Maybe I missed something, but there were several complaints in the case, only one of which even mentioned the uniform. I would completely agree that if you are wearing their uniform, you have to respect that you are representing the company, and any ill behaviour would reflect poorly on the company. But the fraternization rule was a separate complaint, and did not mention anything about "while in uniform". This was a different section of the complaint and the uniform rule was not included in this work rule, it simply stated no the no fraternization policy, below are the two separate sections of the company policy taken directly from the ruling you linked.
GENERAL ORDERS, Paragraph 18: Solicitation and distribution of literature not pertaining to officially assigned duties is prohibited at all times while on duty or in uniform, and any known or suspected violation of this order is to be reported to your immediate supervisor immediately
. . . . .
REGULATIONS, Paragraph 4: While on duty you must NOT . . . fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees.
but this is a little excessive. I can understand that employers don't want to hire people they know are doing illegal things outside of work (see drug testing), but outside of that, if they aren't paying me for that time, I'll do what I want. I am actually having a little trouble figuring out how this is legal. Company policies that prevent two relatives from working in the same place, etc I can understand, and if two people in the workplace get married, then one has to go. But to tell them they can't date/get married/drink/etc is out of control. If the government can't regulate what I do with my time, what makes an employer think they can?
Also, companies that push this will feel the pinch, because any employee worth his salt will find somewhere else to work. That will only leave the bad employer with bad employees, and that is a recipe for disaster. The only other option I see for them is to raise their wages so high that people are willing to put up with it, but then they raise their operating cost and allow their competitors to undercut them.
Wish I had some mod points for you because I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. People don't pay attention to what the government does, what they take from us through taxation, and what they do with the cash. As long as people are fat and happy, they won't pay attention. From that vain, it appears to me that the citizenry of the US has allowed the government to usurp power(s) that were not alloted to the government in the constitution through apathy.
Many people are ruled by their fears, but that is nothing new. People have been playing on each other's fears as far back as recorded history goes.
Of course "soccer moms" are defensive about their kids, it's part of their responsibility as a parent. The problem is when this is taken to the extreme, and kids are actually denied the experiences required to grow up. Many people do buy into the fear mongering that goes on in the media, but most people (that I know anyway) do not buy into the fear constantly mentality.
The best description I ever heard for the job of a parent was to raise them so that they can SUCCESSSFULLY leave. I have kids and I worry about them, but I do not buy into the fear mentality. I do, however, use common sense with my kids. I watch them, keep an eye on what they are absorbing through the TV, video games, movies, etc. and generally keep them away from life's major potholes. I won't let my children play any video game that I haven't looked into myself. The government, in my opinion, has done it's job with the rating system (assuming they are the ones requiring the ratings), the rest is on the PARENT. Kids will have influences in their lives whether their parents like it or not, our job as parents is to teach them right from wrong so that they can resist bad influences on their own, and to intervene when they aren't doing what they know is right.
I agree. The other thing I would add is that I wonder how many people are like me and simply stopped buying music all together (not downloading either) because most of what the industry puts out is crap. There may well be a lot of music that I would be interested in if I could hear at least a decent amount of the CD before purchasing.
I wonder how much money the LOSE from not letting potential customers try before they buy. Anyone know if this has been researched?
Beyond the government being able to track where I have been and (85% of the time anyway) predict where I am going, what about employers potentially requiring this type of information for an interview. Would they be able to see how much you are off work, taking long lunches, how often you shut it off because you already answered enough stupid questions for the day, etc.
Overall, it sounds to me like technology waiting to be abused.
I, for one, don't like the idea of giving my money to anyone. But I don't mind letting them use my computer to assist with the analysis. Why can't they use the [insert pet project name here] model and just distribut the data to people willing to donate their time/technology to help analyze the data. It's already been done how many ever times, and they wouldn't have to go begging for the cash.
First off, whether you like it or not, the UN is corrupt. But that is completely irrelevant. The US created and developed the internet, why should we turn it over to an international organization, especially one that, by all appearances, seems determined to be against the US no matter the issue. It's nice enough of the US to allow other countries to connect to the internet, we aren't really even obligated to go that far.
Not sure about Australian law, but in the US, this is far from a slam dunk case (at least by precedent). For example, Bill O'reilly did an expose on NAMBLA, which was giving explicit instructions on how an adult can rape children and get away with it, and they were found, by a court, to be within their first amendment rights. Incidentally, the ACLU represented NAMBLA in that case pro bono. http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?pid=18883 - see paragraph 6
No, but copying protected material is, at least in the US. I know some countries' laws are different and allow this, but not here. Not that I really care about the music industry, at least 99% of what they put out is crap anyway, and the other 1% is overpriced and not worth buying (or downloading for that matter).
Definition of 'Flaimbait' from/. moderator guidelines:
"Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense."
How exactly is my previous comment flambait, you want flambait, I'll give it, asshole.
It is just because there ARE ties to terrorism. The war is on TERROR, not on Al Quida. Does it really matter what the terrorists are naming themselves? They are still terrorists, hence the war on terror. That aside, there are ties to Al Quida. The evidence is clear for any rational person. Al Quida did not suddenly appear in Iraq, they have been there. If they hadn't, why would they bomb Spain and tell them that this was a direct result of Spain's presence in Iraq. Also, why would Al Quida (if it turns out to be them) bomb the UK. The logic only follows that they are attempting to protect their interests in Iraq. They have had an infrastructure built there with Saddam's cooperation for a long time, or do most contries have burned out shells of 747's laying around desolate areas being used for training hijakers?
Second. No WMD's found, that depends on the definition. We found missles with a range slightly longer than agreed to by the surrender terms from the previous war (96 miles, if memory serves). This is arguable whether they are considered WMD's or not, and I will, for purposes of this discussion, concede the point that no WMD's were found. We did, however, find manufacturing sites for biological weapons. The weapons themselves, however, had already been cleaned out of the sight, where they are is still unkown, but I would think that finding and destroying the factory that produces them is an even higher priority than finding the weapons themselves (my opinion).
Third point. Free societies, almost without exception, only resort to violence in response to a violent act. I cannot tell you when the last war was started by a free society (and don't tell me the war on terror, it was started by Osama. The war in Iraq may, in your opinion, be the wrong target, but it is a response to an attack on us.) If free people = peaceful, then we should seek to make the people free in Iraq.
Glass manufacturing really isn't that expensive, but at the consumer level, the price is inflated more than most other industries (from experience, I work in the glass manufacturing industry).
Actually, property taxes are levied in order to pay for public education in the schools near the property being taxed, it has nothing to do with the protection that the government offers you.
Also, copyrighted material is taxed when it makes someone an income (so long as that person/entity is properly paying their federal income taxes). Taxes, in general, are a necessary evil that remove power from people, and give it to the government (if money=power anyway). Taxes have so many ill effects on our society it would take days to list (stifling business and encouraging the breakdown of the family to name a couple), but siffice it to say this is not a good idea, and would probably (almost definately) reduce your choice of copyrighted material.
That's the southern pole, the northern pole has much higher concentration of water ice. The latest theory on the reason is that the closest thing mars has to a jet stream runs from the south to the north, which evaporates the water ice and re-deposits it on the northern pole.
I agree the name is ironic, but for a different reason. They are sending a probe named after a bird that rises from ashes (presumably because of fire) to find ICE?
On a more serious note, I hope they remembered to convert from English to Metric this time...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I missed something, but there were several complaints in the case, only one of which even mentioned the uniform. I would completely agree that if you are wearing their uniform, you have to respect that you are representing the company, and any ill behaviour would reflect poorly on the company. But the fraternization rule was a separate complaint, and did not mention anything about "while in uniform". This was a different section of the complaint and the uniform rule was not included in this work rule, it simply stated no the no fraternization policy, below are the two separate sections of the company policy taken directly from the ruling you linked.
GENERAL ORDERS, Paragraph 18: Solicitation and distribution of literature not pertaining to officially assigned duties is prohibited at all times while on duty or in uniform, and any known or suspected violation of this order is to be reported to your immediate supervisor immediately
. . . . .
REGULATIONS, Paragraph 4: While on duty you must NOT . . . fraternize on duty or off duty, date or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees.
but this is a little excessive. I can understand that employers don't want to hire people they know are doing illegal things outside of work (see drug testing), but outside of that, if they aren't paying me for that time, I'll do what I want. I am actually having a little trouble figuring out how this is legal. Company policies that prevent two relatives from working in the same place, etc I can understand, and if two people in the workplace get married, then one has to go. But to tell them they can't date/get married/drink/etc is out of control. If the government can't regulate what I do with my time, what makes an employer think they can?
Also, companies that push this will feel the pinch, because any employee worth his salt will find somewhere else to work. That will only leave the bad employer with bad employees, and that is a recipe for disaster. The only other option I see for them is to raise their wages so high that people are willing to put up with it, but then they raise their operating cost and allow their competitors to undercut them.
Sounds like good materials for shielding has had some research and progress (http://www.materialisations.com/materialisations/ Shielding/) but still has a long way to go.
Wish I had some mod points for you because I think you hit the nail on the head with this one. People don't pay attention to what the government does, what they take from us through taxation, and what they do with the cash. As long as people are fat and happy, they won't pay attention. From that vain, it appears to me that the citizenry of the US has allowed the government to usurp power(s) that were not alloted to the government in the constitution through apathy.
Good point, however in this case I believe the game was already rated "M", is this not the correct rating?
Many people are ruled by their fears, but that is nothing new. People have been playing on each other's fears as far back as recorded history goes.
Of course "soccer moms" are defensive about their kids, it's part of their responsibility as a parent. The problem is when this is taken to the extreme, and kids are actually denied the experiences required to grow up. Many people do buy into the fear mongering that goes on in the media, but most people (that I know anyway) do not buy into the fear constantly mentality.
The best description I ever heard for the job of a parent was to raise them so that they can SUCCESSSFULLY leave. I have kids and I worry about them, but I do not buy into the fear mentality. I do, however, use common sense with my kids. I watch them, keep an eye on what they are absorbing through the TV, video games, movies, etc. and generally keep them away from life's major potholes. I won't let my children play any video game that I haven't looked into myself. The government, in my opinion, has done it's job with the rating system (assuming they are the ones requiring the ratings), the rest is on the PARENT. Kids will have influences in their lives whether their parents like it or not, our job as parents is to teach them right from wrong so that they can resist bad influences on their own, and to intervene when they aren't doing what they know is right.
I agree. The other thing I would add is that I wonder how many people are like me and simply stopped buying music all together (not downloading either) because most of what the industry puts out is crap. There may well be a lot of music that I would be interested in if I could hear at least a decent amount of the CD before purchasing.
I wonder how much money the LOSE from not letting potential customers try before they buy. Anyone know if this has been researched?
Beyond the government being able to track where I have been and (85% of the time anyway) predict where I am going, what about employers potentially requiring this type of information for an interview. Would they be able to see how much you are off work, taking long lunches, how often you shut it off because you already answered enough stupid questions for the day, etc.
Overall, it sounds to me like technology waiting to be abused.
I, for one, don't like the idea of giving my money to anyone. But I don't mind letting them use my computer to assist with the analysis. Why can't they use the [insert pet project name here] model and just distribut the data to people willing to donate their time/technology to help analyze the data. It's already been done how many ever times, and they wouldn't have to go begging for the cash.
Quit spelling COLOR wrong, it's driving me nuts...And if some Canadian farmers whipped us so bad, how come Canada is still our bitch..
I just read a history on the internet, and saw no mention of CERN. It was, according to this http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.sht ml a product that came out of a US military project.
First off, whether you like it or not, the UN is corrupt. But that is completely irrelevant. The US created and developed the internet, why should we turn it over to an international organization, especially one that, by all appearances, seems determined to be against the US no matter the issue. It's nice enough of the US to allow other countries to connect to the internet, we aren't really even obligated to go that far.
Not sure about Australian law, but in the US, this is far from a slam dunk case (at least by precedent). For example, Bill O'reilly did an expose on NAMBLA, which was giving explicit instructions on how an adult can rape children and get away with it, and they were found, by a court, to be within their first amendment rights. Incidentally, the ACLU represented NAMBLA in that case pro bono.
http://www.billoreilly.com/site/product?pid=18883 - see paragraph 6
No, but copying protected material is, at least in the US. I know some countries' laws are different and allow this, but not here. Not that I really care about the music industry, at least 99% of what they put out is crap anyway, and the other 1% is overpriced and not worth buying (or downloading for that matter).
Definition of 'Flaimbait' from /. moderator guidelines:
"Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense."
How exactly is my previous comment flambait, you want flambait, I'll give it, asshole.
The spelling was deliberate, as it was misspelled in the post I replied to. Figure if I continued with it, someone would eventually get the point.
It is just because there ARE ties to terrorism. The war is on TERROR, not on Al Quida. Does it really matter what the terrorists are naming themselves? They are still terrorists, hence the war on terror. That aside, there are ties to Al Quida. The evidence is clear for any rational person. Al Quida did not suddenly appear in Iraq, they have been there. If they hadn't, why would they bomb Spain and tell them that this was a direct result of Spain's presence in Iraq. Also, why would Al Quida (if it turns out to be them) bomb the UK. The logic only follows that they are attempting to protect their interests in Iraq. They have had an infrastructure built there with Saddam's cooperation for a long time, or do most contries have burned out shells of 747's laying around desolate areas being used for training hijakers?
Second. No WMD's found, that depends on the definition. We found missles with a range slightly longer than agreed to by the surrender terms from the previous war (96 miles, if memory serves). This is arguable whether they are considered WMD's or not, and I will, for purposes of this discussion, concede the point that no WMD's were found. We did, however, find manufacturing sites for biological weapons. The weapons themselves, however, had already been cleaned out of the sight, where they are is still unkown, but I would think that finding and destroying the factory that produces them is an even higher priority than finding the weapons themselves (my opinion).
Third point. Free societies, almost without exception, only resort to violence in response to a violent act. I cannot tell you when the last war was started by a free society (and don't tell me the war on terror, it was started by Osama. The war in Iraq may, in your opinion, be the wrong target, but it is a response to an attack on us.) If free people = peaceful, then we should seek to make the people free in Iraq.
Glass manufacturing really isn't that expensive, but at the consumer level, the price is inflated more than most other industries (from experience, I work in the glass manufacturing industry).
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
And the alternative is a jackass...need I say more?
I had the same experience, as long as I didn't blink, I could not see the two dots that I wasn't focused on.
BTW, your sig is great.
Actually, property taxes are levied in order to pay for public education in the schools near the property being taxed, it has nothing to do with the protection that the government offers you.
Also, copyrighted material is taxed when it makes someone an income (so long as that person/entity is properly paying their federal income taxes). Taxes, in general, are a necessary evil that remove power from people, and give it to the government (if money=power anyway). Taxes have so many ill effects on our society it would take days to list (stifling business and encouraging the breakdown of the family to name a couple), but siffice it to say this is not a good idea, and would probably (almost definately) reduce your choice of copyrighted material.
That's the southern pole, the northern pole has much higher concentration of water ice. The latest theory on the reason is that the closest thing mars has to a jet stream runs from the south to the north, which evaporates the water ice and re-deposits it on the northern pole.
/ mars_poles_020320.html
Here's the story:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
I agree the name is ironic, but for a different reason. They are sending a probe named after a bird that rises from ashes (presumably because of fire) to find ICE?
On a more serious note, I hope they remembered to convert from English to Metric this time...
uh oh, my days are numbered
Make one that will open a jar, my wife will keep me around....