It doesn't matter how much power you transmit outside a room, the received signal AT THE TRANSMITTER is not going to be attenuated by the people in the room. In fact, the received signal will depend ONLY upon the transmitted signal level -- the receiver and the transmitter are connected to the same antennas.
which said data is kept separate and compartmentalized from the data they know about you for advertising purposes.
Why would you ever think that any data that they have about you is "compartmentalized" away from the advertising side of the operation? Are you really that naive?
As for TFA claiming that giving Facebook a number you think is private is helping other people you don't want to find you, to find you -- the person who targeted the ad had to GIVE THEM THE NUMBER for it to target the recipient. In other words, Facebook did not help anyone find this elusive professor, the person trying to "find him" already had his private phone number.
Had it been Facebook saying, "I recognize that name, would you like his private phone number?" that would be something different.
Because they are not just providing those links, they are offering them up as suggested answers.
And how is showing a link to the original article NOT answering a question about what Pizzagate was? Someone asked for that information, and Apple thinks they need to sanitize the answer to be only the the "correct" one.
If I ask for the pizzagate story, give me a link to the pizzagate story, not other people's interpretations and spins on it.
Fun fact: someone who claimed to be one of the inventors of Siri was on Penn and Teller's Fool Us, doing an absolutely lame, well known card trick. P&T fell all over themselves thanking him for his "benefit to humanity", not just us in the US, but the entire world. Thankfully they cut him no slack over the card trick.
Funny, I've seen trams stop using nothing but their brakes. I've seen them stop to keep from hitting a car in their path.
The light rail in Portland can take a half a block with the wheels locked up to stop.
There is a phrase in the law that deals with cars that don't stop in time to keep from hitting someone or something: too fast for conditions. It supersedes any engineering design factors concerning maximum speed, and can mean that someone going just 25 MPH in a 65 MPH zone will get a ticket.
Portland light rail is also not a tram. It's a train.
But once you are stopped, what is your option? You're stuck.
You are stuck until the thing you've stopped for has moved or been moved. AFTER you stop is not the issue I replied to, however. You said honking a horn and flashing lights was the only option. Stopping is a valid option, and works better than running over someone while honking the horn.
After you've stopped, you still have options other than just honking at the impediment. You get it towed, you have the police pull the person out of the way. If it is an inanimate thing, the driver gets out and moves it. So many more options than just "blaring a horn".
And isn't pulling a few thousand tons behind it.
The only data I could find in a quick search was for a Melbourne tram that listed the weight as just 25 tons. No tram pulls a "few thousand tons".
During normal stops, the trams I've been on have managed to go from cruise to stop in much less than half a block at a very low application of the brakes. Full braking would cut that to much less distance. Any tram driver that said "brakes aren't an option, I'm not even going to try" and runs someone down while honking the horn and flashing the lights is headed to jail.
No need for exaggeration. He'd definitely be charged with a crime for unauthorized access and face jail time if he were in the US, and that's bad enough.
Why is that bad? He obtained login credentials that he wasn't authorized to have and posted them for the rest of the world to take advantage of, without telling the hotel that they had a problem.
Had he stopped at telling the hotel and let them fix it, that would be one thing. He didn't even bother telling them, but he told all his "hacker friends" so they could take advantage of the system.
Isn't that your only real option anyway for some idiot blocking the right of way?
Stopping might be a nice thing to do. The trams in Munich don't have horns. They have bells. They also have brakes.
... that some idiot parked his minivan across the tracks. Was really good to have a human operator in that situation to run into the restaurant and warn people before it got towed away
If all you can do it honk the horn and flash lights, then what was left to be towed away? You mean the trolley actually stopped? Hmmm..... I've been on the Astoria trolley and I know it, too, has brakes.
I don't. I found Candy Crush on my Win 10 system after the last (and I mean last) forced update when I was looking in Defender for a way to open a hole in the firewall. There was a hole for Candy Crush there. Huh?
You can't buy a "mac OS" DVD and install it on some random hardware, which is what a "clean install" means in common parlance.
"Clean install" means installing onto an empty hard drive, not "random hardware". Windows doesn't run on "random hardware", either. Yes, you can do a clean install on MacOS. I've done it when I had to replace a failed hard drive on a Macbook.
OTOH, they don't need complex map software, no steering necessary,
Many of the cities I've been that have trams really do have "steering" to worry about. Not that they have a steering wheel, but they have to identify a failure of the switching mechanism that has them turning when they shouldn't have, or vice versa. For example, in Munich, almost all the trams go by either the north or south or east side of the HBF, and they get switched into different tracks as the spread out around the city.
they always have the absolute priority of way,
"Priority of way" (right of way?) is a legal concept, not a physical reality. A tram that has the legal right of way and rams into a passenger car is still wrong.
They also don't care about snow or ice on the tracks.
but I would think that discerning intent would be harder. A person just outside your path that's looking at you, waiting for you to pass is different than a person at the same spot with their back to you wearing headphones.
I live and drive in a college town. No, there really is no difference in the intent you can infer from either person.
I also wonder how long before these types of vehicles are targets of mischief.
The fact that it wasn't on it's virgin trip is remarkable, and can only be attributed to the fact it was a secret. Now it isn't.
Me: We tried that, it was called a mainframe. The high cost of doing it that way is one of the reasons
When a policy decision is based on cost/performance ratios, it is quite reasonable to re-assess the decision when either cost or performance changes. To use "twenty years ago doing that cost too much" as a reason to make the same decision again is silly. I say that as a admin that runs a compute and storage server farm accessed by $500 PCs running linux. I can buy a lot of $500 "terminals" for the price of a high-performance compute server, and a decision to give every user that performance on their desktop would be a significant waste of money.
About what? I've already assumed that's what you were replying to, so you're wasting time now.
I'm sorry you're "flabbergasted". Again. I have no issue with rules being enforced.
So you'd also be happy with weekly searches of your home to detect and punish any broken rules? The question is not whether rules are enforced, it's the surveillance necessary to catch every infraction AND the inflexibility of the punishment. "You went 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone -- you get a ticket!" "But I was trying to avoid being hit by a guy coming up behind me who was speeding, and by going 26 for a few seconds I managed to avoid an accident." "Too bad, you broke the rules, you get punished!"
"You went 35 in a 25. Here's your ticket!" "I was taking someone who was bleeding profusely to the emergency room, and doctors admitted that getting him there on time saved his life." "You went 35 in a 25, here's your ticket."
What a great world you want. No judgment of when punishment is appropriate or leniency for conditions, just slavish dedication to the law.
I understand such a device implies some hard technical problems.
The technical problems are trivial. It is absolutely TRIVIAL to have a device that records your location and speed and to have that information dumped to law enforcement on a regular basis -- even real time if that is the goal. The issues are SOCIAL. I.e., your right to privacy. Your right to exist without the police monitoring your every action. To be secure in your person, papers, and property. That you think these are technical problems is simple flabbergasting.
If you learn to think in terms of not everything being a conspiracy, your life would vastly improve.
I don't know what conspiracy you think is being discussed here. I'm pointing out to you that to implement your desired punishment regime would demand 24/7 monitoring of everyone. That's not a conspiracy, that's a simple fact. You want to punish every violation of every rule, then you need to detect every violation of every rule, and to do that you need 24/7 monitoring of people. Simple. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that, or don't care. Whichever. It's sad, either way.
I know, damn that evil Ron Wyden. He should follow the example
He should act on things he knows are wrong instead of just saying the equivalent of "if you knew what I know you'd be mad." What other people do with their problems is irrelevant.
It's really hard to forget his example of leadership in campaigning, where he came out one day saying he was going to run the most ethical and honest campaign for Senate, and then the next day we got to see the ads claiming his opponent had killed a teenager. (The teenager had been killed in a farming accident on a farm run by the family of the candidate that even the parents admitted was not the opponent's fault and they bore no ill will at all towards him.) When you understand history, you can see it repeating.
Just to clarify, I do NOT think their actions are reasonable. I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy,
You said:
As much as I hate their policy, I have to disagree with your point that it isn't their business what you do in private.
If you disagree with someone who thinks it is unreasonable for this policy to exist, then you are defacto saying you think it is not unreasonable. Whether you hate the policy or not is a different matter. People can hate even the most reasonable policies for any number of reasons. For example, I hate the policy of an online library I use that you can borrow audio books for only a limited time. I want it to be longer, even though I think their policy is reasonable in context.
However, the colloquial phrase "none of their business", doesn't apply in this case. It IS their business
Which is it? Is it unreasonable and none of their business, or a reasonable policy based on their business model?
P.S. You are complaining that parent didn't read, but then made up the word reasonable, which I never ever said....
You said the equivalent, and if you can show me where I quoted you saying that specific word I'd appreciate it.
Since you didn't quote a SINGLE word of what you were saying "yes" to, I have to assume it was the question about police being allowed to monitor your driving activity 24/7 with a device attached to your car. I am simply flabbergasted that anyone here would support that kind of thing.
Because otherwise it's a game of favorites.
You mean police discretion over who they stop and if they give a ticket is a "game of favorites", and you think it is better for there to be no judgement or consideration of the situation involved? You show up for your regular Monday "dump the data collector" appointment and if it says for any reason that you were exceeding the speed limit you get a ticket?
You realize that speed limits vary with location, so not only would the device need to record your speed, but your location. You're saying that it is ok with you if police do the equivalent of attaching a GPS to your car to track it 24/7. I'm... wow.
John Hancock is not forcing someone to give up their right to privacy,
I didn't say they were. Even so, if you work for someone who provides that as a benefit, and you don't want to have to pay for it out of your own pocket while others get it as a perk, you have no choice. I'll point that this is very similar to the issue of insurance covering abortions. If it is not provided under the "company plan", then women would be forced to buy insurance or pay for the operation out of their own pocket. Case law says this is discrimination.
What I was responding to was the claim by the OP, which you didn't read. He said that it was reasonable for the insurance company to demand you waive your right to privacy if you want their insurance BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. Read all the words, please.
Bout time the assholes putting the rest of us in danger got their due.
It's called a "ticket". It is not the job of the insurance companies to enforce traffic laws.
If you support the ability of insurance companies to require OBDII data loggers and charge more for speeders, would you also support the ability of law enforcement to require the same devices so they could ticket everyone who speeds?
None of the other 300+ million US Citizens have their personal email "secured" by law enforcement authorities either. Maybe you shouldn't be keeping secure info in your personal email either.
This is what I was thinking of saying, but don't bother. He isn't listening. I could send him megabytes (at least) of logs of failed ssh login attempts on the servers I run, most of which are originating in China. But Russia "hacking email" (which for Podesta was "please send us your email password") is bad bad bad bad.
This is the senator who proudly said:
"I want to deliver a warning this afternoon: When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned and they will be angry," he said.
but then did nothing to stop it. He is a Senator. He has the authority to write laws. Now he's warning us that people are trying to hack lawmaker's email, when anyone involved in computer admin already knows and is tired of it.
And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor',
There is currently a
broohaha in Great Britain regarding the
Liberal Party and their adoption of a statement on antisemitism. The party has modified the IHRA standard definition, which defines anti-semitism as: "... a certain perception of Jews...". The Liberal Party has adopted a modified statement which changes a few of the examples in the IHRA document, and for that the leadership are being branded as antisemites. During the still-ongoing discussion, it has been pointed out that the intent of the perpetrator is completely irrelevant and that is the "perception" by the victim that is all that is relevant.
I point this out because it is a direct parallel to sexual harassment. It is not the intent, it is the perception.
Before anyone wants to argue with me about whether the intent is important or not, I'll point out that I am only reporting what IS, not how it SHOULD BE. My observation of what IS comes from having to attend seminars dealing with the subject and observation of the policies being implemented where I work. It's not an uncommon set of policies in any way. Those who have attempted to argue during those seminars that intent is crucial have always lost that argument -- with the people who will enforce the policies. This is not a hypothetical discussion with a SCOTUS candidate asking how he would rule on a certain topic, it is a clear statement from existing "judges" how they will rule on one.
Statements that look patently obvious and logical that intent is required or that evidence needs to be provided are, well, nice, but they do not reflect IS, only SHOULD BE.
If it's a pattern of behaviour like that then the way to deal with it is witnesses.
Yeah. Like one person seeing it is not enough.
Point it out to another colleague, ask them to observe.
Other colleagues cannot "observe" what happened ten minutes ago. And it will be a bit obvious if half a dozen people are all standing around watching our innocent "looker" all day, waiting for him to "look" at someone wrong. While many criminal perps are truly stupid, pretending that the guy who is ogling boobs while talking to the owner of a prodigious set would necessarily do so while there are a lot of people watching him is silly.
The next hurdle to demanding "another colleague" as evidence is that you need to find one (or more) who will help you report the offender. Many men will say "it's natural, live with it", or "I like Bob, I'm not going to get him in trouble over something so minor". And #MeToo has shown that even the female victims of more serious incidents are unwilling to say anything until long after any remedial action is possible.
The point remains: if YOU as an employer demand multi-person testimony from others before accepting a complaint from a woman that a co-worker is creating a hostile workplace, YOU are the one who will be in trouble, not her. That's the way of the workplace. And to deny someone the right to complain about something because she doesn't have a list of witnesses is, well, absurd on its face.
My point was merely that this claim you will be destroyed with a sexual harassment claim merely for gazing in the direction of a women, as some people claim, is rubbish.
I wasn't arguing with you about that, and I don't remember ever seeing this claim to begin with. I was replying to two specific points, which I quoted explicitly so you would know what they are, and you've responded to neither. I'll quote them again:
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour or a single well documented overt incident like groping in public.
How do you have a "documented pattern of behaviour" without allowing complaints to create that document chain? You cannot. If a woman cannot complain without a documented pattern, and you can't create a documented pattern without complaints, then basically you are saying that the woman cannot ever complain. Therefore, you are WRONG that you need a "documented pattern" before a complaint is not "bogus", as you call it. Yes, being looked at "wrong" is sufficient for a complaint to be lodged.
Second, you said:
Complaining about looks with no evidence will just get you on HR's shit list and passed over for promotion.
The barrier of having to provide what you now say is evidence from "another colleague" is going to get you accused of fostering a hostile work environment and protecting the harasser, whether you intended that result or not. How many "another colleagues" are required before you will accept a harassment complaint? Five? Two?
And boy, if the person who is complaining about the hostile workplace finds out, or even guesses, that you passed her over for a promotion because she was reporting the problem, you can expect a lawsuit. It won't be a "maybe", it will be fact.
Now, maybe you were trying to say that a complaint about being looked at "wrong" wasn't sufficient for ACTION on that complaint, and that I would agree with. You need to differentiate between someone filing a complaint and the employer acting on that complaint. Even so, the employer has a responsibility to investigate, even if it is just "hey Bob, someone complained about... you should consider that." But to claim that the complaint itself is bogus just because there is no "documented history" and no "another colleague" evidence is untenable.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter how much power you transmit outside a room, the received signal AT THE TRANSMITTER is not going to be attenuated by the people in the room. In fact, the received signal will depend ONLY upon the transmitted signal level -- the receiver and the transmitter are connected to the same antennas.
This is patent nonsense.
which said data is kept separate and compartmentalized from the data they know about you for advertising purposes.
Why would you ever think that any data that they have about you is "compartmentalized" away from the advertising side of the operation? Are you really that naive?
As for TFA claiming that giving Facebook a number you think is private is helping other people you don't want to find you, to find you -- the person who targeted the ad had to GIVE THEM THE NUMBER for it to target the recipient. In other words, Facebook did not help anyone find this elusive professor, the person trying to "find him" already had his private phone number.
Had it been Facebook saying, "I recognize that name, would you like his private phone number?" that would be something different.
Because they are not just providing those links, they are offering them up as suggested answers.
And how is showing a link to the original article NOT answering a question about what Pizzagate was? Someone asked for that information, and Apple thinks they need to sanitize the answer to be only the the "correct" one.
If I ask for the pizzagate story, give me a link to the pizzagate story, not other people's interpretations and spins on it.
Fun fact: someone who claimed to be one of the inventors of Siri was on Penn and Teller's Fool Us, doing an absolutely lame, well known card trick. P&T fell all over themselves thanking him for his "benefit to humanity", not just us in the US, but the entire world. Thankfully they cut him no slack over the card trick.
The brakes are never enough.
Funny, I've seen trams stop using nothing but their brakes. I've seen them stop to keep from hitting a car in their path.
The light rail in Portland can take a half a block with the wheels locked up to stop.
There is a phrase in the law that deals with cars that don't stop in time to keep from hitting someone or something: too fast for conditions. It supersedes any engineering design factors concerning maximum speed, and can mean that someone going just 25 MPH in a 65 MPH zone will get a ticket.
Portland light rail is also not a tram. It's a train.
But once you are stopped, what is your option? You're stuck.
You are stuck until the thing you've stopped for has moved or been moved. AFTER you stop is not the issue I replied to, however. You said honking a horn and flashing lights was the only option. Stopping is a valid option, and works better than running over someone while honking the horn.
After you've stopped, you still have options other than just honking at the impediment. You get it towed, you have the police pull the person out of the way. If it is an inanimate thing, the driver gets out and moves it. So many more options than just "blaring a horn".
And isn't pulling a few thousand tons behind it.
The only data I could find in a quick search was for a Melbourne tram that listed the weight as just 25 tons. No tram pulls a "few thousand tons".
During normal stops, the trams I've been on have managed to go from cruise to stop in much less than half a block at a very low application of the brakes. Full braking would cut that to much less distance. Any tram driver that said "brakes aren't an option, I'm not even going to try" and runs someone down while honking the horn and flashing the lights is headed to jail.
No need for exaggeration. He'd definitely be charged with a crime for unauthorized access and face jail time if he were in the US, and that's bad enough.
Why is that bad? He obtained login credentials that he wasn't authorized to have and posted them for the rest of the world to take advantage of, without telling the hotel that they had a problem.
Had he stopped at telling the hotel and let them fix it, that would be one thing. He didn't even bother telling them, but he told all his "hacker friends" so they could take advantage of the system.
Isn't that your only real option anyway for some idiot blocking the right of way?
Stopping might be a nice thing to do. The trams in Munich don't have horns. They have bells. They also have brakes.
... that some idiot parked his minivan across the tracks. Was really good to have a human operator in that situation to run into the restaurant and warn people before it got towed away
If all you can do it honk the horn and flash lights, then what was left to be towed away? You mean the trolley actually stopped? Hmmm..... I've been on the Astoria trolley and I know it, too, has brakes.
If there's software to connect to the Internet, your drive isn't wiped.
Welcome to Pixie, my friend.
I really doubt that Microsoft is doing this.
I don't. I found Candy Crush on my Win 10 system after the last (and I mean last) forced update when I was looking in Defender for a way to open a hole in the firewall. There was a hole for Candy Crush there. Huh?
You can't buy a "mac OS" DVD and install it on some random hardware, which is what a "clean install" means in common parlance.
"Clean install" means installing onto an empty hard drive, not "random hardware". Windows doesn't run on "random hardware", either. Yes, you can do a clean install on MacOS. I've done it when I had to replace a failed hard drive on a Macbook.
OTOH, they don't need complex map software, no steering necessary,
Many of the cities I've been that have trams really do have "steering" to worry about. Not that they have a steering wheel, but they have to identify a failure of the switching mechanism that has them turning when they shouldn't have, or vice versa. For example, in Munich, almost all the trams go by either the north or south or east side of the HBF, and they get switched into different tracks as the spread out around the city.
they always have the absolute priority of way,
"Priority of way" (right of way?) is a legal concept, not a physical reality. A tram that has the legal right of way and rams into a passenger car is still wrong.
They also don't care about snow or ice on the tracks.
Uhhh, what? And huh?
but I would think that discerning intent would be harder. A person just outside your path that's looking at you, waiting for you to pass is different than a person at the same spot with their back to you wearing headphones.
I live and drive in a college town. No, there really is no difference in the intent you can infer from either person.
I also wonder how long before these types of vehicles are targets of mischief.
The fact that it wasn't on it's virgin trip is remarkable, and can only be attributed to the fact it was a secret. Now it isn't.
Me: We tried that, it was called a mainframe. The high cost of doing it that way is one of the reasons
When a policy decision is based on cost/performance ratios, it is quite reasonable to re-assess the decision when either cost or performance changes. To use "twenty years ago doing that cost too much" as a reason to make the same decision again is silly. I say that as a admin that runs a compute and storage server farm accessed by $500 PCs running linux. I can buy a lot of $500 "terminals" for the price of a high-performance compute server, and a decision to give every user that performance on their desktop would be a significant waste of money.
Gul Dolen, a neuroscientist at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine...
I understand that diversity is a goal these days, but is this the first Cardassian working at an Earth school?
Happy?
About what? I've already assumed that's what you were replying to, so you're wasting time now.
I'm sorry you're "flabbergasted". Again. I have no issue with rules being enforced.
So you'd also be happy with weekly searches of your home to detect and punish any broken rules? The question is not whether rules are enforced, it's the surveillance necessary to catch every infraction AND the inflexibility of the punishment. "You went 26 MPH in a 25 MPH zone -- you get a ticket!" "But I was trying to avoid being hit by a guy coming up behind me who was speeding, and by going 26 for a few seconds I managed to avoid an accident." "Too bad, you broke the rules, you get punished!"
"You went 35 in a 25. Here's your ticket!" "I was taking someone who was bleeding profusely to the emergency room, and doctors admitted that getting him there on time saved his life." "You went 35 in a 25, here's your ticket."
What a great world you want. No judgment of when punishment is appropriate or leniency for conditions, just slavish dedication to the law.
I understand such a device implies some hard technical problems.
The technical problems are trivial. It is absolutely TRIVIAL to have a device that records your location and speed and to have that information dumped to law enforcement on a regular basis -- even real time if that is the goal. The issues are SOCIAL. I.e., your right to privacy. Your right to exist without the police monitoring your every action. To be secure in your person, papers, and property. That you think these are technical problems is simple flabbergasting.
If you learn to think in terms of not everything being a conspiracy, your life would vastly improve.
I don't know what conspiracy you think is being discussed here. I'm pointing out to you that to implement your desired punishment regime would demand 24/7 monitoring of everyone. That's not a conspiracy, that's a simple fact. You want to punish every violation of every rule, then you need to detect every violation of every rule, and to do that you need 24/7 monitoring of people. Simple. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand that, or don't care. Whichever. It's sad, either way.
I know, damn that evil Ron Wyden. He should follow the example
He should act on things he knows are wrong instead of just saying the equivalent of "if you knew what I know you'd be mad." What other people do with their problems is irrelevant.
It's really hard to forget his example of leadership in campaigning, where he came out one day saying he was going to run the most ethical and honest campaign for Senate, and then the next day we got to see the ads claiming his opponent had killed a teenager. (The teenager had been killed in a farming accident on a farm run by the family of the candidate that even the parents admitted was not the opponent's fault and they bore no ill will at all towards him.) When you understand history, you can see it repeating.
Just to clarify, I do NOT think their actions are reasonable. I think it's a horrible invasion of privacy,
You said:
As much as I hate their policy, I have to disagree with your point that it isn't their business what you do in private.
If you disagree with someone who thinks it is unreasonable for this policy to exist, then you are defacto saying you think it is not unreasonable. Whether you hate the policy or not is a different matter. People can hate even the most reasonable policies for any number of reasons. For example, I hate the policy of an online library I use that you can borrow audio books for only a limited time. I want it to be longer, even though I think their policy is reasonable in context.
However, the colloquial phrase "none of their business", doesn't apply in this case. It IS their business
Which is it? Is it unreasonable and none of their business, or a reasonable policy based on their business model?
P.S. You are complaining that parent didn't read, but then made up the word reasonable, which I never ever said....
You said the equivalent, and if you can show me where I quoted you saying that specific word I'd appreciate it.
Yes.
Since you didn't quote a SINGLE word of what you were saying "yes" to, I have to assume it was the question about police being allowed to monitor your driving activity 24/7 with a device attached to your car. I am simply flabbergasted that anyone here would support that kind of thing.
Because otherwise it's a game of favorites.
You mean police discretion over who they stop and if they give a ticket is a "game of favorites", and you think it is better for there to be no judgement or consideration of the situation involved? You show up for your regular Monday "dump the data collector" appointment and if it says for any reason that you were exceeding the speed limit you get a ticket?
You realize that speed limits vary with location, so not only would the device need to record your speed, but your location. You're saying that it is ok with you if police do the equivalent of attaching a GPS to your car to track it 24/7. I'm ... wow.
Why should others have to pay for YOUR risky choices.
Because we have to pay for theirs. That's what the concept of a group is all about.
Your user name is in agreement with your post.
Ooh, a name flame. How original.
John Hancock is not forcing someone to give up their right to privacy,
I didn't say they were. Even so, if you work for someone who provides that as a benefit, and you don't want to have to pay for it out of your own pocket while others get it as a perk, you have no choice. I'll point that this is very similar to the issue of insurance covering abortions. If it is not provided under the "company plan", then women would be forced to buy insurance or pay for the operation out of their own pocket. Case law says this is discrimination.
What I was responding to was the claim by the OP, which you didn't read. He said that it was reasonable for the insurance company to demand you waive your right to privacy if you want their insurance BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. Read all the words, please.
Bout time the assholes putting the rest of us in danger got their due.
It's called a "ticket". It is not the job of the insurance companies to enforce traffic laws.
If you support the ability of insurance companies to require OBDII data loggers and charge more for speeders, would you also support the ability of law enforcement to require the same devices so they could ticket everyone who speeds?
It is in fact directly within their business model to care about what you do in private
You are flat out arguing that it is reasonable that your right to privacy is defined by an insurance company's business model.
None of the other 300+ million US Citizens have their personal email "secured" by law enforcement authorities either. Maybe you shouldn't be keeping secure info in your personal email either.
This is what I was thinking of saying, but don't bother. He isn't listening. I could send him megabytes (at least) of logs of failed ssh login attempts on the servers I run, most of which are originating in China. But Russia "hacking email" (which for Podesta was "please send us your email password") is bad bad bad bad.
This is the senator who proudly said:
but then did nothing to stop it. He is a Senator. He has the authority to write laws. Now he's warning us that people are trying to hack lawmaker's email, when anyone involved in computer admin already knows and is tired of it.
I certainly hope we don't end up borrowing the term for a group of crows.
We don' t have to borrow a term for a group of crows, we already have one. They're a "murder".
It sounds like you are assuming that civility always yields the best results.
It only sounds that way because you want it to sound that way.
And your inappropriate reference based on TDS has been noted.
And given how rapidly the definition is expanding, and is already basically defined by the 'survivor',
There is currently a broohaha in Great Britain regarding the Liberal Party and their adoption of a statement on antisemitism. The party has modified the IHRA standard definition, which defines anti-semitism as: "... a certain perception of Jews ...". The Liberal Party has adopted a modified statement which changes a few of the examples in the IHRA document, and for that the leadership are being branded as antisemites. During the still-ongoing discussion, it has been pointed out that the intent of the perpetrator is completely irrelevant and that is the "perception" by the victim that is all that is relevant.
I point this out because it is a direct parallel to sexual harassment. It is not the intent, it is the perception.
Before anyone wants to argue with me about whether the intent is important or not, I'll point out that I am only reporting what IS, not how it SHOULD BE. My observation of what IS comes from having to attend seminars dealing with the subject and observation of the policies being implemented where I work. It's not an uncommon set of policies in any way. Those who have attempted to argue during those seminars that intent is crucial have always lost that argument -- with the people who will enforce the policies. This is not a hypothetical discussion with a SCOTUS candidate asking how he would rule on a certain topic, it is a clear statement from existing "judges" how they will rule on one.
Statements that look patently obvious and logical that intent is required or that evidence needs to be provided are, well, nice, but they do not reflect IS, only SHOULD BE.
If it's a pattern of behaviour like that then the way to deal with it is witnesses.
Yeah. Like one person seeing it is not enough.
Point it out to another colleague, ask them to observe.
Other colleagues cannot "observe" what happened ten minutes ago. And it will be a bit obvious if half a dozen people are all standing around watching our innocent "looker" all day, waiting for him to "look" at someone wrong. While many criminal perps are truly stupid, pretending that the guy who is ogling boobs while talking to the owner of a prodigious set would necessarily do so while there are a lot of people watching him is silly.
The next hurdle to demanding "another colleague" as evidence is that you need to find one (or more) who will help you report the offender. Many men will say "it's natural, live with it", or "I like Bob, I'm not going to get him in trouble over something so minor". And #MeToo has shown that even the female victims of more serious incidents are unwilling to say anything until long after any remedial action is possible.
The point remains: if YOU as an employer demand multi-person testimony from others before accepting a complaint from a woman that a co-worker is creating a hostile workplace, YOU are the one who will be in trouble, not her. That's the way of the workplace. And to deny someone the right to complain about something because she doesn't have a list of witnesses is, well, absurd on its face.
My point was merely that this claim you will be destroyed with a sexual harassment claim merely for gazing in the direction of a women, as some people claim, is rubbish.
I wasn't arguing with you about that, and I don't remember ever seeing this claim to begin with. I was replying to two specific points, which I quoted explicitly so you would know what they are, and you've responded to neither. I'll quote them again:
This claim that mere accusations of being looked at "wrong" are enough for sexual harassment complaints is bogus. There needs to be a documented pattern of behaviour or a single well documented overt incident like groping in public.
How do you have a "documented pattern of behaviour" without allowing complaints to create that document chain? You cannot. If a woman cannot complain without a documented pattern, and you can't create a documented pattern without complaints, then basically you are saying that the woman cannot ever complain. Therefore, you are WRONG that you need a "documented pattern" before a complaint is not "bogus", as you call it. Yes, being looked at "wrong" is sufficient for a complaint to be lodged.
Second, you said:
Complaining about looks with no evidence will just get you on HR's shit list and passed over for promotion.
The barrier of having to provide what you now say is evidence from "another colleague" is going to get you accused of fostering a hostile work environment and protecting the harasser, whether you intended that result or not. How many "another colleagues" are required before you will accept a harassment complaint? Five? Two?
And boy, if the person who is complaining about the hostile workplace finds out, or even guesses, that you passed her over for a promotion because she was reporting the problem, you can expect a lawsuit. It won't be a "maybe", it will be fact.
Now, maybe you were trying to say that a complaint about being looked at "wrong" wasn't sufficient for ACTION on that complaint, and that I would agree with. You need to differentiate between someone filing a complaint and the employer acting on that complaint. Even so, the employer has a responsibility to investigate, even if it is just "hey Bob, someone complained about ... you should consider that." But to claim that the complaint itself is bogus just because there is no "documented history" and no "another colleague" evidence is untenable.