No matter how you look at it, we're all in trouble.
More fear mongering. I'm looking at it from a perspective where we're not in trouble at all. Are you planning on drinking fluids from a sick person? No? Neither am I. So please lose the "we're all gonna die" attitude.
Keep up the strawman arguments. Nobody ever opposed verifying the accusations. But when you turn those verifications into a full-blown investigation into the accusor, you know darned well you've gone too far and in the wrong direction, troll.
I would agree with you if it is shown Lyft is pulling the same shenanigans, but I've seen not one bit of such evidence. Never forget that it is possible for only one side to be wrong in a dispute. If you punch me in the face, I am not equally to blame as you.
This goes beyond "being a dick." It is systemic creation of contracts that are intended to be broken and cause Lync financial loss in order to help Uber's business. I don't see how that's not actionable.
1) Because hopefully you're a moral being and recognize that this is immoral, wrong behavior on Uber's part.
2) Because in the long run this is going to cost you money. If Uber runs Lyft out of business, you can be sure Uber will be able to raise its prices. Further, even if they don't, this is raising Lyft's costs and they will pass those on to you. Or Lyft won't have a taxi available when you need one because it was on another Uber-induced wild goose chase.
But I really hope #1 is the main reason you'd object. I'm sorry if #2 is.
Fraud would be charging without notice, and without offering an opt-out.
Sorry, wrong. Fraud is intentionally charging someone for something they did not order. This falls right into that category. OP is under no obligation to read his email to prevent being charged thousands for an item he did not want.
Anyone who pays for tax software is probably an idiot.
Or doesn't know how to program. Not saying I'm one of those, but there is a place in this world for nurses and cooks and carpenters who know their trades quite well but not how to construct an algorithm in a computer.
See, that's exactly how the U.S. should do it. It is moronic that we have to pay 3rd parties to submit data and money to the government. But we are responsible if the data is wrong, not the bad programmers.
You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well..
I'm not following this. Software (I use TaxAct) is quite good at making sure to ask you a lot of detailed questions about your life events and situation. Software can make sure to ask these questions and not forget one like a human can. If you, the end-user, neglect to check a box that says (for example), "I donated a car this year", then that's your fault not the software's. If you're trying to say the accountant would ask "Hey, are you sure you didn't donate a car?" and you respond "Oh yeah...you're right, I did," then OK, the human is better at coaxing info out of you (or inducing you to lie.) Personally, I'll stick to software.
Can we get someone on the Slashdot staff that has actually some experience of the operating system in use by 96% of the population please?
It's not even correct for the other 4%. On Mac OS X, Silverlight absolutely alerts the user that their version is out of date and a single "OK" click will download the new version for them.
Nobody has ever been "DDOS'ed" by Bing. A DDOS is, by definition, a deliberate attempt to knock a site off the net. Bing is just doing business, not attacking. I don't defend Microsoft but let's make sure we use terminology properly.
The terms do not say "will not". Nor "may not". Nor "must not". Nor "it is a network security violation to", like everybody else. They say "should not", which any kid you know will tell you is code for "you can, you might, and you may, but I'd rather you didn't."
With due respect, your response is also bogus. That sentence didn't just fall into Google's terms of service. It was intentionally put there so that when Google decides they truly don't want servers on their network, they can terminate your agreement and connection. It's truly naive of you to think this language is completely innocent and has zero chance of being enforced.
>I presume it comes with enough lawlessness that I can reclaim (or attempt to reclaim) my funds through the barrel of a gun
Of course you can't, because you're not rich enough for the laws to not apply to you.
My AR10 will take out a fully armored military personnel easily. and remember, the military fires FMJ rounds. I'll be firing hunting rounds that when I hit his arm, it will blow off.
I'm bothered that anyone is posting anything like the above here. And are proud of it.
If you work in a DoD environment then you have to accept the possibility that you're not going to be able to bring your device in the building. It sucks sometimes sure but if the risk is information coming in or going out then this helps mitigate it a great deal.
The problem is multifold, but the main one that jumps out at me is what if these rules are enacted AFTER you accept the position? And what if there is a completely valid reason for you having a cell phone (family crisis, etc.)? Employers who don't support their employees' needs are likely to suffer talent drain. Of course, they won't admit or recognize this until it's too late.
If not having your pacifier with you at all times makes you that uncomfortable, find a different job.
Yeah. My mom is critically ill in the hospital right now, so my iPhone is not a 'pacifier'. It is a lifeline to the doctors, nurses, family members, and friends who are helping care for her when I can't be because I have to come into that job you are so cavalier about me ditching. And several of them prefer texting (so they can communicate silently without bothering the patient), so forwarding the cell to my desk (which I often have to get up from) is not an option.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple is a bulwark in this case by not supporting secure booting on Macs. As a major global vendor, enjoy using them as a base of operations as you oppose UEFI.
>I don't know of *any* company that would set up their HR staff for such a scenario.
Then they shouldn't use Skype, period. Skype is so notoriously unreliable, that for FB to not have a plan to reconnect a bad Skype connection is absolutely unprofessional.
My biggest thing with this is not that they found a drawing disturbing, but that somehow a drawing is probable cause for a completely separate building to be searched? I don't see how his family lawyer isn't going to have a field day with this.
The louder one screams out against something, the less secure they feel.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot here, Apple. If you were truly the winner in this case, you wouldn't have any problem just playing the game and staying cool about it. Now you've raised eyebrows...
Read more about the actual case. Samsung added devices after the HTC agreement; Apple has to counter to keep up. It sure is interesting how you are singling out Apple when it is very clear in this case that it takes two to tango.
In this case, biased article perhaps, but not biased summary. The article (TFA) title uses the word "tantrum", so actually, the summary tones down the sensationalist phrasing.
But the summary did not have to use the "tantrum" weasel word. Further, OP didn't have to cite a biased article; there were hundreds to choose from that didn't call it a "tantrum".
Slashdot Mirror
More fear mongering. I'm looking at it from a perspective where we're not in trouble at all. Are you planning on drinking fluids from a sick person? No? Neither am I. So please lose the "we're all gonna die" attitude.
Keep up the strawman arguments. Nobody ever opposed verifying the accusations. But when you turn those verifications into a full-blown investigation into the accusor, you know darned well you've gone too far and in the wrong direction, troll.
I would agree with you if it is shown Lyft is pulling the same shenanigans, but I've seen not one bit of such evidence. Never forget that it is possible for only one side to be wrong in a dispute. If you punch me in the face, I am not equally to blame as you.
This goes beyond "being a dick." It is systemic creation of contracts that are intended to be broken and cause Lync financial loss in order to help Uber's business. I don't see how that's not actionable.
So as a consumer, why do I care?
1) Because hopefully you're a moral being and recognize that this is immoral, wrong behavior on Uber's part.
2) Because in the long run this is going to cost you money. If Uber runs Lyft out of business, you can be sure Uber will be able to raise its prices. Further, even if they don't, this is raising Lyft's costs and they will pass those on to you. Or Lyft won't have a taxi available when you need one because it was on another Uber-induced wild goose chase.
But I really hope #1 is the main reason you'd object. I'm sorry if #2 is.
Maybe I will even start a site to compete. One whose design is not brain dead and whose management will never become brain dead.
It's called Reddit.
Sorry, wrong. Fraud is intentionally charging someone for something they did not order. This falls right into that category. OP is under no obligation to read his email to prevent being charged thousands for an item he did not want.
Anyone who pays for tax software is probably an idiot.
Or doesn't know how to program. Not saying I'm one of those, but there is a place in this world for nurses and cooks and carpenters who know their trades quite well but not how to construct an algorithm in a computer.
Or were you trolling?
See, that's exactly how the U.S. should do it. It is moronic that we have to pay 3rd parties to submit data and money to the government. But we are responsible if the data is wrong, not the bad programmers.
You know, employing skills that software doesn't do well..
I'm not following this. Software (I use TaxAct) is quite good at making sure to ask you a lot of detailed questions about your life events and situation. Software can make sure to ask these questions and not forget one like a human can. If you, the end-user, neglect to check a box that says (for example), "I donated a car this year", then that's your fault not the software's. If you're trying to say the accountant would ask "Hey, are you sure you didn't donate a car?" and you respond "Oh yeah...you're right, I did," then OK, the human is better at coaxing info out of you (or inducing you to lie.) Personally, I'll stick to software.
It's not even correct for the other 4%. On Mac OS X, Silverlight absolutely alerts the user that their version is out of date and a single "OK" click will download the new version for them.
Nobody has ever been "DDOS'ed" by Bing. A DDOS is, by definition, a deliberate attempt to knock a site off the net. Bing is just doing business, not attacking. I don't defend Microsoft but let's make sure we use terminology properly.
With due respect, your response is also bogus. That sentence didn't just fall into Google's terms of service. It was intentionally put there so that when Google decides they truly don't want servers on their network, they can terminate your agreement and connection. It's truly naive of you to think this language is completely innocent and has zero chance of being enforced.
>I presume it comes with enough lawlessness that I can reclaim (or attempt to reclaim) my funds through the barrel of a gun Of course you can't, because you're not rich enough for the laws to not apply to you.
secretary: OK. so what do you mean that "this new ribbon bar is all you need"? Where'd my "print" menu go???
They have to ask that every time a new version of MS Office comes out anyway.
My AR10 will take out a fully armored military personnel easily. and remember, the military fires FMJ rounds. I'll be firing hunting rounds that when I hit his arm, it will blow off.
I'm bothered that anyone is posting anything like the above here. And are proud of it.
we have problems with people's attention being distracted from their jobs....
We also suffer from vandalism...
Management has dismissed half of the lessons ever learned about keeping personnel happy. They don't give a damn about happy employees.
You don't have a smartphone problem, you have serious H.R. problems. Taking away cellphones ain't gonna help one little bit with that.
If you work in a DoD environment then you have to accept the possibility that you're not going to be able to bring your device in the building. It sucks sometimes sure but if the risk is information coming in or going out then this helps mitigate it a great deal.
The problem is multifold, but the main one that jumps out at me is what if these rules are enacted AFTER you accept the position? And what if there is a completely valid reason for you having a cell phone (family crisis, etc.)? Employers who don't support their employees' needs are likely to suffer talent drain. Of course, they won't admit or recognize this until it's too late.
If not having your pacifier with you at all times makes you that uncomfortable, find a different job.
Yeah. My mom is critically ill in the hospital right now, so my iPhone is not a 'pacifier'. It is a lifeline to the doctors, nurses, family members, and friends who are helping care for her when I can't be because I have to come into that job you are so cavalier about me ditching. And several of them prefer texting (so they can communicate silently without bothering the patient), so forwarding the cell to my desk (which I often have to get up from) is not an option.
Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple is a bulwark in this case by not supporting secure booting on Macs. As a major global vendor, enjoy using them as a base of operations as you oppose UEFI.
Then they shouldn't use Skype, period. Skype is so notoriously unreliable, that for FB to not have a plan to reconnect a bad Skype connection is absolutely unprofessional.
I wouldn't hire someone who uses the word "whiner". It shows a lack of empathy and ability to recognize that situations can be improved.
My biggest thing with this is not that they found a drawing disturbing, but that somehow a drawing is probable cause for a completely separate building to be searched? I don't see how his family lawyer isn't going to have a field day with this.
The louder one screams out against something, the less secure they feel.
You're shooting yourselves in the foot here, Apple. If you were truly the winner in this case, you wouldn't have any problem just playing the game and staying cool about it. Now you've raised eyebrows...
Read more about the actual case. Samsung added devices after the HTC agreement; Apple has to counter to keep up. It sure is interesting how you are singling out Apple when it is very clear in this case that it takes two to tango.
In this case, biased article perhaps, but not biased summary. The article (TFA) title uses the word "tantrum", so actually, the summary tones down the sensationalist phrasing.
But the summary did not have to use the "tantrum" weasel word. Further, OP didn't have to cite a biased article; there were hundreds to choose from that didn't call it a "tantrum".