When you can't be arsed to write a config file parser and you decide to just use a blob of serialised data as your config, you're making a mess for everyone who uses your software. That said, lots of people seem to be doing it. My pet gripe at the moment is RabbitMQ, but there are plenty of others (sendmail definitely, nginx maybe).
He'd be a whole load more impressive if he hadn't shit all over us for decades before turning 'nice'. I dread to think of the number of companies that went out of business as a result of his company's actions.
That's a good point - there's actually an environmental benefit to shorter copyright terms on designs (not so easily argued on paper works).
I wonder if our European cousins have anything to say about all of this. They recently enacted laws to save us Brits 27 pounds each per year, so would appear to be in the financial territory for new desks as well. They might have a final flick of their tail before we serve notice on them.
On balance though, fixing your own desk isn't really an issue (even if in theory it is). Making the design for the failed part available will be (which I'd say is the real loss here), as indeed will making replacement parts for other people. Stuff for your own consumption is likely to be allowed if you went to court, but anything else now won't be. However, I'm left wondering if making the replacement part slightly differently from the original might be sufficient to side-step the whole thing (that's a legal gamble I'd prefer not to have to take though).
Actually, I have a 'smart' thermostat. I asked a bunch of companies what would happen to their device if their servers stopped working. Nest does almost nothing without the 'cloud'. Hive (via British Gas) never gave me a straight answer. I asked repeatedly, but all they'd say is that I needn't worry, they're not going anywhere and so the servers would always be there. AFAIK, it turns into an ordinary bi-metalic strip type thermostat if there's no cloud.
I ended up with a Heat Genius system because it carries on working (albeit without remote access). It's got a 'cloud' connection, but it's optional. I can either use uPNP, or else I have to open up firewall ports to let the cloud (and support) in. If I don't do so, then it all just works LAN-only.
The system is a hub (with a raspberry pi in it, I believe), and some z-wave radiator valves, UFH valve switches and a few other bits. In theory they're all hackable, although I seriously doubt you could do much that way - the comms between hub and device isn't really up to it. If the actual hub box got p0wned, it'd be a pain in the arse (about £200 to replace, although I'd probably argue enough to get one for free). In the interim period, it's possible to turn it off and let each of the radiator valves work manually (they have some little buttons that set the target temperature). I don't think our underfloor would work at all though.
So... why bother with any of this? Well, when it's working properly, it's actually very good at controlling the temperature in the house. It uses some fancy logic to just about heat the room to the target temperature without over-shooting it. It also maintains temperature very well. My memory of physics suggests this should be cheaper to run than more traditional setups (although I don't have any decent facts either way). If I'm honest, it's got quite a few rough edges, and some annoying bugs. Having said that, I can't fault their support, so getting to the bottom of what's going on pretty quickly.
The amount of personal investment you have in a twitter account is very low. As such, being banned isn't a big deal - just create a new account and go be a dick all over again.
Contrast this to (say) Facebook or Linkedin. There, your network is why you have the account. If you account gets blocked, you've somehow go to re-establish your network. Your close friends are probably easy enough, but those arms-length people that might be useful one day probably won't bother to re-connect with you. As such, losing your FB/Linked in account is a greater loss than on twitter.
If twitter can build in some features that make your account personally valuable (and a new account less valuable), then they might find a way around the problem they face far more than any other 'social network'. I'm no expert, but nothing I can think of fits in with the 'free speech' thing Twitter is all about. Hopefully for them, they've got some better brains than mine on the case.
Interesting... Here in the UK, a lot of rapid-build places (like multi-storey apartment blocks and the like) are being clad in an outer layer of something weatherproof, behind that goes a thick layer of solid insulation (like Kingspan, Celotex etc) which has a sort of foil layer on both sides (to stop moisture condensing in the insulation). It's not all electrically connected, nor earthed, but it massively impedes radio (to the point that your old FM radio probably won't work very well in such places, unless near a window). Phones work to some extent, but only so long as you're near a cell tower and you have a reasonably decent phone (given most are built in high-density areas, it's likely both will be true).
So... given that Canada is (in many places) colder than the UK, what are you doing for insulation?
Indeed - all that fraud just gets passed on to the vendor/retailer. Unfortunately, those retailers have absolutely no way to measure the 'fraudiness' of a card transaction, so can't decide to decline something on their own - they have to ask the Bank to make that choice for them. When the bank makes the wrong choice, the retailer pays.
In the UK we have some (relatively new) financial industry rules that include 'treating the customer fairly'. I wonder how long it will be before some credit card banks get held to account on that basis, but until then, banks control everything and pay for nothing.
Please rank the candidates from 1 to 10 (10 being the best):
Fred -> 1 Jim -> 1 Bob -> 1 None of the above -> 10
I'd love to see that. Here in the UK we talked about proportional representation, but it got rejected (maybe because of a terrible PR campaign by the politicians). The argument against it is that you then have a house where nothing gets done. FPTP means someone's got a majority, and so (in theory) can whip their members to vote a certain way to get things done.
I guess part of the problem is you can't vote to "sort of go to war" - you're either in or out, thus a 'binary' house actually lends itself quite well to that sort of decision making. If we could have proposed legislation that was something like "put up taxes for the rich by X%, where "X" was decided by the collective of the house, then proportional representation (in whatever form it takes) would work considerably better.
There's nothing here to say it has to be 'online' as in you sitting on your sofa at home in yesterdays underpants. Given the authentication required, it could still be you have to physically go somewhere (perhaps not the local court buildings though, maybe a post office or somewhere) and sit in a booth an have a video conference (presumably after showing someone some ID or something). A far lower standard to meet than currently, but still more than nothing.
Honestly, I can't see why such a system would be bad. Any slack time in the judiciary means they can sit on court cases quickly anywhere in the country without traveling, and you and I get to claim things that should be claimed without undue fear of any costs involved. As much as I sympathise with the idea that the best outcome is the the defendant to fail to turn up, or to turn up under-prepared, but if that's the crux of your case, then perhaps it needs some looking it.
My guess would be that Putin thinks Trump will fuck up the US more than Clinton will. A fucked up US is weaker on the world stage, and thus Russia appears stronger.
Hmm... let's say there's an overproduction of apples right now. In an ideal world, we'd all receive an apple or two for free each week until the surplus was gone.
However, it's hard to electronically transfer apples, so we use money instead. It means that apple-addicts can buy extra apples, and fruit-haters can buy nuts instead. Thus, people have a choice, the trade-off being that it doesn't guarantee the redistribution of apples (and so is inefficient).
I'm okay with saying I have no imagination though, so I'm sure there are better ideas that apparently the politicians haven't been told about yet.
Can you not get a router that does this for you, then? Or get one of those proxies that does it, or whatever? That's opt-in, and best of all, you get to choose what is blocked and what is not (unlike Sky customers), so you get to keep your rights.
I think the primary issue with this service is that you can't control (to any useful degree) what is, or is not blocked. I'm not a Sky customer, but I seriously doubt you'd be able to phone them up and say "I'd like your filter, but please allow *.playboy.com" (I'd be interested to hear if you can do such a thing, and what hoops you have to jump through to do it though).
Herein lies the problem - if you turn the filter on, you're letting $provider decide what you can/can't see. If you turn it off, you're (potentially) seen as being a paedo/perv/bad parent because "the only reason anyone turns the filter off is because they're up to no good". More conflation, but $provider's view of what's "bad" doesn't necessarily match up with yours, and whilst you and they might agree that goatse is "bad" you might not agree about some of the 'greyer areas'. And you can bet that sometime soon the government *will* ask at least one ISP who's turned off the filter.
Now if an ISP did have (and imposed) a 'cloud' hosted filter that you can control yourself (down to per-site/per-page), then it could be considerably less controversial (although probably a support headache for them). However, you can bet that the Daily Mail (et al) would leap upon the first case of a kid looking at playboy.com because the account holder turned it off 3 years ago and forgot to turn it back on again.
We have something similar in the UK, except the more usual term is 1 month (although 3 for "senior" positions, or for long-standing employees is pretty common now too). I think we have three ways to get out of a company, rather than just two (in practice) across most of America.
1) You resign. You normally work 4 weeks more, but employer may let you go early, or may just pay you while you sit at home. Either way, you get paid 4 weeks money, and are bound by your contract (so not available to work elsewhere) for that time.
2) You're "let go". The company sits you down and tells you they no longer want you. You get paid 4 weeks (or more, if the employer want to, or has precedence of doing so in the recent past), but usually are released from your contract, so free to work elsewhere immediately. Quite often, the terms of your severance pay are secret (by contract). You'll often be told to leave the building immediately, but in theory it's amicable, so unlikely you'll see security (although see next point).
3) You're fired. You did something so wrong that they can prove it (in most cases, it's got to be illegal, but not always). You're out immediately, no money beyond the end of the day, no bounds of contract. You're likely to be told to leave the office immediately, although it's not often you get marched out by security (except in american, or american-wannabe companies).
The third option is actually pretty rare. Even if your a complete baffoon, they'll probably just use option 2 because there's no need to prove anything, and its cheaper to pay someone off than have the law suits.
It's rare, but it happens that someone resigns (option 1), and just doesn't show up for work from then on. This is technically breach of contract, and so technically they could come after you legally (for loss of earnings/reputation or whatever). However, I've never heard it go that far - they just don't pay you the 4 weeks and that's about it. Don't expect your former cow-orkers to meet up for a beer though, as you've probably pissed them off.
References are a funny thing here though. You're not allowed to say anything bad about someone (I don't think you're even allowed to say you fired them for gross misconduct or something). So lots of HR departments only send out "he worked here between X date and Y date as a sysadmin in the production ops department". Literally nothing else. 99% pointless, so some recruiters/employers will look for linkedin contacts or whatever that might say more. They also ask for 'voluntary' references, in which case the candidate can nominate a specific person who'll reply from the company email, or on a company letter head or whatever.
Lastly, we have contractors - usually contractors can be hired and fired with just the rest of the day as notice period (sometimes not even that much). It's in the contract, it's what you both agree to before starting work (if you don't like it, become a permanent employee). I was once on a contract that has a 1 month notice period, but that quickly got changed next time they renewed because they'd hired someone who wasn't legally allowed to work in the UK, and still had to pay the notice period to get them out (yeah, that was a government supplier - not the brightest). Many contractors won't even leave their own pen on the desk when they go home in case they get 'let go' overnight and not allowed in next day (although actually, not many employers would deny you access to your stuff, it could easily be a whole world of hassle to get it back).
So far, I'm pleased to say I've only ever used option 1 or 2. Option 2 was used on me when the company closed down so I was made redundant. Even the shittiest place I ever worked got me until they said it was okay to leave (before my notice period was fully complete). I figure there's got to be something really, really bad that puts you in some sort of jeopardy before you should welch out on your notice period. If you've stuck it out for a year or whatever up until then, what's a few more weeks gonn
No amount of home-made youtube (even expensively made) is going to stop a fan wanting to see actual, official films (so long as said films are half way decent). One could argue that parodies and even fan fiction actually increase the pool of potential film watchers, but, if that's too tenuous for the suits, then just make good films and the fans will go see them.
Keep making crap films with thin plot, too much CGI and that look very similar to the other films in the series or genre, and well, maybe they won't sell quite so well. Again, no amount of fan-fiction (or lack thereof) is going to change that. It's not like we all have a quota of hours of Trek we must see each year and just "fill up" on youtube and so decide not to bother with the official stuff.
I was wondering how these "millions" might be made. I had to RTFA to find out that every time a lyric is displayed, someone gets paid.
So it seems simply typing something like "streets have no name" into Google will mean some twat who wears sunglasses indoors when it's not sunny gets paid some money. I guess it starts with LyricFinder, who collect a small amount from Google. They take their cut and pass on a small amount to , who takes their cut and passes on a small amount to . So it goes on, several dozen times until some "poor and starving" artist gets their money. What we know for sure is that only the rich artists will get anything - the actually poor and starving ones won't have the commercial links to actually get paid, and so the middlemen will just soak up that payment "on their behalf".
I'm wondering what Google's revenue stream is here. They tend to get paid per-click, so aren't getting paid for the views that they have to pay to serve. Hmm...
...and if you go for the community mailbox thing, like some Canadian places, then you could actually just use a truck. The truck has the mailboxes in the side of it, it drives to the right place, parks for a day or two then drives back for refilling.
> Isn't it sad that such a poor (and polluted) country like the USA devotes money to put garbage into space?
FTFY
The USA has the largest economy, but still has people living on the streets, lots of mental health issues, many people so overweight as to be dangerous, more people incarcerated per capita than Durkadurkastan, has horrendous crime stats, lots of unemployment, etc etc. Should the US have fixed all those things before going into space?
And yet you've had successive governments that arguably don't represent The People, and are bought and paid for by corporations. Those governments have meant you've fought legally dubious wars, tortured people and have a drone programme that is highly dubious morally and legally. Yet no one is trying to overthrow said governments, and the threat of violence doesn't seem to be dissuading proper nut jobs from applying for the position of President.
So... are your rights actually working as you seem to think they should be? I suspect either you need to pull out your guns on a lot more occasions or accept that you need to put them away more permanently.
I'm sure I too will get a lot of "no, more guns is the solution!" for this, but how about a 'happy medium' that's vaguely possible without having to disarm a heavily armed, and incredibly partisan nation?
One such proposition (off the top of my head) is to make it illegal to have any sort of firearm anywhere in public. Thus, you can keep one at home, and shoot a burglar (if he doesn't find it and shoot you first, as I believe is the statistic). Any suggestion you happen to have a gun in your clothes, or the back of your car means a cop can check and immediately arrest you if he finds one.
I appreciate that if you're a nut, you could simply load up your car with guns and drive to your intended target in the hope you won't get stopped (as you probably won't), but if you're seen by your neighbours, or by people seeing you unload then you're (again) clearly breaking the law and (in theory at least) can be reported and dealt with by the cops. I realise that in practice there's a good chance none of this will happen, but it 'ups the ante' a bit, and means you need to think about concealment at least a little bit. In some sense, this puts guns into a similar bracket as bombs - if you saw someone with something that looked like a bomb, you'd probably call the cops, and they'd (almost certainly) arrest them (or shoot then, again, as I'm told it goes more often than not).
Going further (presumably while these laws settle in), the doorman at the club (and/or) the barman, the owner, whomever, can apply for suitable licenses to have guns on the premises and be allowed to use them (presumably in certain circumstances). Note, these guns don't leave the premises, and the doorman can't go for a walk around the block while carrying. Licenses obviously only granted to people who pass psych tests or whatever, and a licensed premises needs to say so with a sign on the door (or whatever). If someone pulls a gun inside the club, then again, it's pretty obvious who's the bad guy and who's not.
I'm happy to concede this isn't perfect and won't stop everyone/everything. Ultimately, nothing will guarantee 100% safety, but by making a 'stigma' for having guns in public (even concealed) at least means there's a lot more chances to spot the nut on his way to a shooting. If you happen to be off to overthrow the government, then encountering the police on the way is probably already something you've thought of, so your 2nd amendment rights are (approximately) preserved.
This all seems like the 'common sense' gun control. I'm sure there are a thousand reasons why it won't work, but it doesn't seem to me like such a terrible hardship for the ordinary people to leave their guns at home when they go to the shops, and if it helps even a little bit, it seems like it's probably worth it.
I heard they need developer resource to fully realise their strategic aims in this field. A statement reads:
...to connect consumers with specialised, tailored content delivered via a customised, multi-channel, multi-platform solution that will enable greater engagement and consumption, and open additional revenue channels which can be leveraged to further strengthen our position in our chosen markets.
Had that abundance of caution extended to not giving humans and livestock antibiotics that they didn't need, then we'd probably have another 20 years to develop some new antibiotics.
My VirnetX phone has literally been useless since Apple put Facetime on their phones. I haven't had a single video call since that day. I was gonna switch to an Apple or maybe an Android, but now I'm sure VirnetX will re-start development of an upgrade phone and I'll be back on easy streets once again.
Slashdot Mirror
When you can't be arsed to write a config file parser and you decide to just use a blob of serialised data as your config, you're making a mess for everyone who uses your software. That said, lots of people seem to be doing it. My pet gripe at the moment is RabbitMQ, but there are plenty of others (sendmail definitely, nginx maybe).
He'd be a whole load more impressive if he hadn't shit all over us for decades before turning 'nice'. I dread to think of the number of companies that went out of business as a result of his company's actions.
That's a good point - there's actually an environmental benefit to shorter copyright terms on designs (not so easily argued on paper works).
I wonder if our European cousins have anything to say about all of this. They recently enacted laws to save us Brits 27 pounds each per year, so would appear to be in the financial territory for new desks as well. They might have a final flick of their tail before we serve notice on them.
On balance though, fixing your own desk isn't really an issue (even if in theory it is). Making the design for the failed part available will be (which I'd say is the real loss here), as indeed will making replacement parts for other people. Stuff for your own consumption is likely to be allowed if you went to court, but anything else now won't be. However, I'm left wondering if making the replacement part slightly differently from the original might be sufficient to side-step the whole thing (that's a legal gamble I'd prefer not to have to take though).
Actually, I have a 'smart' thermostat. I asked a bunch of companies what would happen to their device if their servers stopped working. Nest does almost nothing without the 'cloud'. Hive (via British Gas) never gave me a straight answer. I asked repeatedly, but all they'd say is that I needn't worry, they're not going anywhere and so the servers would always be there. AFAIK, it turns into an ordinary bi-metalic strip type thermostat if there's no cloud.
I ended up with a Heat Genius system because it carries on working (albeit without remote access). It's got a 'cloud' connection, but it's optional. I can either use uPNP, or else I have to open up firewall ports to let the cloud (and support) in. If I don't do so, then it all just works LAN-only.
The system is a hub (with a raspberry pi in it, I believe), and some z-wave radiator valves, UFH valve switches and a few other bits. In theory they're all hackable, although I seriously doubt you could do much that way - the comms between hub and device isn't really up to it. If the actual hub box got p0wned, it'd be a pain in the arse (about £200 to replace, although I'd probably argue enough to get one for free). In the interim period, it's possible to turn it off and let each of the radiator valves work manually (they have some little buttons that set the target temperature). I don't think our underfloor would work at all though.
So... why bother with any of this? Well, when it's working properly, it's actually very good at controlling the temperature in the house. It uses some fancy logic to just about heat the room to the target temperature without over-shooting it. It also maintains temperature very well. My memory of physics suggests this should be cheaper to run than more traditional setups (although I don't have any decent facts either way). If I'm honest, it's got quite a few rough edges, and some annoying bugs. Having said that, I can't fault their support, so getting to the bottom of what's going on pretty quickly.
The amount of personal investment you have in a twitter account is very low. As such, being banned isn't a big deal - just create a new account and go be a dick all over again.
Contrast this to (say) Facebook or Linkedin. There, your network is why you have the account. If you account gets blocked, you've somehow go to re-establish your network. Your close friends are probably easy enough, but those arms-length people that might be useful one day probably won't bother to re-connect with you. As such, losing your FB/Linked in account is a greater loss than on twitter.
If twitter can build in some features that make your account personally valuable (and a new account less valuable), then they might find a way around the problem they face far more than any other 'social network'. I'm no expert, but nothing I can think of fits in with the 'free speech' thing Twitter is all about. Hopefully for them, they've got some better brains than mine on the case.
Just have them call the bar instead of you then...
"I've got a call for Homer, Homer Sexual... is there a Home Sexual here? I need a Homer Sexual..."
(etc)
Interesting... Here in the UK, a lot of rapid-build places (like multi-storey apartment blocks and the like) are being clad in an outer layer of something weatherproof, behind that goes a thick layer of solid insulation (like Kingspan, Celotex etc) which has a sort of foil layer on both sides (to stop moisture condensing in the insulation). It's not all electrically connected, nor earthed, but it massively impedes radio (to the point that your old FM radio probably won't work very well in such places, unless near a window). Phones work to some extent, but only so long as you're near a cell tower and you have a reasonably decent phone (given most are built in high-density areas, it's likely both will be true).
So... given that Canada is (in many places) colder than the UK, what are you doing for insulation?
Indeed - all that fraud just gets passed on to the vendor/retailer. Unfortunately, those retailers have absolutely no way to measure the 'fraudiness' of a card transaction, so can't decide to decline something on their own - they have to ask the Bank to make that choice for them. When the bank makes the wrong choice, the retailer pays.
In the UK we have some (relatively new) financial industry rules that include 'treating the customer fairly'. I wonder how long it will be before some credit card banks get held to account on that basis, but until then, banks control everything and pay for nothing.
Please rank the candidates from 1 to 10 (10 being the best):
Fred -> 1
Jim -> 1
Bob -> 1
None of the above -> 10
I'd love to see that. Here in the UK we talked about proportional representation, but it got rejected (maybe because of a terrible PR campaign by the politicians). The argument against it is that you then have a house where nothing gets done. FPTP means someone's got a majority, and so (in theory) can whip their members to vote a certain way to get things done.
I guess part of the problem is you can't vote to "sort of go to war" - you're either in or out, thus a 'binary' house actually lends itself quite well to that sort of decision making. If we could have proposed legislation that was something like "put up taxes for the rich by X%, where "X" was decided by the collective of the house, then proportional representation (in whatever form it takes) would work considerably better.
There's nothing here to say it has to be 'online' as in you sitting on your sofa at home in yesterdays underpants. Given the authentication required, it could still be you have to physically go somewhere (perhaps not the local court buildings though, maybe a post office or somewhere) and sit in a booth an have a video conference (presumably after showing someone some ID or something). A far lower standard to meet than currently, but still more than nothing.
Honestly, I can't see why such a system would be bad. Any slack time in the judiciary means they can sit on court cases quickly anywhere in the country without traveling, and you and I get to claim things that should be claimed without undue fear of any costs involved. As much as I sympathise with the idea that the best outcome is the the defendant to fail to turn up, or to turn up under-prepared, but if that's the crux of your case, then perhaps it needs some looking it.
My guess would be that Putin thinks Trump will fuck up the US more than Clinton will. A fucked up US is weaker on the world stage, and thus Russia appears stronger.
Hmm... let's say there's an overproduction of apples right now. In an ideal world, we'd all receive an apple or two for free each week until the surplus was gone.
However, it's hard to electronically transfer apples, so we use money instead. It means that apple-addicts can buy extra apples, and fruit-haters can buy nuts instead. Thus, people have a choice, the trade-off being that it doesn't guarantee the redistribution of apples (and so is inefficient).
I'm okay with saying I have no imagination though, so I'm sure there are better ideas that apparently the politicians haven't been told about yet.
Can you not get a router that does this for you, then? Or get one of those proxies that does it, or whatever? That's opt-in, and best of all, you get to choose what is blocked and what is not (unlike Sky customers), so you get to keep your rights.
I think the primary issue with this service is that you can't control (to any useful degree) what is, or is not blocked. I'm not a Sky customer, but I seriously doubt you'd be able to phone them up and say "I'd like your filter, but please allow *.playboy.com" (I'd be interested to hear if you can do such a thing, and what hoops you have to jump through to do it though).
Herein lies the problem - if you turn the filter on, you're letting $provider decide what you can/can't see. If you turn it off, you're (potentially) seen as being a paedo/perv/bad parent because "the only reason anyone turns the filter off is because they're up to no good". More conflation, but $provider's view of what's "bad" doesn't necessarily match up with yours, and whilst you and they might agree that goatse is "bad" you might not agree about some of the 'greyer areas'. And you can bet that sometime soon the government *will* ask at least one ISP who's turned off the filter.
Now if an ISP did have (and imposed) a 'cloud' hosted filter that you can control yourself (down to per-site/per-page), then it could be considerably less controversial (although probably a support headache for them). However, you can bet that the Daily Mail (et al) would leap upon the first case of a kid looking at playboy.com because the account holder turned it off 3 years ago and forgot to turn it back on again.
We have something similar in the UK, except the more usual term is 1 month (although 3 for "senior" positions, or for long-standing employees is pretty common now too). I think we have three ways to get out of a company, rather than just two (in practice) across most of America.
1) You resign. You normally work 4 weeks more, but employer may let you go early, or may just pay you while you sit at home. Either way, you get paid 4 weeks money, and are bound by your contract (so not available to work elsewhere) for that time.
2) You're "let go". The company sits you down and tells you they no longer want you. You get paid 4 weeks (or more, if the employer want to, or has precedence of doing so in the recent past), but usually are released from your contract, so free to work elsewhere immediately. Quite often, the terms of your severance pay are secret (by contract). You'll often be told to leave the building immediately, but in theory it's amicable, so unlikely you'll see security (although see next point).
3) You're fired. You did something so wrong that they can prove it (in most cases, it's got to be illegal, but not always). You're out immediately, no money beyond the end of the day, no bounds of contract. You're likely to be told to leave the office immediately, although it's not often you get marched out by security (except in american, or american-wannabe companies).
The third option is actually pretty rare. Even if your a complete baffoon, they'll probably just use option 2 because there's no need to prove anything, and its cheaper to pay someone off than have the law suits.
It's rare, but it happens that someone resigns (option 1), and just doesn't show up for work from then on. This is technically breach of contract, and so technically they could come after you legally (for loss of earnings/reputation or whatever). However, I've never heard it go that far - they just don't pay you the 4 weeks and that's about it. Don't expect your former cow-orkers to meet up for a beer though, as you've probably pissed them off.
References are a funny thing here though. You're not allowed to say anything bad about someone (I don't think you're even allowed to say you fired them for gross misconduct or something). So lots of HR departments only send out "he worked here between X date and Y date as a sysadmin in the production ops department". Literally nothing else. 99% pointless, so some recruiters/employers will look for linkedin contacts or whatever that might say more. They also ask for 'voluntary' references, in which case the candidate can nominate a specific person who'll reply from the company email, or on a company letter head or whatever.
Lastly, we have contractors - usually contractors can be hired and fired with just the rest of the day as notice period (sometimes not even that much). It's in the contract, it's what you both agree to before starting work (if you don't like it, become a permanent employee). I was once on a contract that has a 1 month notice period, but that quickly got changed next time they renewed because they'd hired someone who wasn't legally allowed to work in the UK, and still had to pay the notice period to get them out (yeah, that was a government supplier - not the brightest). Many contractors won't even leave their own pen on the desk when they go home in case they get 'let go' overnight and not allowed in next day (although actually, not many employers would deny you access to your stuff, it could easily be a whole world of hassle to get it back).
So far, I'm pleased to say I've only ever used option 1 or 2. Option 2 was used on me when the company closed down so I was made redundant. Even the shittiest place I ever worked got me until they said it was okay to leave (before my notice period was fully complete). I figure there's got to be something really, really bad that puts you in some sort of jeopardy before you should welch out on your notice period. If you've stuck it out for a year or whatever up until then, what's a few more weeks gonn
+1
No amount of home-made youtube (even expensively made) is going to stop a fan wanting to see actual, official films (so long as said films are half way decent). One could argue that parodies and even fan fiction actually increase the pool of potential film watchers, but, if that's too tenuous for the suits, then just make good films and the fans will go see them.
Keep making crap films with thin plot, too much CGI and that look very similar to the other films in the series or genre, and well, maybe they won't sell quite so well. Again, no amount of fan-fiction (or lack thereof) is going to change that. It's not like we all have a quota of hours of Trek we must see each year and just "fill up" on youtube and so decide not to bother with the official stuff.
> Now I would say all belts are off.
(well, that's how I read it, anyway)
As for your main point - Team America World Police had a similar attitude (and possibly wider viewership).
I was wondering how these "millions" might be made. I had to RTFA to find out that every time a lyric is displayed, someone gets paid.
So it seems simply typing something like "streets have no name" into Google will mean some twat who wears sunglasses indoors when it's not sunny gets paid some money. I guess it starts with LyricFinder, who collect a small amount from Google. They take their cut and pass on a small amount to , who takes their cut and passes on a small amount to . So it goes on, several dozen times until some "poor and starving" artist gets their money. What we know for sure is that only the rich artists will get anything - the actually poor and starving ones won't have the commercial links to actually get paid, and so the middlemen will just soak up that payment "on their behalf".
I'm wondering what Google's revenue stream is here. They tend to get paid per-click, so aren't getting paid for the views that they have to pay to serve. Hmm...
...and if you go for the community mailbox thing, like some Canadian places, then you could actually just use a truck. The truck has the mailboxes in the side of it, it drives to the right place, parks for a day or two then drives back for refilling.
> Isn't it sad that such a poor (and polluted) country like the USA devotes money to put garbage into space?
FTFY
The USA has the largest economy, but still has people living on the streets, lots of mental health issues, many people so overweight as to be dangerous, more people incarcerated per capita than Durkadurkastan, has horrendous crime stats, lots of unemployment, etc etc. Should the US have fixed all those things before going into space?
And yet you've had successive governments that arguably don't represent The People, and are bought and paid for by corporations. Those governments have meant you've fought legally dubious wars, tortured people and have a drone programme that is highly dubious morally and legally. Yet no one is trying to overthrow said governments, and the threat of violence doesn't seem to be dissuading proper nut jobs from applying for the position of President.
So... are your rights actually working as you seem to think they should be? I suspect either you need to pull out your guns on a lot more occasions or accept that you need to put them away more permanently.
I'm sure I too will get a lot of "no, more guns is the solution!" for this, but how about a 'happy medium' that's vaguely possible without having to disarm a heavily armed, and incredibly partisan nation?
One such proposition (off the top of my head) is to make it illegal to have any sort of firearm anywhere in public. Thus, you can keep one at home, and shoot a burglar (if he doesn't find it and shoot you first, as I believe is the statistic). Any suggestion you happen to have a gun in your clothes, or the back of your car means a cop can check and immediately arrest you if he finds one.
I appreciate that if you're a nut, you could simply load up your car with guns and drive to your intended target in the hope you won't get stopped (as you probably won't), but if you're seen by your neighbours, or by people seeing you unload then you're (again) clearly breaking the law and (in theory at least) can be reported and dealt with by the cops. I realise that in practice there's a good chance none of this will happen, but it 'ups the ante' a bit, and means you need to think about concealment at least a little bit. In some sense, this puts guns into a similar bracket as bombs - if you saw someone with something that looked like a bomb, you'd probably call the cops, and they'd (almost certainly) arrest them (or shoot then, again, as I'm told it goes more often than not).
Going further (presumably while these laws settle in), the doorman at the club (and/or) the barman, the owner, whomever, can apply for suitable licenses to have guns on the premises and be allowed to use them (presumably in certain circumstances). Note, these guns don't leave the premises, and the doorman can't go for a walk around the block while carrying. Licenses obviously only granted to people who pass psych tests or whatever, and a licensed premises needs to say so with a sign on the door (or whatever). If someone pulls a gun inside the club, then again, it's pretty obvious who's the bad guy and who's not.
I'm happy to concede this isn't perfect and won't stop everyone/everything. Ultimately, nothing will guarantee 100% safety, but by making a 'stigma' for having guns in public (even concealed) at least means there's a lot more chances to spot the nut on his way to a shooting. If you happen to be off to overthrow the government, then encountering the police on the way is probably already something you've thought of, so your 2nd amendment rights are (approximately) preserved.
This all seems like the 'common sense' gun control. I'm sure there are a thousand reasons why it won't work, but it doesn't seem to me like such a terrible hardship for the ordinary people to leave their guns at home when they go to the shops, and if it helps even a little bit, it seems like it's probably worth it.
My two pence. Right, let the shitstorm begin...
I heard they need developer resource to fully realise their strategic aims in this field. A statement reads:
Had that abundance of caution extended to not giving humans and livestock antibiotics that they didn't need, then we'd probably have another 20 years to develop some new antibiotics.
My VirnetX phone has literally been useless since Apple put Facetime on their phones. I haven't had a single video call since that day. I was gonna switch to an Apple or maybe an Android, but now I'm sure VirnetX will re-start development of an upgrade phone and I'll be back on easy streets once again.