden as long as Snowden is useful, and afterwards Snowden will simply be a pawn to sacrifice for some new advantage or benefit.
It does not matter what I do believe and that is precisely the point I was making. We can only judge by actions taken. The fact that you continue argue your assumptions means you've failed to grasp the point.
Putin's actions to date in many areas have shown him to look after Putin first; thus it is reasonable to assume he is acting, in Snowden's case, in the same manner. So yes, I agree you judge on actions and am doing so in this case. You appear to judge based on a single action, i.e. He gave Snowden temporary permission to remain in Russia, while I prefer to judge what he does in the larger context of how he has acted in many situations. Thus I think it is naive to think, or believe, he is acting out of some desire to help, or cares for, Snowden beyond how he useful to advance Putin's agenda. So let me ask the question differently since you seem to be hung up on the word believe: What in Putin's actions makes you conclude Putin is not acting in his best interests but out of some great concern for Snowden?
I wish, Sir, you stopped living in a fantasy world of conclusions reached based on assumptions and joined us in evidence based reality.
Do you really believe that Putin let Snowden in for any other reason other than he could be useful to Putin and that when he is no longer useful to Putin he'll be unceremoniously tossed aside and used to get something else Putin wants?
By trying to prevent its allies from giving Snowden asylum, the USA has forced him to take asylum with a relatively unfriendly nation, Russia.
Not really. Russia's leadership doesn't really have to worry about public perception of how Snowden is treated and Putin can be relied upon to do what is best for Putin, not Snowden, Russia or anyone else unless doing so advances Putin. Once Snowden is no longer useful he can swap him for something he wants without worrying about the reaction in Russia. In addition, Snowden is much more likely to get tired of Russia than Germany and thus may eventually decide to return to the US without preconditions. Thus, the US is more likely to get Snowden back from Russia than Germany and so Russia may be a more desirable option for the US.
Having been a field engineer, where I had to fix and make work the stuff the idiots who called them selves engineers doing the design, having a backdoor to access systems was very useful. Customer didn't remember the password? No problem, I still had a way into the control system. I did, however, wonder what other equipment had the same "feature?" My stuff had no public facing interface no network connection so illicit access was not an issue except maybe if a disgruntled employee decided to have some fun; but the general design approach was "we need backdoors for support reasons" and that mentality carried over as equipment became more connected and no one ever seems 2015-03-20o question it or assess the risks vs reward for such a design philosophy. Of course, no one would ever access the proprietary "Company Confidential" engineering support documentation, right? It's kept safe right here on our internal document so no one weill ever know our backdoor user is "admin" with a password of "Pass1234" and thus we can make them easy for our field support staff, who we at HQ all know are dumb knuckle dragging mouth breathers anyway, to remember.
There you go, bringing facts into a/. discussion. How are we to have righteous indignation over the Man's actions when you go and do that? Think of the/. posters, damn it.
The police have to treat such a threat seriously. Given the situation and his age he falls into a risk profile that says he might be serious about this, and according to TFA he didn't tell police he was just "testing" FB and failed to convince them he wasn't serious about committing suicide.Just because he posted on FB people seem to think it was different. Well, his friends reacted to it just like he had written a note and left it at a party and took action to try to get him help. I'd do the same if it were a friend of mine.
Finally, he says he was exercising his First Amendment Rights. Separate from him having no FA rights on FB; the government didn't violate his FA rights since ehe was still free to post his treat without the government trying to stop him, they simply took action after he made the threat. The FA doesn't say "and shall not be held liable for anything stupid they do while exercising this right..."
Second this, the only place to return CFLs for us is the Home Depot. The municipal transfer station doesn't accept hazardous waste, which they consider CFLs. They do a free county-wide recycling day ONCE A YEAR that you have to drive to in another town, but even still they don't accept CFLs.
And HD only accepts small CFL bulbs, not the long ones (2-3ft plus) that they also sell; at least that was the case recently when I had to replace some shop light bulbs and bought the replacements at HD and then tried to return for recycle the old ones.
I have a stack of long florescent bulbs in an unused corner of my garage, old bulbs from the fixture over my worktable, collecting there since I moved to this house in the early '90s. I never did figure out where to take them or how to safely dispose of them. I guess it'll be my descendants' problem.
That would be good. Even better would be to reduce the amount of plastic we use in the first place. When I receive shipments from Amazon, the packaging usually weighs more than the products. This is necessary because of the workers at UPS/USPS/FedEx that drop, throw, and step on the packages. When we replace these idiots with robots, a lot less packaging will be needed.
In fairness to FedEx their sorting operation in Memphis already use robots that weigh and measure each package to minimize the forces used during sorting. the drivers, well that's another story. Given Amazon's size and volume manufacturers could package stuff more reasonably. Do I really need a tamper proof sealed plastic case for an item I buy through Amazon? Amazon already packages some of their Amazon labeled stuff more sanely in cardboard and I wish they'd push manufacturers to do something similar for what they sell via Amazon.
Second this, the only place to return CFLs for us is the Home Depot. The municipal transfer station doesn't accept hazardous waste, which they consider CFLs. They do a free county-wide recycling day ONCE A YEAR that you have to drive to in another town, but even still they don't accept CFLs.
And HD only accepts small CFL bulbs, not the long ones (2-3ft plus) that they also sell; at least that was the case recently when I had to replace some shop light bulbs and bought the replacements at HD and then tried to return for recycle the old ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Then I doubt it was working in a warehouse, was it?
No, but my point was that my comments were based on a real professional's opionion, not the usual /. legal advice. While I realize many people could not afford a lawyer there are avenues for free legal aid available as well.
In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.
Unfortunately, while that would have possibly prevented this event it opens the door to other problems because now you always have an access path to the cockpit. The problem was not the door, but the ability of a pilot to cover up medical issues and keep flying along with a single failure point (1 pilot) in the cockpit.
Perhaps they could video the cockpit (and the fuselage for that matter) and destroy the footage once the plane has safely landed. There could be streaming capability to the ground and if the feed is accessed, the pilots and crew receive a notification. Any unauthorized breach would be detected immediately. In the case of Germanwings, ground control would have been able to see what's going on once they detected the loss of altitude. It stifles me that in 2015, a young troubled copilot can end 150 lives in a way that can easily be prevented with simple technology.
While I agree a video would be useful in some cases I do agree with pilots there needs to be a balance between having information in a crash and creating a permeant record of what happens in the cockpit. Something similar to the flight data recorder where data is overwritten on a periodic basis might be a good compromise. Even so, a video record probably won't add that much information since things such as switch positions, throttle settings, instrument readings etc are already being recorded. Unless something unusual happened, such as with Germanwings, you'll basically just have a video record of who did what your audio and telemetry already says. One question is the cost worth it? Adding a few pounds of weight costs a lot of money over the life of a plane and that also needs to be factored into the equation as well.
As for preventing the Germanwings crash, how would technology such as a streaming videocamera prevent that? The pilot clearly trusted the copilot enough to leave the cockpit so all you have that that point is a video of what is going on but no way to prevent it. The type of technology that might have prevented it, an electronic medical record with automatic notification of employers when a doctor prescribes something that may indicate a lack of fitness for duty or deems a patient unfit for duty might have worked; but that would add its own set of problems nit the least of which is people would stop seeking treatment for conditions that they think could cost them their job.
So a program designed to write fake papers to unmask sham journals and conferences gets used to write fake papers to prop up sham degrees? Some what ironic; although in fairness to the authors of the paper writing program they never intended it to be used in such a manner. It would seem, as Springer acknowledged, that they should do a good peer review; which would eliminate the need to run paper through a hoax detector unless they started getting so many fake papers that their peer review process was overwhelmed. In that case, a first run through a program would be justified. A more subtle point in the article is that claimed publications from some countries, such as China, should be viewed with suspicion.
As a side note, the sham conference industry is interesting. I periodically get, via LinkedIn, invite stop attend an "important conference" and speak and get a "prestigious award" based on my "outstanding accomplishments and renowned expertise" in my field. Funny how, when I send them my speaking fee requirements they never get back to me nor mail me the award as I request if I am unable to make the conference.
Signed contracts are deemed unenforceable all the time. It's called an illegal agreement and there is hundreds of years of common law precedent around it. You're an idiot.
Exactly. When I left a job I had my lawyer review the non-compete. His response: "Ignore it. It's unenforceable and the chances of them trying to stop you in court are nil." He said that the law is constantly changing and what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow, and unless you are senior enough or worked on a very sensitive area it's not worth the trouble to sue you; and if you were in those situations you should have a very specific non-compete, with compensation for the time you can't compete to ensure it is enforceable. The general rule is if they try to prevent you from working in an area where you have experience it will be unenforceable unless they pay you to not compete and even then it has to be for a reasonable period. Of course, IANAL and YMMV depending on jurisdiction. HAND
College might not guarantee a job, but how much harder is it for those applying for jobs where a college degree is a prerequisite?
Congratulations!
You have just made the "A college degree is not a guarantee of competence, it is a union card substitute". argument. If you don't value your degree more than that, it says a lot about how much effort you put into actually learning from your courses, and it begs the question of why I should value your degree more than that, as well.
Actually, it's more of a signaling argument where a college degree indicates a willingness to put in effort and learn and thus will probably apply those characteristics in the job. It's not a perfect signal as there are plenty of educated derelicts and smart, talent people without a degree but as a first cut it is easy and thus used.
Humans are unable to make moral decisions in a few miliseconds. They would either freeze for a least one second and hit the next car or pedestrian depending on which comes first. If they have more time, they would try to avoid collision with the human and hit the car, because you cannot really see other people in there and you do not know how many persons are in there. Also people in the car are better protected. So the safest thing is hit the car. But beside that people know when approaching an truck trailer and they cannot stop, they should aim for the wheels and not the section in the middle. However, most people are unable to implement that so why should be cars be able to do these things?
You have hit on one of the key reasons why trying to implement human reasoning in an emergency; especially since it's usually a subconscious reaction to avoid hitting the bigger, scarier thing. yo can train people to make calm decisions in an emergency situation but that takes a lot of simulator time and practice; something most drivers sorely lack before getting a license. If you wanted to follow the human reasoning it would simply be "CRAAAP.... AVOID HITTING THE BIG THING...DAMN... A PEDESTRIAN ... OH WELL IT ISN'T THE BIG THING...."
It's funny that schools got along without computers for thousands of years, now all of a sudden they're required. Well how about going the non electronic route until the problem is solved...... not that hard to figure out.
They can and will. The issue is not the current ability to keep track of things but having to update the electronic records once the system is back. The electronic record is used to compile transcript, verify required attendance, select valedictorians, etc. Depending on how long it takes to restore from a backup it will take a while to catchup. Now, if the system lost the master records then they have a much bigger problem but even then a proper backup scheme would minimize the impact of such a loss.
Excellant point. The question to me is how long do you retain the data? At some point where does the potential value of having the record cease to exceed the potential damage from privacy concerns?
While I appreciate your point of view I also think that having drivers maintain some sembelance of situational awareness is worthwhile. I can fairly accurately guage my speed and inly occasionally need to look at the speedometer to validate my assessment. However, as drivers turn over more functions to automation they become less aware of what is happening around them as the come to rely on the automation to take care of things. As a result when things go wrong they may not realize it in time to take effective corrective action. In essence, automation can lull them into a sense that all is well when in reality it is not. Automation should assist, not replace, human actions.
They'd like a few thousand installed in all their employees' homes. Fon't worry about after install support we'll take care of that.
Some really nice photos. Hard to believe their still was an A4 on a stand in 1996; it looks like it was kept up as a display. This also brings up my frustration with Kickstarter. There a lot of cool projects I'd back if only I could find out about them in time; usually I find out about them when I read a 'Kickstarter funded" tag line in an article and the funding period is over.
I could have predicted it from mile away, anytime the arguments start to be hard for the spooks, they Godwin the discussion. :)
Yea, I realized after I hit submit I should have used Mirror Spock and Khan or the Borg and Doomsday machine...
Your argument is the moral equivalent of saying Stalin is a good guy because he wasn't as bad as Hitler. If that's your position, then fine, we simply disagree.
As a side note, I never criticized Putin for what he did but rather said he is acting in his own interests and that once Snowden ceases to be useful Snowden may find himself out in the cold.
Brenda Willson, says her son is innocent and does not smoke, drink or have tattoos
WTF? What do smoking, drinking, and tattoos have to do with calling the freakin' SWAT in on some poor gamer? Is this some correlation I had previous not heard about?
SWAT: Smokes Whiskey and Tattoos
Sergei Magnitsky Pussy Riot Alexander Litvinenko Stanislav Markelov Anastasia Baburova
The list goes on and on...
Free press? Human rights? Rule of law? Only as long as it doesn't threaten his position.
Ask yourself this, if the rule of law was so strong why do oligarchs move as much cash as possible out of Russia? What do they fear?
I'm not sure why you are a Putin apologist but his actions speak volumes about him. Then again, as a KGB officer he learned a thing or two about survival.
So, my conclusion is he only will care about Snowden as long as Snowden is useful, and afterwards Snowden will simply be a pawn to sacrifice for some new advantage or benefit.
It does not matter what I do believe and that is precisely the point I was making. We can only judge by actions taken. The fact that you continue argue your assumptions means you've failed to grasp the point.
Putin's actions to date in many areas have shown him to look after Putin first; thus it is reasonable to assume he is acting, in Snowden's case, in the same manner. So yes, I agree you judge on actions and am doing so in this case. You appear to judge based on a single action, i.e. He gave Snowden temporary permission to remain in Russia, while I prefer to judge what he does in the larger context of how he has acted in many situations. Thus I think it is naive to think, or believe, he is acting out of some desire to help, or cares for, Snowden beyond how he useful to advance Putin's agenda. So let me ask the question differently since you seem to be hung up on the word believe: What in Putin's actions makes you conclude Putin is not acting in his best interests but out of some great concern for Snowden?
Ah, we are in agreement here, and my sarcasm detector needs calibration.
No worries, I forgot to properly use the sarcasm tag anyway, Cheers...
I wish, Sir, you stopped living in a fantasy world of conclusions reached based on assumptions and joined us in evidence based reality.
Do you really believe that Putin let Snowden in for any other reason other than he could be useful to Putin and that when he is no longer useful to Putin he'll be unceremoniously tossed aside and used to get something else Putin wants?
By trying to prevent its allies from giving Snowden asylum, the USA has forced him to take asylum with a relatively unfriendly nation, Russia.
Not really. Russia's leadership doesn't really have to worry about public perception of how Snowden is treated and Putin can be relied upon to do what is best for Putin, not Snowden, Russia or anyone else unless doing so advances Putin. Once Snowden is no longer useful he can swap him for something he wants without worrying about the reaction in Russia. In addition, Snowden is much more likely to get tired of Russia than Germany and thus may eventually decide to return to the US without preconditions. Thus, the US is more likely to get Snowden back from Russia than Germany and so Russia may be a more desirable option for the US.
Having been a field engineer, where I had to fix and make work the stuff the idiots who called them selves engineers doing the design, having a backdoor to access systems was very useful. Customer didn't remember the password? No problem, I still had a way into the control system. I did, however, wonder what other equipment had the same "feature?" My stuff had no public facing interface no network connection so illicit access was not an issue except maybe if a disgruntled employee decided to have some fun; but the general design approach was "we need backdoors for support reasons" and that mentality carried over as equipment became more connected and no one ever seems 2015-03-20o question it or assess the risks vs reward for such a design philosophy. Of course, no one would ever access the proprietary "Company Confidential" engineering support documentation, right? It's kept safe right here on our internal document so no one weill ever know our backdoor user is "admin" with a password of "Pass1234" and thus we can make them easy for our field support staff, who we at HQ all know are dumb knuckle dragging mouth breathers anyway, to remember.
Five days ago, when SFGate reported this story, it was made quite clear that Tusch's friends were not in on the hoax and took it quite seriously ---
and that someone reported it to the police independently of Facebook.
A mans fake suicide post gets him detained
There you go, bringing facts into a /. discussion. How are we to have righteous indignation over the Man's actions when you go and do that? Think of the /. posters, damn it.
The police have to treat such a threat seriously. Given the situation and his age he falls into a risk profile that says he might be serious about this, and according to TFA he didn't tell police he was just "testing" FB and failed to convince them he wasn't serious about committing suicide.Just because he posted on FB people seem to think it was different. Well, his friends reacted to it just like he had written a note and left it at a party and took action to try to get him help. I'd do the same if it were a friend of mine.
Finally, he says he was exercising his First Amendment Rights. Separate from him having no FA rights on FB; the government didn't violate his FA rights since ehe was still free to post his treat without the government trying to stop him, they simply took action after he made the threat. The FA doesn't say "and shall not be held liable for anything stupid they do while exercising this right..."
Second this, the only place to return CFLs for us is the Home Depot. The municipal transfer station doesn't accept hazardous waste, which they consider CFLs. They do a free county-wide recycling day ONCE A YEAR that you have to drive to in another town, but even still they don't accept CFLs.
And HD only accepts small CFL bulbs, not the long ones (2-3ft plus) that they also sell; at least that was the case recently when I had to replace some shop light bulbs and bought the replacements at HD and then tried to return for recycle the old ones.
I have a stack of long florescent bulbs in an unused corner of my garage, old bulbs from the fixture over my worktable, collecting there since I moved to this house in the early '90s. I never did figure out where to take them or how to safely dispose of them. I guess it'll be my descendants' problem.
You are doing the same disposal strategy I am.
A real recycle program
That would be good. Even better would be to reduce the amount of plastic we use in the first place. When I receive shipments from Amazon, the packaging usually weighs more than the products. This is necessary because of the workers at UPS/USPS/FedEx that drop, throw, and step on the packages. When we replace these idiots with robots, a lot less packaging will be needed.
In fairness to FedEx their sorting operation in Memphis already use robots that weigh and measure each package to minimize the forces used during sorting. the drivers, well that's another story. Given Amazon's size and volume manufacturers could package stuff more reasonably. Do I really need a tamper proof sealed plastic case for an item I buy through Amazon? Amazon already packages some of their Amazon labeled stuff more sanely in cardboard and I wish they'd push manufacturers to do something similar for what they sell via Amazon.
Second this, the only place to return CFLs for us is the Home Depot. The municipal transfer station doesn't accept hazardous waste, which they consider CFLs. They do a free county-wide recycling day ONCE A YEAR that you have to drive to in another town, but even still they don't accept CFLs.
And HD only accepts small CFL bulbs, not the long ones (2-3ft plus) that they also sell; at least that was the case recently when I had to replace some shop light bulbs and bought the replacements at HD and then tried to return for recycle the old ones.