The article linked in this discussion doesn't include the details of Albert's previous offense. While multiple sources indicate that he had paid the fine, the system that indicated the outstanding warrant seems to be the problem.
He was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey, in 1998, pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution and obstructing justice, and was fined $1,574—which he was supposed to pay on a monthly basis. But by 2003 he had only paid $250, so after he failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later, but for some reason no one remembered to delete the bench warrant from New Jersey's statewide computer database.
My wife worked as a nurse at a detention center (inmates with 2 years or shorter sentences or those awaiting sentencing) briefly and is currently working at a state correctional facility. Anyone entering either facility type undergoes a thorough search to help keep contraband items out. Employees also go through a search (not quite as invasive as the inmates) as well. The search isn't meant to be "humiliating" but rather to protect all inmates and guards.
Given that Albert carries a letter of proving he paid the earlier fines, it seems that he must have run into a problem with the tracking system before. I don't have personal experience in this though so maybe someone can fill us in on how common it is to carry paperwork showing that past warrants were resolved. If I were Albert, I'd inquire with the courts as to why I was still listed in the warrant system.
You're view of food stamps is wrong. It's shows complete ignorance or the situation.
I've seen examples similar on the abuse of food stamps. Seeing people pay for soda with food stamps at a convenience store was probably the worst. They'd then turn around and buy a couple packs of cigarettes and a bottle of some alcoholic beverage with their own cash and go out into their new "modified" car. I'm sure there are people that are at both ends of the spectrum here. Ideally foodstamps would be more like WIC (Women Infant & Children) vouchers (wife and I were on that briefly between the time I graduated and found my first job) where only specific items could be purchased.
Turning off the light near the front door generally works. Having lived in a rental community, I've seen people put up a simple sign on the door that indicated they weren't participating. Remembering back to when I was a kid, if the light wasn't on, I was definitely skipping that house to make the best use of time gathering candy. If this guy is getting harrassed, likely he's "deserved" (at least in the eyes of the kids) it by actions through the rest of the year.
That's pretty much what my employer has done. Sites are categorized and when we attempt to visit a blocked site, we get a page with details of why the site isn't accessible and a link is included to make a request to change access. For some categories, we also get a link to override the block (have to login with our VPN IDs) or we get a link that basically says we acknowledge that we're visiting a site where caution needs to be used. I'm not sure what software is being used, but seems a reasonable approach for an employer to take to control bandwidth usage and site visits for non-business purposes.
I haven't seen a huge amount of billable rate information but 10x seems a bit high compared to those I have. The range I usually see falls in the 1.5 to 2.8 multiplier range for what a customer is billed versus employee salary (not including benefits). If you are seeing your work billed for 10x the amount, perhaps you are to blame for undervaluing your work.
I agree that it needs revised or removed. I just doubt that the first thought of the Nissan engineers was "how can we invade the privacy of our customers".
I can see where it could be abused, but maybe the original intent was to interact with traffic services so people could build better traffic reports (i.e. traffic on route X moving at 15 MPH, recommend alternative route Y moving at 45 MPH).
Even if not publicly known, as long as it is something that can't be used against you, it is fine. Saying you "view porn" online isn't that big of a deal for most people. Would I want my parents to know something like this? It wouldn't be my first choice, but if they found out, it isn't that big of an issue. I'm sure my parents wouldn't care to explain some of the "romance novels" my mother had or magazines my father had. The ability to blackmail someone with this sort of information is greatly dependent on the individual, but I'd guess that most people prefer it remain private, but wouldn't care much if it became public.
b
The greater concern here, as others mentioned, is the use of government systems or even employer owned systems. I doubt most people will accept funding people viewing sites like these. The viewing also opens up possible harassment lawsuits, which may end up further funded by the public.
The entire reason they pay you more is because it's still a lot less than they'd have to spend to provide you with those benefits.
Do you have any evidence showing that all contractors make less than fully employed equivalent employees? I'd be surprised if that was the case with more skilled IT folks.
You still take a risk working for a startup because they can and do fold at any time with little or no notice, leaving you without a job, and no way to continue paying for things like health insurance that you have to provide for yourself.
Anything in business is a risk. Even a contract wouldn't necessarily help if the company collapsed. Contractors need to set their rates appropriately to account for events like this. I tried to convince my father on this while he briefly tried to start up a small plumbing company. He had a hard time justifying in his own mind his labor rates above what he thought he would get paid if working as an employee at another company. He'd charge about $20/hr, way below what it cost him to run as a business. He wasn't factoring in travel, tools, insurance, taxes, etc... Needless to say, his company didn't last very long.
I don't see it as much of a difference than being an employee, aside from the fact that you cost the company less.
Contractors don't necessarily cost the company less. I worked as an on-site contract employee at a local government site. The county director wanted to pull a few of the contractors in to work as government employees (we were working on the 911 system conversion). When I compared my pay and benefits from being a contractor to what the government offered, I was better staying where I was employed. Add the overhead of the company i worked for and I'm sure the cost for me as a contractor was significantly better than a direct employee.
Public transportation isn't necessarily that much better in more densely populated areas. I live between Baltimore and DC and you'd think I would have plenty of options to get to/from work using public transportation. My transportation by self driving is about 25-30 minutes ( 14.3 miles) normally. I did a route plan exclusively using public transportation (did not include a taxi) and the shortest available trip was about 130 minutes and it would cost me about $4.60 one way. The fuel cost is certainly getting closer to what I'd pay for the commute (normally get about 32 MPG), without factoring in the rest of the cost of owning/operating a vehicle. The big problem is the amount of time. Not only do the trips involve more than double my current time, they add about 1 mile of walking and that time as well. All this for a trip that takes me toward DC. I use to work at a location west, so wasn't really going toward either city, and the trip was longer and more expensive still.
I've seen several examples of this, two affecting my me and my wife, one affecting a neighbor.
- Me: My Visa debit card had a few mysterious charges that were caught by the bank before I even had my next statement. I was inconvenienced by it since I was out and my card was declined at a restaurant. The bank cleared up all the charges, but I was fortunate to have some cash on hand to cover the bill when the card was denied because of the bank deactivating it.
- Wife: Similar situation, her card had a few small charges on it and one big charge from an auto repair shop over in Pakistan. We caught that one when the balance ended up way off. I recall it being about 4 smaller charges that could be accounted by both of us having access and the total for those being less than $25 total but the $1500 charge for the auto repair shop jumped out at us.
- Neighbor has the last name Smith and someone apparently with the same name (living about 10 miles away from us) opened several accounts/cards in their common name with the rest of her information but another address. My neighbor spent about 2 years trying to resolve the problem.
I don't think the parents examples are too extreme.
My parents both drive (since you brought the "car" into this) and my father does all the vehicle maintenance. My mother knows little other than that they do require maintenance, but she'd take it to a garage if my father isn't available. Expecting everyone to understand the basics is a bit optimistic when they can rely on others. Some people simply don't care enough to dig deeper into how to use their desktop, they just expect things to work. While it would be nice for everyone to learn the basics, I don't think that will happen. It would be nice though to not have some of my time for each family visit dedicated to desktop maintenance but I don't see that happening.
The Hospital IT department doesn't offer any iPhone compatible calendar tool
If I had to guess, the hospital probably offers some form of shared calendar through their email system, they may just not offer iPhone support. Given the asker states Most have an iPhone or similar, it is probably safe to say these are personal devices, which may be limited in what they can access (or be sent) from the hospital network (in addition to all the previously mentioned legal concerns about patient data and security).
not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft
Sort of doubt Google is the only company to be restrictive about data usage. One could look at the BING Maps Platform API License as restrictive too.
making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online
Not sure what to make of this statement since it lacks a lot of detail. Is Google doing anything to actively make it more expensive or have they simply streamlined the process for advertisers?
My wife worked at a number of restaurants where amazingly the claimed tips by servers always hit the 8% mark, nothing more, nothing less. The justification made by her coworkers was that some nights they make less than the 8% so averaging it out was "OK" to them. I always try to pay my meals & tip using a card, that way I'm fairly confident the tips are being captured accurately for both taxes and the shared tips (table bus staff, cooks, prep staff, etc... that may be due a share based on restaurant policy).
The following criminal penalties may be imposed for violations of the FCPA's anti-bribery
provisions: corporations and other business entities are subject to a fine of up to $2,000,000;
officers, directors, stockholders, employees, and agents are subject to a fine of up to
$100,000 and imprisonment for up to five years. Moreover, under the Alternative Fines Act,
these fines may be actually quite higher -- the actual fine may be up to twice the benefit that
the defendant sought to obtain by making the corrupt payment. You should also be aware that
fines imposed on individuals may not be paid by their employer or principal.
Additionally, companies can be prohibited from federal contracts, but this probably doesn't happen as often as it should (otherwise I'm sure companies would put in greater effort to avoid this).
I was thinking sort of the same thing. What if the left most lane on roads with more than 2 lanes (each direction) was reserved for trained cars? To enter the train, you get into the lane next to it and the car notifies the train that it wants to join. When ready to leave the train, you go through a disengage process and move over a lane. Basically just keep the one lane reserved as an expressway train lane.
On Jan. 20, 2014 — five years to the date after Bush left office — citizens will be able to request access to his administration's archives through the Freedom of Information Act.
What would be nice is to see all this information available through searching online, but as I understand it, request will need to go through the National Archives for processing:(.
If the fairtax on a new product is $1 And I make $100 and you make $10 what percentage of my income goes towards the tax as opposed to your income? See? only 1% of my income would go toward the fairtax while 10% of your income would go toward the fair tax on that same product. Not so fair after all is it?
What makes paying a percentage any more fair than paying a flat amount of tax? I'm not saying I'm for it, just challenging your line of thought. When I go out to the movies with a couple friends, the cost of movie tickets isn't based on my income. I don't see one friend paying $10, me paying $12, and my rich friend paying $18 for the tickets because of our income levels and a percentage based entertainment tax.
I'd guess that most of us would tend to prefer that richer people pay a larger share of their income as taxes, at least until we get to be part of that "rich people" bracket.
They don't require Exchange and Sharepoint, they require e-mail and collaboration suites respectively.
Why can't they list these as a requirement? If the customer already has a significant investment in these products, requiring new contracts to use existing technology, infrastructure, etc... is reasonable. Those responding to the proposal can certainly recommend alternatives but they'll need to justify the additional cost of migrating.
As an example, I'm working on a project that is using a fairly old content management solution. The customer needs some new functionality and a limited budget. As developers, we've been trying to convince the customer to get off the old software (even the vendor of that software doesn't have a copy that old) that has been "end of life" for a few years now. Unfortunately the customer has a very limited budget. Rather than covering the cost of upgrading the content management software version, all the customization updates to make it work with the new version, all the testing, all the documentation changes, etc..., the customer requires that any new work be built on the existing solution. In the case of DOI, maybe they are fairly limited with their budget (at least I hope they are) and want to make low cost changes where they can get the most impact.
My wife, who worked as a nurse at a detention center about 2 years ago, saw first hand some of the abuses of police. She'd handle intake assessments and some of the intakes were beaten pretty badly that she had to refuse admittance to jail until cleared by an ER doctor. The police would claim resisting arrest, but she knew that some were obviously well beyond what would be needed to arrest a person. By sending to the ER, she'd create documentation of the abuse and she'd upset the officers that would have to accompany that person while in the ER.
She now works at one of the state prisons and the guards there do film their own actions as protection against claims by inmates. My wife recently had an incident where an inmate was acting up (throwing feces and various other fluids at the guards and other prison staff...fortunately didn't get my wife). The guards then get the riot gear on and film their preparation (stating their roles) and their actions (restraining and clearing out the inmates cell) to ensure no abuse by the officers or false claims of abuse by the inmate. Since this was a psych patient, my wife participated with a doctor ordered sedative, requiring her to be taped as well.
You'd think officers would want their actions to be taped, if only to ensure they couldn't be accused of abusing their position. Since police seem to not want it, it really makes people question the real reason why they don't want it.
Slashdot Mirror
Alternate article listing Albert Florence previous offense
My wife worked as a nurse at a detention center (inmates with 2 years or shorter sentences or those awaiting sentencing) briefly and is currently working at a state correctional facility. Anyone entering either facility type undergoes a thorough search to help keep contraband items out. Employees also go through a search (not quite as invasive as the inmates) as well. The search isn't meant to be "humiliating" but rather to protect all inmates and guards.
Given that Albert carries a letter of proving he paid the earlier fines, it seems that he must have run into a problem with the tracking system before. I don't have personal experience in this though so maybe someone can fill us in on how common it is to carry paperwork showing that past warrants were resolved. If I were Albert, I'd inquire with the courts as to why I was still listed in the warrant system.
Well obviously they can't reply if they unplugged.
You're view of food stamps is wrong. It's shows complete ignorance or the situation.
I've seen examples similar on the abuse of food stamps. Seeing people pay for soda with food stamps at a convenience store was probably the worst. They'd then turn around and buy a couple packs of cigarettes and a bottle of some alcoholic beverage with their own cash and go out into their new "modified" car. I'm sure there are people that are at both ends of the spectrum here. Ideally foodstamps would be more like WIC (Women Infant & Children) vouchers (wife and I were on that briefly between the time I graduated and found my first job) where only specific items could be purchased.
Turning off the light near the front door generally works. Having lived in a rental community, I've seen people put up a simple sign on the door that indicated they weren't participating. Remembering back to when I was a kid, if the light wasn't on, I was definitely skipping that house to make the best use of time gathering candy. If this guy is getting harrassed, likely he's "deserved" (at least in the eyes of the kids) it by actions through the rest of the year.
That's pretty much what my employer has done. Sites are categorized and when we attempt to visit a blocked site, we get a page with details of why the site isn't accessible and a link is included to make a request to change access. For some categories, we also get a link to override the block (have to login with our VPN IDs) or we get a link that basically says we acknowledge that we're visiting a site where caution needs to be used. I'm not sure what software is being used, but seems a reasonable approach for an employer to take to control bandwidth usage and site visits for non-business purposes.
So your saying all we need is the Gatherer addon and we're set?
I haven't seen a huge amount of billable rate information but 10x seems a bit high compared to those I have. The range I usually see falls in the 1.5 to 2.8 multiplier range for what a customer is billed versus employee salary (not including benefits). If you are seeing your work billed for 10x the amount, perhaps you are to blame for undervaluing your work.
I can see it now, a motion gesture of "touch your elbows behind your back" to start any activity for the hot receptionist
Might want to read up on Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. Most information will generally become available within 12 years (with several exemptions listed in the link, primarily for security reasons).
I agree that it needs revised or removed. I just doubt that the first thought of the Nissan engineers was "how can we invade the privacy of our customers".
I can see where it could be abused, but maybe the original intent was to interact with traffic services so people could build better traffic reports (i.e. traffic on route X moving at 15 MPH, recommend alternative route Y moving at 45 MPH).
Even if not publicly known, as long as it is something that can't be used against you, it is fine. Saying you "view porn" online isn't that big of a deal for most people. Would I want my parents to know something like this? It wouldn't be my first choice, but if they found out, it isn't that big of an issue. I'm sure my parents wouldn't care to explain some of the "romance novels" my mother had or magazines my father had. The ability to blackmail someone with this sort of information is greatly dependent on the individual, but I'd guess that most people prefer it remain private, but wouldn't care much if it became public.
b The greater concern here, as others mentioned, is the use of government systems or even employer owned systems. I doubt most people will accept funding people viewing sites like these. The viewing also opens up possible harassment lawsuits, which may end up further funded by the public.
The entire reason they pay you more is because it's still a lot less than they'd have to spend to provide you with those benefits.
Do you have any evidence showing that all contractors make less than fully employed equivalent employees? I'd be surprised if that was the case with more skilled IT folks.
You still take a risk working for a startup because they can and do fold at any time with little or no notice, leaving you without a job, and no way to continue paying for things like health insurance that you have to provide for yourself.
Anything in business is a risk. Even a contract wouldn't necessarily help if the company collapsed. Contractors need to set their rates appropriately to account for events like this. I tried to convince my father on this while he briefly tried to start up a small plumbing company. He had a hard time justifying in his own mind his labor rates above what he thought he would get paid if working as an employee at another company. He'd charge about $20/hr, way below what it cost him to run as a business. He wasn't factoring in travel, tools, insurance, taxes, etc... Needless to say, his company didn't last very long.
I don't see it as much of a difference than being an employee, aside from the fact that you cost the company less.
Contractors don't necessarily cost the company less. I worked as an on-site contract employee at a local government site. The county director wanted to pull a few of the contractors in to work as government employees (we were working on the 911 system conversion). When I compared my pay and benefits from being a contractor to what the government offered, I was better staying where I was employed. Add the overhead of the company i worked for and I'm sure the cost for me as a contractor was significantly better than a direct employee.
Public transportation isn't necessarily that much better in more densely populated areas. I live between Baltimore and DC and you'd think I would have plenty of options to get to/from work using public transportation. My transportation by self driving is about 25-30 minutes ( 14.3 miles) normally. I did a route plan exclusively using public transportation (did not include a taxi) and the shortest available trip was about 130 minutes and it would cost me about $4.60 one way. The fuel cost is certainly getting closer to what I'd pay for the commute (normally get about 32 MPG), without factoring in the rest of the cost of owning/operating a vehicle. The big problem is the amount of time. Not only do the trips involve more than double my current time, they add about 1 mile of walking and that time as well. All this for a trip that takes me toward DC. I use to work at a location west, so wasn't really going toward either city, and the trip was longer and more expensive still.
I've seen several examples of this, two affecting my me and my wife, one affecting a neighbor. - Me: My Visa debit card had a few mysterious charges that were caught by the bank before I even had my next statement. I was inconvenienced by it since I was out and my card was declined at a restaurant. The bank cleared up all the charges, but I was fortunate to have some cash on hand to cover the bill when the card was denied because of the bank deactivating it.
- Wife: Similar situation, her card had a few small charges on it and one big charge from an auto repair shop over in Pakistan. We caught that one when the balance ended up way off. I recall it being about 4 smaller charges that could be accounted by both of us having access and the total for those being less than $25 total but the $1500 charge for the auto repair shop jumped out at us.
- Neighbor has the last name Smith and someone apparently with the same name (living about 10 miles away from us) opened several accounts/cards in their common name with the rest of her information but another address. My neighbor spent about 2 years trying to resolve the problem.
I don't think the parents examples are too extreme.
My parents both drive (since you brought the "car" into this) and my father does all the vehicle maintenance. My mother knows little other than that they do require maintenance, but she'd take it to a garage if my father isn't available. Expecting everyone to understand the basics is a bit optimistic when they can rely on others. Some people simply don't care enough to dig deeper into how to use their desktop, they just expect things to work. While it would be nice for everyone to learn the basics, I don't think that will happen. It would be nice though to not have some of my time for each family visit dedicated to desktop maintenance but I don't see that happening.
If I had to guess, the hospital probably offers some form of shared calendar through their email system, they may just not offer iPhone support. Given the asker states Most have an iPhone or similar, it is probably safe to say these are personal devices, which may be limited in what they can access (or be sent) from the hospital network (in addition to all the previously mentioned legal concerns about patient data and security).
not allowing advertisers to use their own data about customers garnered from Google on other sites, such as those owned by Microsoft
Sort of doubt Google is the only company to be restrictive about data usage. One could look at the BING Maps Platform API License as restrictive too.
making it expensive for potential competitors to Google to advertise online
Not sure what to make of this statement since it lacks a lot of detail. Is Google doing anything to actively make it more expensive or have they simply streamlined the process for advertisers?
My wife worked at a number of restaurants where amazingly the claimed tips by servers always hit the 8% mark, nothing more, nothing less. The justification made by her coworkers was that some nights they make less than the 8% so averaging it out was "OK" to them. I always try to pay my meals & tip using a card, that way I'm fairly confident the tips are being captured accurately for both taxes and the shared tips (table bus staff, cooks, prep staff, etc... that may be due a share based on restaurant policy).
but they can't throw anyone in jail for it
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
US DOJ Fraud: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Lay Persons Guide to FCPA
Specific section from the PDF:
Additionally, companies can be prohibited from federal contracts, but this probably doesn't happen as often as it should (otherwise I'm sure companies would put in greater effort to avoid this).
I was thinking sort of the same thing. What if the left most lane on roads with more than 2 lanes (each direction) was reserved for trained cars? To enter the train, you get into the lane next to it and the car notifies the train that it wants to join. When ready to leave the train, you go through a disengage process and move over a lane. Basically just keep the one lane reserved as an expressway train lane.
Electronic Info Dominates George W. Bush's Archive
What would be nice is to see all this information available through searching online, but as I understand it, request will need to go through the National Archives for processing :(.
What makes paying a percentage any more fair than paying a flat amount of tax? I'm not saying I'm for it, just challenging your line of thought. When I go out to the movies with a couple friends, the cost of movie tickets isn't based on my income. I don't see one friend paying $10, me paying $12, and my rich friend paying $18 for the tickets because of our income levels and a percentage based entertainment tax.
I'd guess that most of us would tend to prefer that richer people pay a larger share of their income as taxes, at least until we get to be part of that "rich people" bracket.
Why can't they list these as a requirement? If the customer already has a significant investment in these products, requiring new contracts to use existing technology, infrastructure, etc... is reasonable. Those responding to the proposal can certainly recommend alternatives but they'll need to justify the additional cost of migrating.
As an example, I'm working on a project that is using a fairly old content management solution. The customer needs some new functionality and a limited budget. As developers, we've been trying to convince the customer to get off the old software (even the vendor of that software doesn't have a copy that old) that has been "end of life" for a few years now. Unfortunately the customer has a very limited budget. Rather than covering the cost of upgrading the content management software version, all the customization updates to make it work with the new version, all the testing, all the documentation changes, etc..., the customer requires that any new work be built on the existing solution. In the case of DOI, maybe they are fairly limited with their budget (at least I hope they are) and want to make low cost changes where they can get the most impact.
My wife, who worked as a nurse at a detention center about 2 years ago, saw first hand some of the abuses of police. She'd handle intake assessments and some of the intakes were beaten pretty badly that she had to refuse admittance to jail until cleared by an ER doctor. The police would claim resisting arrest, but she knew that some were obviously well beyond what would be needed to arrest a person. By sending to the ER, she'd create documentation of the abuse and she'd upset the officers that would have to accompany that person while in the ER.
She now works at one of the state prisons and the guards there do film their own actions as protection against claims by inmates. My wife recently had an incident where an inmate was acting up (throwing feces and various other fluids at the guards and other prison staff...fortunately didn't get my wife). The guards then get the riot gear on and film their preparation (stating their roles) and their actions (restraining and clearing out the inmates cell) to ensure no abuse by the officers or false claims of abuse by the inmate. Since this was a psych patient, my wife participated with a doctor ordered sedative, requiring her to be taped as well.
You'd think officers would want their actions to be taped, if only to ensure they couldn't be accused of abusing their position. Since police seem to not want it, it really makes people question the real reason why they don't want it.