Several people I know from HR have mentioned that the act of looking at websites with the intention of looking up applicants is not legal. This is because the hiring agent has a chance to learn more about the applicant than they should know for job purposes such as age, if they are married, have kids, are homo/heterosexual, have drinking problems etc. All of these are questions that cannot be asked in an interview because they could possibly lead to discriminating against the applicant. The same becomes true if someone researches an applicant online.
The young lady in the story has a very strong case for discrimination, maybe the people who originally saw the page are against drinking, or maybe they felt that she has a drinking problem and might come to work drunk. So because of their personal feelings towards alcohol they presented a case to have her teaching credentials stopped. The plaintiff has a strong argument because proving that you were not discriminated against is pretty difficult.
I know that many companies do use websites to investigate future employees, but when it happens you don't ever admit to it. Or you open yourself up to the same kind of lawsuit.
I agree completely! And even worse than testing each network, every single phone would need to be verified. I find it amazing though, that Mythbusters episode concluded with them acknowledging that every phone version would have the be check against every system in each type of aircraft. Talk about inefficient. The costs would be prohibitive, and as a consumer I don't want to pay for that sort of testing.
Yahoo is not very likely to move their servers though. If they were to move the servers out of china to prevent this sort of thing, then the Chinese Government will just block all business from Yahoo.
The and I am sure the Chinese Government is willing to use that as a threat to prevent Yahoo from doing such a thing.
Money is always the deciding factor, lives are usually the last thing on the mind of executives. Just look at Ford and the Pinto fiasco.
I am glad someone thought of this stupid stunt!
Time for me to sue Boeing for all the damage my hearing has suffered from flying in and working around aircraft. On that same note, I guess I could sue Sony for the portable {Cassette Player, CD Player, Mini Disk Player.....}
On a serious note:
Someone in a post above mentioned it was like suing a gun manufacturer for killing someone. But isn't that the same argument for most P2P?
And how about that woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee was HOT.
I hate seeing things like this go forward - because this is the kind of lawsuit that is just common sense enough that the judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff.
So John Smith contracts the disease while traveling, then gives it to the entire flight, also to all the people in the coffee shop he went to, then maybe the gas station attendant catches it, and passes it on to everyone who stops in for a fill up....
Wouldnt a better solution be to inform the public as a whole? Using the media to get the word out faster?
The Government will do research on a subject, then send the results off to have the data evaluated by a private company. It is the company that is either the publisher, or will publish it in a private journal. Since the article you are requesting will include research and conclusions that might are not Govenrment owned the FOIA wont help to get access to it. But if you want to get the raw data that was sent in for evaluation originally, the FOIA will get it for you, as long as the information is not classified in nature, or fall into one of the 9 "FOIA Caveats".
A possible solution to this scenario would be to have a heart rate monitor attached to each.
Since the monitors are already designed to track anyone close during an alarm event, the heartbeat could be listed as a alarm event.
This would help to keep security gaurds safe, and the possibility of having better evidence for conviction if a murder occurs in the prison population.
Government Agencies has strict rules against unauthorised software. (So no third party software is normally allowed) Yet they still have the same vulnerabilities.
Try again Bill, obviously your yes men are giving you worse answers then the presidential nominees have!
They have a Parcel Scanner on page 9.
They are selling rolling stands in a lot of 4 pallets. (So if I need 80 rolling stands at home I know where to go)
Plus 2 pages of refrigerators, a Noritake China Set (with gold and platinum ring)
And they have a lot of 19 microwaves. (Could have 2 in each room of the house)
And Even a ping pong table!
Lot 781 is 4 boxes of pagers.
Considering they are selling on E-bay, you would think they could sell everything an item at a time. (then again, who would want to spend that kind of time filling out the paperwork.)
I am not a very big fan of Bush. And now I have had a chance to see several of Mr. Moores' movies. Each one is very well done. But people must remember that Mr. Moore is not making a documentary. These movies are less about emotionless facts, and more about getting the viewer emotional about something.
When people feel emotional, they tend to do something about it. Take Nazi Germany. Many thousands of people participated in Kristallnacht. Why? Because they were emotionaly charged.
I find Mr. Moores' movies to be very well scripted and very thought provoking, but we must remember that when the movie is over we need to ask more questions.
What did he leave out that did not fit HIS picture of the world?
Most/.'rs are fairly intellegent and probably dont need to have the advantages of Folding@home preached to them.
As someone lower down the page mentioned, some people dedicate their time to solving the problems now, and other work to improve technology to make the next step.
I would sign up, but with my luck somewhere in the fine print there would be a NDA I wouldn't notice.
Could be SCO's little way of suckering more people into yet another lawsuit.
After spending 8 years in the Navy working on Aircraft I can see that you are unfortunitly uninformed. The carrier is actually protected by the entire battle group and always has been, there is no aircraft that are designated to protect the carrier unless it comes under an attack that the rest of the battle group cannot fend off. Some A/C are considered support A/C, these are rescue helicopters incase a pilot has to bail out, and then the tankers used to refuel, but those are limited and follow the rest of the attack group out almost to the target sight if needed, since they are armed also.
Construction was approved in 1994 ( so it was the Clinton Administration that said they would pay the $5 billion on it ) and construction was started in 1998. So all this money they spent on this was definitly not the Bush administration.
Actually, the carrier is well equiped on its own to defend itself against surface to surface missles. They have both,Phalanx Close in Weapons System and the Sea Sparrow.
But they only need these if the rest of the Battle Group is not able to handle the job first.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/ima-wep s9.html
I have to agree. Especially when you think about the fact that most technological achievments are a direct result of the Military spending.
WD-40, gods gift to man!
OH yeah, almost forgot about DARPANet
Slashdot Mirror
Several people I know from HR have mentioned that the act of looking at websites with the intention of looking up applicants is not legal. This is because the hiring agent has a chance to learn more about the applicant than they should know for job purposes such as age, if they are married, have kids, are homo/heterosexual, have drinking problems etc. All of these are questions that cannot be asked in an interview because they could possibly lead to discriminating against the applicant. The same becomes true if someone researches an applicant online.
The young lady in the story has a very strong case for discrimination, maybe the people who originally saw the page are against drinking, or maybe they felt that she has a drinking problem and might come to work drunk. So because of their personal feelings towards alcohol they presented a case to have her teaching credentials stopped. The plaintiff has a strong argument because proving that you were not discriminated against is pretty difficult.
I know that many companies do use websites to investigate future employees, but when it happens you don't ever admit to it. Or you open yourself up to the same kind of lawsuit.
I agree completely! And even worse than testing each network, every single phone would need to be verified. I find it amazing though, that Mythbusters episode concluded with them acknowledging that every phone version would have the be check against every system in each type of aircraft. Talk about inefficient. The costs would be prohibitive, and as a consumer I don't want to pay for that sort of testing.
The state workers probably demanded the state implement MS. They wanted the extra break time during reboots.
So what would happen if he happened to use the wrong key set and all the legitimate buyers got hit? Talk about losing customers.
Yahoo is not very likely to move their servers though. If they were to move the servers out of china to prevent this sort of thing, then the Chinese Government will just block all business from Yahoo.
The and I am sure the Chinese Government is willing to use that as a threat to prevent Yahoo from doing such a thing.
Money is always the deciding factor, lives are usually the last thing on the mind of executives. Just look at Ford and the Pinto fiasco.
I am glad someone thought of this stupid stunt! Time for me to sue Boeing for all the damage my hearing has suffered from flying in and working around aircraft. On that same note, I guess I could sue Sony for the portable {Cassette Player, CD Player, Mini Disk Player .....}
On a serious note:
Someone in a post above mentioned it was like suing a gun manufacturer for killing someone. But isn't that the same argument for most P2P?
And how about that woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee was HOT.
I hate seeing things like this go forward - because this is the kind of lawsuit that is just common sense enough that the judge will rule in favor of the plaintiff.
So John Smith contracts the disease while traveling, then gives it to the entire flight, also to all the people in the coffee shop he went to, then maybe the gas station attendant catches it, and passes it on to everyone who stops in for a fill up.... Wouldnt a better solution be to inform the public as a whole? Using the media to get the word out faster?
The Government will do research on a subject, then send the results off to have the data evaluated by a private company. It is the company that is either the publisher, or will publish it in a private journal. Since the article you are requesting will include research and conclusions that might are not Govenrment owned the FOIA wont help to get access to it. But if you want to get the raw data that was sent in for evaluation originally, the FOIA will get it for you, as long as the information is not classified in nature, or fall into one of the 9 "FOIA Caveats".
A possible solution to this scenario would be to have a heart rate monitor attached to each. Since the monitors are already designed to track anyone close during an alarm event, the heartbeat could be listed as a alarm event. This would help to keep security gaurds safe, and the possibility of having better evidence for conviction if a murder occurs in the prison population.
Government Agencies has strict rules against unauthorised software. (So no third party software is normally allowed) Yet they still have the same vulnerabilities. Try again Bill, obviously your yes men are giving you worse answers then the presidential nominees have!
They have a Parcel Scanner on page 9. They are selling rolling stands in a lot of 4 pallets. (So if I need 80 rolling stands at home I know where to go) Plus 2 pages of refrigerators, a Noritake China Set (with gold and platinum ring) And they have a lot of 19 microwaves. (Could have 2 in each room of the house) And Even a ping pong table! Lot 781 is 4 boxes of pagers. Considering they are selling on E-bay, you would think they could sell everything an item at a time. (then again, who would want to spend that kind of time filling out the paperwork.)
I am not a very big fan of Bush. And now I have had a chance to see several of Mr. Moores' movies. Each one is very well done. But people must remember that Mr. Moore is not making a documentary. These movies are less about emotionless facts, and more about getting the viewer emotional about something. When people feel emotional, they tend to do something about it. Take Nazi Germany. Many thousands of people participated in Kristallnacht. Why? Because they were emotionaly charged. I find Mr. Moores' movies to be very well scripted and very thought provoking, but we must remember that when the movie is over we need to ask more questions. What did he leave out that did not fit HIS picture of the world?
Most /.'rs are fairly intellegent and probably dont need to have the advantages of Folding@home preached to them.
As someone lower down the page mentioned, some people dedicate their time to solving the problems now, and other work to improve technology to make the next step.
The best Christmas WISH I have ever received was this year when my friend E-mailed and wished our entire game group all Natural 20's all year.
I bet Billy is sitting at his desk surfing ameritrade buying SCOX to keep the price high....
else could sum that situation up any better.
I would sign up, but with my luck somewhere in the fine print there would be a NDA I wouldn't notice. Could be SCO's little way of suckering more people into yet another lawsuit.
After spending 8 years in the Navy working on Aircraft I can see that you are unfortunitly uninformed.
The carrier is actually protected by the entire battle group and always has been, there is no aircraft that are designated to protect the carrier unless it comes under an attack that the rest of the battle group cannot fend off.
Some A/C are considered support A/C, these are rescue helicopters incase a pilot has to bail out, and then the tankers used to refuel, but those are limited and follow the rest of the attack group out almost to the target sight if needed, since they are armed also.
Construction was approved in 1994 ( so it was the Clinton Administration that said they would pay the $5 billion on it ) and construction was started in 1998. So all this money they spent on this was definitly not the Bush administration.
Actually, the carrier is well equiped on its own to defend itself against surface to surface missles. They have both ,Phalanx Close in Weapons System and the Sea Sparrow.
But they only need these if the rest of the Battle Group is not able to handle the job first.
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/ima-wep s9.html
I have to agree. Especially when you think about the fact that most technological achievments are a direct result of the Military spending. WD-40, gods gift to man! OH yeah, almost forgot about DARPANet