Do you think there are any grounds in which the state should be allowed to meddle with your business dealings? e.g. safety at work, pay levels, compulsory sterilisation of employes?
Because people like to assume the worst of others, and in the absence of information (or unwillingness to research something) will confect any number of factoids that are entirely supportive of how they personally view the world.
I'm not excluding the possibility that the this assumed malfeasance/incompetence is due to her being female. Dumb bitch done got herself fired - must be her fault, hur hur.
So you would be perfectly okay with a coworker taking off at a critical time and without notice on sick leave - forcing you and those around you to pick up the slack while actually going on a trip somewhere to play at the beach?
What if you found out about this but had no proof? What if you had proof but were not legally allowed to reveal it?
What if this happened several times? Always the same MO - at the worst possible time when all hands were needed? Again, no usable proof - except that you could see the proof right there on Facebook, taunting you.
And why do you people feel the need to speculate and run with the consequences of an entirely imaginary and one-sided speculation? Be honest. Say that you think she was slacking and is to blame for her sacking. Why you'd think that, I don't know? I've no opinion either way, but I do feel that the company either already has sufficient evidence that she was slacking off, or they don't. I don't think they should be allowed this intrusion in to her banking details and her Facebook account.
Running through "what if" scenarios is a useful technique in argumentation, but not if it's just one side and one possibility that you're running with.
What if she's an MI6 agent, and the company are not allowed to disclose this, so they want to use her Facebook data in the hope of showing that whatever she was doing at the time was not legitimate sick leave? What if the company is covering up the identity of the the shooter on the grassy knoll? What if she's just slut who was out fucking when she should have been working?
So it sounds like there is more to the story than what we're told. Perhaps she had a cushy job doing nothing, and getting paid a very good amount? People will fight to keep that. But companies will fight against it, because it's wastage.
Or maybe her boss made sexual advances to her, which she refused? But companies will fight against it, because it's not sexy
Or she considers it incredibly unfair that she was dismissed from a job she enjoyed, and is not willing to simply walk away and let them get away with it. Companies will fight against it, because it costs them money.
Or she's an undercover MI6 advisor, and being in that company is a critical part of her cover? Or she left a box of Tic Tacs in her office desk, and wanted to go back to get them? Companies will fight against it, because Bond rarely does his job without something getting blown to pieces.
Be honest. Don't go down the "perhaps there's more to this..." route to add some semblance of legitimacy to your patently self-serving speculation. It'd be less disingenuous if you simply came out and said that you feel she is doing this because of x. I agree, there may be more to this, so what will I do? I'll research it, and maybe I'll find some additional background for this story. What I won't do is to pull stuff out of my arse.
Don't worry, maybe they will folow the example of the Pilgrim Fathers, who went to America equipped only with several hundred copies of the Bible (but not a single book on agriculture) to help them. The only qualification to go was that they shared some religious issues which today seem not of the slightest importance, and the hope that by resettling in the middle of nowhere their children could not be "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses". Presumably these volunteers are the present day equivalent nutters.
Fortunately this time they won't have any native peoples to christianise or kill. It'll be just them in a small capsule, muttering bronze age incantations to Jesus and the sky goblins, asking that the merciful Lord grant them a functioning CO2 scrubber.
Yeah, it does seem odd. Certainly I think Obama squandered the initial wave of support he had. Seeing things from the outside, and knowing he can't just pull levers to change whatever he wants, I remain largely disappointed by his administration. Some good stuff done, but right now he seems to be lurching well in to becoming president of an Orwellian nightmare.
I sometimes get the impression that a president, or a leader in general, serves as a lightning rod for criticism. Kind of like building shitty products, and instead of fixing them, creating a complaints department to be yelled at.
What do you do with hotels that requires you to actually study up on reviews beforehand?
It's the same reason why all products and services in the world are not tuned exclusively to the needs of a Slashdot user named adolf. Everyone is not you. In fact everyone is particularly not you, as you seem to be a bit of an edge case. You leave your unpacked luggage in the car? What do you do then? Every day pop down to the car, in a towel, and carefully retrieve the day's clothing without unpacking?
I spend around a 5th of each year in hotel rooms, and can tell you that there's a lot to be said for having a decent and self-contained place to come to at the end of a rough day. I don't want to lug my laptop to a local bar, or go hunting around the neighbourhood for breakfast at 6am. I couldn't give a shit about a pool or weights room, but I do want a decent bar with at least some kind of bistro. In short, I want a hotel room that has a higher standard of quality and functionality than a low security prison cell.
A purchase that'll be, at an absolute minimum, tens of thousands of pounds and likely to have long-term consequences does not strike me as being someone one rushes through to avoid having to read small print.
Alex Jones needs to improve his signal to noise ratio. He tosses around so many conspiracy claims that I'd more surprised if he never got anything right.
So France has its gendarmerie, and the United States has the Coast Guard. Although a military organisation, the Coast Guard has scope to enforce Federal laws against civilians. How long before the DHS sends military police out in to the streets to enforce littering statutes, sorta?
Thinking back, this analogy will hopefully not be prescient.
WoW was initially released in the last 10 years, and I'd argue their expansions have been pretty good in adding new mechanics and content. I'd concede that WoW as a platform is no spring chicken.
Agreed as well on the D3 business. Requiring a persistent Internet connection, and having RMT, ensure that D2 is the last installment I'll buy. Feeling a bit burnt by Blizzard, so when I'm finally done with WoW I'm thinking it's the last title I'll play.
Opera is faster because of the compression they do via their servers. Also, it's less likely to crash in low memory situations, and less reloading when moving between tabs. I use it mainly when going on a wiki expedition.
Yeah, it seems to work that way in most applications. Opera has their own weird selection/copying mechanism, so pressing and holding doesn't reveal the URL. Very odd.
I agree than punishment should be weighted by type of crime and severity. Whether one would steal a bottle of coke or a flat screen TV, it's theft. In the sense of sentencing, having low aspirations shouldn't excuse the core act.
There has to obviously be an exception to the rule to allow for exigent circumstances, like when someone is kidnapped or they are trying to locate an active shooter.
It should be very specific and justified, which is something that needs to be permissible. What needs to go away are the fishing expeditions and general riffling through personal data for persons where there is no probable cause. Probable cause shouldn't even require a warrant if there's an immediate threat. However it should only apply when there are criminal charges in mind, and a suspect. i.e. tracking a kidnap victims cellphone is demonstrably different to pulling phone location for people without reasonable grounds to consider criminal charges against these particular people.
Privacy expectations aside, it's not too difficult to build up a solid list of criteria under which it would be reasonable to pry. For one, firemen don't get charged with breaking and entering when they kick down a door to search a burning house. It's quite clear though that this doesn't mean fireman can go kick down the door of any given house without reason to suspect a fire or similar emergency within their remit.
Yeah, and an important step. What we saw in the UK, regarding these "anti-terrorist" data gathering exercises was local police and government using them at the drop of a hat. At least removing them from the equation fixes part of the problem, and hopefully prevents New Jersey police from tackling car insurance cases by using the same tools applied to international terrorists.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think there are any grounds in which the state should be allowed to meddle with your business dealings? e.g. safety at work, pay levels, compulsory sterilisation of employes?
I'll do it for $20. I'll put the name in a database, and will print a handsome certificate of ownership.
Because people like to assume the worst of others, and in the absence of information (or unwillingness to research something) will confect any number of factoids that are entirely supportive of how they personally view the world.
I'm not excluding the possibility that the this assumed malfeasance/incompetence is due to her being female. Dumb bitch done got herself fired - must be her fault, hur hur.
So you would be perfectly okay with a coworker taking off at a critical time and without notice on sick leave - forcing you and those around you to pick up the slack while actually going on a trip somewhere to play at the beach?
What if you found out about this but had no proof? What if you had proof but were not legally allowed to reveal it?
What if this happened several times? Always the same MO - at the worst possible time when all hands were needed? Again, no usable proof - except that you could see the proof right there on Facebook, taunting you.
And why do you people feel the need to speculate and run with the consequences of an entirely imaginary and one-sided speculation? Be honest. Say that you think she was slacking and is to blame for her sacking. Why you'd think that, I don't know? I've no opinion either way, but I do feel that the company either already has sufficient evidence that she was slacking off, or they don't. I don't think they should be allowed this intrusion in to her banking details and her Facebook account.
Running through "what if" scenarios is a useful technique in argumentation, but not if it's just one side and one possibility that you're running with.
What if she's an MI6 agent, and the company are not allowed to disclose this, so they want to use her Facebook data in the hope of showing that whatever she was doing at the time was not legitimate sick leave? What if the company is covering up the identity of the the shooter on the grassy knoll? What if she's just slut who was out fucking when she should have been working?
So it sounds like there is more to the story than what we're told. Perhaps she had a cushy job doing nothing, and getting paid a very good amount? People will fight to keep that. But companies will fight against it, because it's wastage.
Or maybe her boss made sexual advances to her, which she refused? But companies will fight against it, because it's not sexy
Or she considers it incredibly unfair that she was dismissed from a job she enjoyed, and is not willing to simply walk away and let them get away with it. Companies will fight against it, because it costs them money.
Or she's an undercover MI6 advisor, and being in that company is a critical part of her cover? Or she left a box of Tic Tacs in her office desk, and wanted to go back to get them? Companies will fight against it, because Bond rarely does his job without something getting blown to pieces.
Be honest. Don't go down the "perhaps there's more to this..." route to add some semblance of legitimacy to your patently self-serving speculation. It'd be less disingenuous if you simply came out and said that you feel she is doing this because of x. I agree, there may be more to this, so what will I do? I'll research it, and maybe I'll find some additional background for this story. What I won't do is to pull stuff out of my arse.
Don't worry, maybe they will folow the example of the Pilgrim Fathers, who went to America equipped only with several hundred copies of the Bible (but not a single book on agriculture) to help them. The only qualification to go was that they shared some religious issues which today seem not of the slightest importance, and the hope that by resettling in the middle of nowhere their children could not be "drawn away by evil examples into extravagance and dangerous courses". Presumably these volunteers are the present day equivalent nutters.
Fortunately this time they won't have any native peoples to christianise or kill. It'll be just them in a small capsule, muttering bronze age incantations to Jesus and the sky goblins, asking that the merciful Lord grant them a functioning CO2 scrubber.
Yeah, it does seem odd. Certainly I think Obama squandered the initial wave of support he had. Seeing things from the outside, and knowing he can't just pull levers to change whatever he wants, I remain largely disappointed by his administration. Some good stuff done, but right now he seems to be lurching well in to becoming president of an Orwellian nightmare.
I sometimes get the impression that a president, or a leader in general, serves as a lightning rod for criticism. Kind of like building shitty products, and instead of fixing them, creating a complaints department to be yelled at.
Masterfully done, sir.
A solitary figure in 10 Downing Street wonders why he didn't think of this?
For the children! For the women! For decency! For Czar Putin!
couldn't care less
Jesus H Christ! Someone actually got this right, instead of writing "I could care less", or it's bastard cousin "I could give a damn".
Sorry to interrupt. Just needed to get that out.
What do you do with hotels that requires you to actually study up on reviews beforehand?
It's the same reason why all products and services in the world are not tuned exclusively to the needs of a Slashdot user named adolf. Everyone is not you. In fact everyone is particularly not you, as you seem to be a bit of an edge case. You leave your unpacked luggage in the car? What do you do then? Every day pop down to the car, in a towel, and carefully retrieve the day's clothing without unpacking?
I spend around a 5th of each year in hotel rooms, and can tell you that there's a lot to be said for having a decent and self-contained place to come to at the end of a rough day. I don't want to lug my laptop to a local bar, or go hunting around the neighbourhood for breakfast at 6am. I couldn't give a shit about a pool or weights room, but I do want a decent bar with at least some kind of bistro. In short, I want a hotel room that has a higher standard of quality and functionality than a low security prison cell.
Are you impulse buying houses?
A purchase that'll be, at an absolute minimum, tens of thousands of pounds and likely to have long-term consequences does not strike me as being someone one rushes through to avoid having to read small print.
Alex Jones needs to improve his signal to noise ratio. He tosses around so many conspiracy claims that I'd more surprised if he never got anything right.
And it's a non sequitur.
So France has its gendarmerie, and the United States has the Coast Guard. Although a military organisation, the Coast Guard has scope to enforce Federal laws against civilians. How long before the DHS sends military police out in to the streets to enforce littering statutes, sorta?
Thinking back, this analogy will hopefully not be prescient.
WoW was initially released in the last 10 years, and I'd argue their expansions have been pretty good in adding new mechanics and content. I'd concede that WoW as a platform is no spring chicken.
Agreed as well on the D3 business. Requiring a persistent Internet connection, and having RMT, ensure that D2 is the last installment I'll buy. Feeling a bit burnt by Blizzard, so when I'm finally done with WoW I'm thinking it's the last title I'll play.
You're okay, for a cracker.
That I, like you, should have used sarcasm tags?
Yeah, and SOME black women are welfare queens. What's your point?
It's a scientific fact that an 80s cop or horror film must feature boobs.
Opera is faster because of the compression they do via their servers. Also, it's less likely to crash in low memory situations, and less reloading when moving between tabs. I use it mainly when going on a wiki expedition.
Yeah, it seems to work that way in most applications. Opera has their own weird selection/copying mechanism, so pressing and holding doesn't reveal the URL. Very odd.
Wasn't there $8000 up for grabs here?
I agree than punishment should be weighted by type of crime and severity. Whether one would steal a bottle of coke or a flat screen TV, it's theft. In the sense of sentencing, having low aspirations shouldn't excuse the core act.
There has to obviously be an exception to the rule to allow for exigent circumstances, like when someone is kidnapped or they are trying to locate an active shooter.
Definitely - this comes down to probable cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
It should be very specific and justified, which is something that needs to be permissible. What needs to go away are the fishing expeditions and general riffling through personal data for persons where there is no probable cause. Probable cause shouldn't even require a warrant if there's an immediate threat. However it should only apply when there are criminal charges in mind, and a suspect. i.e. tracking a kidnap victims cellphone is demonstrably different to pulling phone location for people without reasonable grounds to consider criminal charges against these particular people.
Privacy expectations aside, it's not too difficult to build up a solid list of criteria under which it would be reasonable to pry. For one, firemen don't get charged with breaking and entering when they kick down a door to search a burning house. It's quite clear though that this doesn't mean fireman can go kick down the door of any given house without reason to suspect a fire or similar emergency within their remit.
This ruling is for the police, not the NSA.
Yeah, and an important step. What we saw in the UK, regarding these "anti-terrorist" data gathering exercises was local police and government using them at the drop of a hat. At least removing them from the equation fixes part of the problem, and hopefully prevents New Jersey police from tackling car insurance cases by using the same tools applied to international terrorists.