It can be very much worth it as in my states the penalties to companies that pull this nonsense are multiples of the owed earnings. Regardless, employment boards in the state typically handle this, so there's no need to hire a lawyer.
I'm still on board with the "Day Of" method, and I'd give them a month extra after notification. After that, my pending retirement becomes a negotiation tactic. You want me around for another 2 months? Cool, here are my terms, and they're expensive.
This works on a couple different levels. First, you are GIVING them a month extra, and how nice of you to do so. Second, you are being compensated for the extra time ( generously ). Third, you are giving them a strong incentive to find your replacement.
I've seen places say, "Oh, we're looking for your replacement"...but then not. So this poor, kind, soul gets stuck because he said he'd stick around until they find a replacement. This way you can charge them commiserate with how much you don't want to be there, and they really have incentive to find your replacement.
...I'd put off notification until you are ready to retire, then let them bend over backwards to keep you around until they are ready with a replacement.
Because there's no way to solve it. There are at least 3 different usage profiles for devices today. Desktop, tablet and phone. Each usage profile introduces limitations and exceptions, to say nothing about the way we use them.
One interface to rule them all is impossible. At best, you'd end up with something that's mediocre for all profiles. At worse ( and more likely ), you'll end up with something that may work for phones, but is horrible for the desktop.
The problems with assumptions......anyway, yes, indeed I have. Workstations with large ( and/or multiple screens ) and a mouse/kb combo, it makes no sense. Not only does my arm get tired after a while, but apparently this is a "thing" with users. Sure, the gimmick is fun for a while, but nothing yet has replaced a mouse/kb combo when it comes to functionality.
Which is not to say that my Surface is entirely unusable; touch on that is quite pleasant, but then again I'm not reaching straight ahead, nor nearly as far away. Even here, however, changing mode of input introduces overhead ( as any UIX designer *should* be able to tell you, but then I have no faith in those carrying the title nowadays ). I'm busy, I have a lot to do, so unless I can do everything with touch AS FAST AS I can with kb/mouse, it's just not worth it. That really applies to anyone who's using the computer for work.
Suggesting that touch is something we *need* on the desktop only highlights your own ignorance on the topic. To use that to further imply that all interfaces can be merged into one puts you square in the fanboy ( or girl. fan person just doesn't sound right ) territory.
Jesus, what is with the UIX designers? Did they see the windows 8 debacle and think, "I want me some of that!"
Here's some free knowledge: Different devices require different usage profiles. Desktops are more multi-purpose and have the advantage of a mouse and keyboard, meaning a touch interface makes no damn sense on them. Tablets have more screen than your average phone, so your designs should take advantage of that. Phones are the lowest screen space and usability, so you need an entirely different UIX methodology.
Seriously, someone write this down so we don't have to go through this nonsense again.
...but what I really really want is a way to disable auto-playing videos. I have the Disable HTML5 Autoplay extension, flashblock and ABP, but a lot of sites still have videos that auto play. Given I'm normally working on a metered connection, this causes unnecessary use of bandwidth.
Shouldn't be so damn hard to prevent this, I would think.
You don't think so? With one stupid mistake, they turned their browser into adware. People were already flocking away from it, but their latest speed update apparently gave a few pause. Then this stunt...and suddenly, no pause.
They've compromised their integrity, plain and simple. Sure, Chrome snoops on you, but that's hardly surprising to anyone, and when was the last time Chrome served you an add as part of the browser?
Shit, FF just ranged into windows 10 territory, and it took MS employing every dirty trick in the book to even get to the market penetration they have now ( which isn't all that impressive, considering ).
No. Whatever community goodwill Mozilla earned recently is gone, and more besides.
The argument worked, perhaps all too well. As soon as we landed on the moon, humanity's expansion into the cosmos slowed and then stopped (not counting robots)
Why do our achievements with sending robots not count? We're still producing remarkable feats of science and engineering, aren't we? What's so important with sending flesh and blood?
Yes, other-world colonization is a very real goal, but it's not the only one. Scientific exploration is more efficient ( ie: get more done for less ) when you don't have to worry about maintaining a fragile human being as well.
It's an old joke among network technicians that it's possible to get a broadband connection with anything, even if it's just two cans connected with some wet string.
Thus far, ISPs haven't been given free range to do what they want. While most of us would agree this is a "Good Thing(tm)", the fact that this keeps coming up indicates that some powerful people think otherwise, and we don't really have any counter data to show them other than what we think will happen ( and given the companies involved, it's almost assured that will happen ).
So at this point, given how much the FCC isn't listening to anyone but their corporate sponsors, I'm kinda of the mind to let them do it. Let them give the ISPs free reign, that will generate a TON of data for us to use later. Then, when congress gets involved and enshrines net neutrality in law, we'll know precisely why and be able to point to historical examples.
Given laws are painful to create and pass, while FCC regulations are seemingly easy to overturn, I'm kinda digging the idea of creating a net neutrality law anyway.
I'm not even going with "open source", merely publicly available.
Perhaps a new license which protects a company's investment in it's intellectual property ( legally prevents others from using the publicly available code ), but still requires publishing of said property.
I don't think even NDA access is appropriate. How versed are you in probabilistic medical programming? How many people would you say are?
Hell, even the most experienced developer will need some time to acclimatize to any sufficiently complex codebase, now throw in the specialties on top of it. It's beyond unreasonable to expect any "expert" to have limited access ( both physical and temporal ) to the codebase then be expected to give expert testimony in court on it.
The only way things like this get properly vetted is via "many eyes", and even that's no guarantee.
Speaking of experts; let's pretend your some poor schmuck ( literally ), using a tool like this in a case where you can't afford an expert witness ( and it would be beyond pricy I'd expect. I know I'd charge a shitload ) only guarantees a compromised defense.
No, I can't see any reason why the code shouldn't be publicly available if the tool will be used to help convict people.
These days, analysts with decent reputations have predicted the cryptocurrency's trading price could go as high as $50,000, $100,000, and even $1 million.
In other words, they have no idea why it's doing what it's doing.
I'm starting to think "expert" is someone who is physically unable to utter the words "I don't know".
You have to wonder who's running the UIX division of Windows. Windows 8 was an unmitigated disaster. They tried to force feed a mobile interface on to the world of desktops, to predictable results. Absolutely no one was surprised by the blowback they got ( well, except the shills of course, and they were paid to be surprised ).
Now this?
I'm kinda get the impression they're willingly trying to destroy their desktop dominance.
I feel part of the problem with DCU is their hackneyed approach to telling the individual stories. Superman got a movie, Wonderwoman got a movie, but what about Cyborg or Aquaman? Batman can be forgiven given his screen time already, and frankly I don't need to watch another hour of cutscenes describing in painstakingly detail just how Bruce Wayne became Batman ( BvS, looking at you ).
Aquaman especially; if anything, Justice League introduced a version of Aquaman I'd like to know more about, but instead they just throw him out there ruining a perfectly good story telling chance. Cyborg too; unless you knew the backstory, I get the impression a lot of folks will be lost.
Between Justice League and BvS, DCU is ignoring the supporting stories and going right to the climax. If there's a reason MCU is doing better, it's that right there; they know how to build a story.
Slashdot Mirror
and it likely isn't worth hiring a lawyer for
It can be very much worth it as in my states the penalties to companies that pull this nonsense are multiples of the owed earnings. Regardless, employment boards in the state typically handle this, so there's no need to hire a lawyer.
This way you can charge them commiserate with how much you don't want to be there, and they really have incentive to find your replacement.
It's commensurate, dumbass.
Yes, I'm calling myself a dumbass, doesn't make it any less true.
I'd play this a tad differently.
I'm still on board with the "Day Of" method, and I'd give them a month extra after notification. After that, my pending retirement becomes a negotiation tactic. You want me around for another 2 months? Cool, here are my terms, and they're expensive.
This works on a couple different levels. First, you are GIVING them a month extra, and how nice of you to do so. Second, you are being compensated for the extra time ( generously ). Third, you are giving them a strong incentive to find your replacement.
I've seen places say, "Oh, we're looking for your replacement"...but then not. So this poor, kind, soul gets stuck because he said he'd stick around until they find a replacement. This way you can charge them commiserate with how much you don't want to be there, and they really have incentive to find your replacement.
...I'd put off notification until you are ready to retire, then let them bend over backwards to keep you around until they are ready with a replacement.
Because there's no way to solve it. There are at least 3 different usage profiles for devices today. Desktop, tablet and phone. Each usage profile introduces limitations and exceptions, to say nothing about the way we use them.
One interface to rule them all is impossible. At best, you'd end up with something that's mediocre for all profiles. At worse ( and more likely ), you'll end up with something that may work for phones, but is horrible for the desktop.
The problems with assumptions... ...anyway, yes, indeed I have. Workstations with large ( and/or multiple screens ) and a mouse/kb combo, it makes no sense. Not only does my arm get tired after a while, but apparently this is a "thing" with users. Sure, the gimmick is fun for a while, but nothing yet has replaced a mouse/kb combo when it comes to functionality.
Which is not to say that my Surface is entirely unusable; touch on that is quite pleasant, but then again I'm not reaching straight ahead, nor nearly as far away. Even here, however, changing mode of input introduces overhead ( as any UIX designer *should* be able to tell you, but then I have no faith in those carrying the title nowadays ). I'm busy, I have a lot to do, so unless I can do everything with touch AS FAST AS I can with kb/mouse, it's just not worth it. That really applies to anyone who's using the computer for work.
Suggesting that touch is something we *need* on the desktop only highlights your own ignorance on the topic. To use that to further imply that all interfaces can be merged into one puts you square in the fanboy ( or girl. fan person just doesn't sound right ) territory.
Comparing this to the birth of the internet? Bullshit sensors went straight to 11.
Jesus, what is with the UIX designers? Did they see the windows 8 debacle and think, "I want me some of that!"
Here's some free knowledge: Different devices require different usage profiles. Desktops are more multi-purpose and have the advantage of a mouse and keyboard, meaning a touch interface makes no damn sense on them. Tablets have more screen than your average phone, so your designs should take advantage of that. Phones are the lowest screen space and usability, so you need an entirely different UIX methodology.
Seriously, someone write this down so we don't have to go through this nonsense again.
Wait, how will Jesus know how much I want those little kids to eat or have Christmas?
Facebook is obviously a godless heathen!
...but what I really really want is a way to disable auto-playing videos. I have the Disable HTML5 Autoplay extension, flashblock and ABP, but a lot of sites still have videos that auto play. Given I'm normally working on a metered connection, this causes unnecessary use of bandwidth.
Shouldn't be so damn hard to prevent this, I would think.
You don't think so? With one stupid mistake, they turned their browser into adware. People were already flocking away from it, but their latest speed update apparently gave a few pause. Then this stunt...and suddenly, no pause.
They've compromised their integrity, plain and simple. Sure, Chrome snoops on you, but that's hardly surprising to anyone, and when was the last time Chrome served you an add as part of the browser?
Shit, FF just ranged into windows 10 territory, and it took MS employing every dirty trick in the book to even get to the market penetration they have now ( which isn't all that impressive, considering ).
No. Whatever community goodwill Mozilla earned recently is gone, and more besides.
This is what happens when you let Gilligan drive.
If they were trying to win back Chrome users, this is a pretty effective way to sabotage their efforts.
I hope they were paid a shitload of cash for this little stun, because it's gonna cost them.
The argument worked, perhaps all too well. As soon as we landed on the moon, humanity's expansion into the cosmos slowed and then stopped (not counting robots)
Why do our achievements with sending robots not count? We're still producing remarkable feats of science and engineering, aren't we? What's so important with sending flesh and blood?
Yes, other-world colonization is a very real goal, but it's not the only one. Scientific exploration is more efficient ( ie: get more done for less ) when you don't have to worry about maintaining a fragile human being as well.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
This is, quite simply, a stunning idea.
I support all government services being pushed to "The Cloud". Every. Last. One.
Then, let that "Cloud" provider run afoul of the lack of net neutrality laws.
Hilarity ensues.
It's an old joke among network technicians that it's possible to get a broadband connection with anything, even if it's just two cans connected with some wet string.
Or, indeed, IPoAC ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Latency sucks, but the bandwidth is incredible.
Thus far, ISPs haven't been given free range to do what they want. While most of us would agree this is a "Good Thing(tm)", the fact that this keeps coming up indicates that some powerful people think otherwise, and we don't really have any counter data to show them other than what we think will happen ( and given the companies involved, it's almost assured that will happen ).
So at this point, given how much the FCC isn't listening to anyone but their corporate sponsors, I'm kinda of the mind to let them do it. Let them give the ISPs free reign, that will generate a TON of data for us to use later. Then, when congress gets involved and enshrines net neutrality in law, we'll know precisely why and be able to point to historical examples.
Given laws are painful to create and pass, while FCC regulations are seemingly easy to overturn, I'm kinda digging the idea of creating a net neutrality law anyway.
I'm not even going with "open source", merely publicly available.
Perhaps a new license which protects a company's investment in it's intellectual property ( legally prevents others from using the publicly available code ), but still requires publishing of said property.
I don't think even NDA access is appropriate. How versed are you in probabilistic medical programming? How many people would you say are?
Hell, even the most experienced developer will need some time to acclimatize to any sufficiently complex codebase, now throw in the specialties on top of it. It's beyond unreasonable to expect any "expert" to have limited access ( both physical and temporal ) to the codebase then be expected to give expert testimony in court on it.
The only way things like this get properly vetted is via "many eyes", and even that's no guarantee.
Speaking of experts; let's pretend your some poor schmuck ( literally ), using a tool like this in a case where you can't afford an expert witness ( and it would be beyond pricy I'd expect. I know I'd charge a shitload ) only guarantees a compromised defense.
No, I can't see any reason why the code shouldn't be publicly available if the tool will be used to help convict people.
I have no idea what you're talking about, Captain.
"It's like the internet, only local"
"Why? Couldn't you connect to a BBS across the country?"
"Well, you could, but you'd be hit with long distance charges like you wouldn't believe"
"Long distance charges?"
"Damn it, get off my lawn"
These days, analysts with decent reputations have predicted the cryptocurrency's trading price could go as high as $50,000, $100,000, and even $1 million.
In other words, they have no idea why it's doing what it's doing.
I'm starting to think "expert" is someone who is physically unable to utter the words "I don't know".
You have to wonder who's running the UIX division of Windows. Windows 8 was an unmitigated disaster. They tried to force feed a mobile interface on to the world of desktops, to predictable results. Absolutely no one was surprised by the blowback they got ( well, except the shills of course, and they were paid to be surprised ).
Now this?
I'm kinda get the impression they're willingly trying to destroy their desktop dominance.
I feel part of the problem with DCU is their hackneyed approach to telling the individual stories. Superman got a movie, Wonderwoman got a movie, but what about Cyborg or Aquaman? Batman can be forgiven given his screen time already, and frankly I don't need to watch another hour of cutscenes describing in painstakingly detail just how Bruce Wayne became Batman ( BvS, looking at you ).
Aquaman especially; if anything, Justice League introduced a version of Aquaman I'd like to know more about, but instead they just throw him out there ruining a perfectly good story telling chance. Cyborg too; unless you knew the backstory, I get the impression a lot of folks will be lost.
Between Justice League and BvS, DCU is ignoring the supporting stories and going right to the climax. If there's a reason MCU is doing better, it's that right there; they know how to build a story.