Life causes health risks so I guess we need to label all newborns on their forehead just in case (backwards so they can later read it in the mirror).
The thing is that they're NOT notifying customers because those signs are so absurdly broad. The outside air is probably more likely to kill me than 99.9% of the things (buildings, cars, etc.) that have these signs on them. I have no idea how much of a safety risk something is or isn't. I have no ideal what chemicals are being used, where they are being used, how likely they are to get to me and so on.
In fact the only thing those signs have taught me is that I should ignore those signs and that all these warnings are overblown. Yeah, what a great thing to teach people.
It matters because I have no ides if that sign is there because the paint makes the air itself lethal to me or because they use trace amounts of these chemicals in cleaning the sink in the office.
Perhaps with a rise in telecommuting we can switch to getting paid for generating x amount of work done instead of x hours in the workplace. It would lead to huge efficiency improvements, and it seems the only practical way to quantify "a days work" telecommuting.
It's called being salaried and working for a company not in perpetual seppuku mode. I get paid to get work done and do it well. If I get work done well or if I manage to get more work done then I get a bonus or my salary goes up next time. I can of course also relax, go home early, work on something else, read up on something semi-work related and so on.
Like other have said in any decent position it's very difficult to quantify the amount of work in any sane way (doing so on a quarterly or yearly overall basis is a lot easier).
True, on the other hand the states joined the union voluntarily (I think Alaska and Hawaii had over 80% support for statehood when they joined) and not all territories have become states. It's likely that if a territory voted heavily for independence there wouldn't be too much opposition to it (or at least at some point the opposition would fail).
It won't always pay out but like many things it's at worst a safety net to essentially lower your risk in the future. Saving money for a rainy day also doesn't pay out unless a rainy day does come in which case it's nearly priceless.
If you can be an expert in a single field your whole bloody life than you'll likely make more money. If on the other hand you suddenly become obsolete then you'll probably be lucky to get minimum wage. If the chances of that happening are high enough than in the end you'll come out ahead more often than not by diversifying.
That said if you're good then you can probably make money by leveraging your knowledge of multiple areas. You do become an expert in fact however not an expert of a single field but rather an expert in combining the two fields.
The thing is that unlimited education won't do that because people have different levels of intelligence. You can shove classes into a mentally retarded persons brain all decade long and they'll never figure out basic algebra (or worse).
Yes let's ban any company from hosting from multiple colos. Who cares if they have operation in India, China, Europe, the US and South America. They get one colo or we round them all up and shoot them for getting preferential treatment to the poor bastards who can't afford to do that. Then we need to round up all the companies who are big enough to get multiple dedicates links to the internet. Then the ones who get to run their own colos and manage routing at a higher level.
There is a difference between "pay money or get worse treatment because we wish to make more money" and "pay money to bypass technological/physical restrictions."
corporate servers go down, corporate networks go down
None of these should keep everyone from getting their work done. I can still use my computer and almost everything I need is on that computer. Hosted applications would be even more vulnerable to a network outage as well as vulnerable to internet outages and any network server outages.
worms infest every machine at once, etc.
Worms rarely kill machines although they may kill the network. See above.
You're not getting paid for 40 hours, you're getting paid for 60 hours that are listed as 40 hours (ie: your hourly rate should be higher than if you actually got paid via overtime). These are all things that you should have looked into before accepting a job and you should be aware of what you're actually getting paid for (ie: it's NOT 40 hours of work). If you want to get paid 30+% less (not linear due to constant costs of benefits irrespective of salary) and work 40 hours that's a separate issue and there probably are employers like that. Of course then you'd get paid less because you work less which seems like a concept that you're not able to understand.
That said there are edge cases such as minimum wage, perception of salary issues and general human stupidity (ie: they don't realize that the non-exempt job with a lower hourly rate may in fact pay more). In other words these laws are there to protect idiots and they assume the generally higher-end exempt positions don't get filled by idiots (ie: they require creativity or some such).
Why do you assume that hourly pay will magically make this better? You'll still get paid $x per year however now your official hourly pay will be lower (since it's computed based on worked hours not a 40 hour week). So no I wouldn't be underpaid but instead I would be paid exactly as much as I deserve given how much I work (ie: less than I may at another company). Like I said if I'm working too much or being paid too little for how much I work I will find another job. If the industry has changed so that my position is now worth less than I'll notice this in job offers and adjust my expectations accordingly (or change the types of jobs I apply to).
New York City has a government mandated monopoly on cable internet and probably phone lines as well. So thank you for disproving your own point, saves me the trouble of doing so.
"Professional" hourly workers (and I mean outside the IT world) generally don't bother with time cards, except as a once-a-week formality ("You worked 40hrs?" "Yup" "okay").
I don't even know how many hours a week I work, not with any accuracy at least. I mean does the time on the craper when I think over a problem and come up with a brilliant solution count?
Well, can't help you with that one, except to say that it depends on the averaging period for what your employer calls "full time". If they strictly insist you must work 40/wk for full-time status, then yeah, you just need to use some of your PTO. More often, they average that biweekly or monthly, so yes, you can still do exactly what you describe.
Good point.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay... But wow does my motivation level start dropping at that point.
It varies upwards from a lower baseline and that's assuming your base hours don't vary. Salaries of course take this into account and are higher to make up for any extra hours that are worked on average.
I effectively get paid more to solve problems more efficiently and in less time. In other words the better I work the more I get paid which is a great incentive to get stuff done.
Managers and HR departments have learned the fine art of pushing "just barely okay". I agree with you, if I worked 60hrs a week every week, I'd find a new job. But, liking my job otherwise, will I quit because I find myself pushing 45 hours more often than not? Unlikely.
I wouldn't quit a 60 hours job over money necessarily because likely my salary will be higher to take the extra hours into account. I'd quit if they changed the hours expected or if I didn't want to spend that much time at work (I don't).
That's probably a quirk of moving people around and trying to not visibly cut their salaries. If anyone else got hired for their positions the hourly pay would be 10-20% less. Likewise if you got hired for salaried the base pay would be 10-20% higher than hourly.
I never said anything about Apple (note how I was replyign to someone who wanted to expand non-exempt) although I will now.
These are well paid employees and most likely Apple is not exploiting them. In other words if they were hourly then they'd probably be paid exactly the same amount on average. That is to say if Apple hired someone now they'd give them a lower hourly rate than if they were salaried since overtime is not part of it (salaries should be based on the hours worked).
Unfortunately not everyone is so good at being able to raise issues with their employer
Their problem, should we now be paying the mentally retarded $100k a year to make up for the fact that they're not able to do that on their own?
not everyone is in a work place that encourages such issues as yours obviously does.
Then change jobs.
Surely legislation that protects workers from the worst excesses of the corporate world is good. If you're able to negotiate better conditions for yourself then brilliant, but ultimately companies need to realise they have a obligation to treat their workers fairly. Large swathes workers are unable to stand up for themselves, in this situation knowing that you have the law on your side is a good thing.
Currently exempt status applies only to upper tier workers and not to the bottom of the rung employees. I never said anything about that part since I was only replying to someone who wanted to extend the scheme. If you're making $100k a year and being "creative" then you're very likely not an idiot who can't ass 2 and 2.
Working unpaid hours is not on, the company profits from this unpaid labour, they physically make more money because people end up working for nothing because they feel obliged to. I fail to see the different in a workplace that forces you to work unpaid hours and indentured labour.
They're not unpaid hours. They're factored into your base salary and if you're not an idiot you should have asked before starting how much you're expected to work. If this changes then talk to your manager or find another job.
Yes, I understand there is a need for flexibility in the workplace BUT not when that extra time becomes a de-facto standard. If it's expected you work extra hours then the company MUST pay for this or renegotiate your terms, if they are unwilling to or make your working situation that much more difficult because you wish to renegotiate then this is surely where the law must support you.
It's called your salary. In some industries it's quite high because it's expected that you will work 80 hours a week. In other places it's quite a bit lower because you're not expected to work 80 hours a week.
Otherwise everyone is simply left to fend for themselves which in modern western society is anathema.
Everyone fends for themselves. Those who don't realize this stay in the shit pile because in fact very few people care about helping you. I don't believe in shackling everyone for the sake of a few people.
Gotta love people who think that what they'd like is what everyone else wants. I prefer being salaried; I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next). I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
History books also omit the 50 billion other coincidences that didn't have any backing for them. If you're working in hindsight you can even make things look like coincidences by reinterpreting them (see prophecies of a certain dead guy).
Not really, it only implies someone thought an attack using anthrax was possible. In other it means nothing except someone was intelligent enough to realize anthrax was a plausible biological weapon. Conspiracy theories exist because human brains are pattern matching machines and if you look enough at something you'll find some form of pattern by pure chance. Science and statistics exist because someone realized that without rigorous standards the conclusion we draw are often less than worthless.
It didn't seem to fail except in the sense that it doesn't provide 100% from all possible methods of attack. If someone is able to get physical control of your token and learn your password then you have bigger problems to worry about.
I don't often pirate DRM heavy software but rather I simply ignore it. There are lots of games which don't force me to put up with such crap so I just buy those instead.
The way I understand it the network itself was not secure rather than the computer's the journalists using being insecure. If any computer on the network can intercept traffic going through the network then generally that is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Life causes health risks so I guess we need to label all newborns on their forehead just in case (backwards so they can later read it in the mirror).
The thing is that they're NOT notifying customers because those signs are so absurdly broad. The outside air is probably more likely to kill me than 99.9% of the things (buildings, cars, etc.) that have these signs on them. I have no idea how much of a safety risk something is or isn't. I have no ideal what chemicals are being used, where they are being used, how likely they are to get to me and so on.
In fact the only thing those signs have taught me is that I should ignore those signs and that all these warnings are overblown. Yeah, what a great thing to teach people.
It matters because I have no ides if that sign is there because the paint makes the air itself lethal to me or because they use trace amounts of these chemicals in cleaning the sink in the office.
Because they haven't done any (or almost any) in 40 years thus it is by definition the most complicated.
Perhaps with a rise in telecommuting we can switch to getting paid for generating x amount of work done instead of x hours in the workplace. It would lead to huge efficiency improvements, and it seems the only practical way to quantify "a days work" telecommuting.
It's called being salaried and working for a company not in perpetual seppuku mode. I get paid to get work done and do it well. If I get work done well or if I manage to get more work done then I get a bonus or my salary goes up next time. I can of course also relax, go home early, work on something else, read up on something semi-work related and so on.
Like other have said in any decent position it's very difficult to quantify the amount of work in any sane way (doing so on a quarterly or yearly overall basis is a lot easier).
True, on the other hand the states joined the union voluntarily (I think Alaska and Hawaii had over 80% support for statehood when they joined) and not all territories have become states. It's likely that if a territory voted heavily for independence there wouldn't be too much opposition to it (or at least at some point the opposition would fail).
It won't always pay out but like many things it's at worst a safety net to essentially lower your risk in the future.
Saving money for a rainy day also doesn't pay out unless a rainy day does come in which case it's nearly priceless.
If you can be an expert in a single field your whole bloody life than you'll likely make more money. If on the other hand you suddenly become obsolete then you'll probably be lucky to get minimum wage. If the chances of that happening are high enough than in the end you'll come out ahead more often than not by diversifying.
That said if you're good then you can probably make money by leveraging your knowledge of multiple areas. You do become an expert in fact however not an expert of a single field but rather an expert in combining the two fields.
So are you an total isolationist or do you want foreign companies to simply bury US ones (by providing products at half the cost)?
The thing is that unlimited education won't do that because people have different levels of intelligence. You can shove classes into a mentally retarded persons brain all decade long and they'll never figure out basic algebra (or worse).
Yes let's ban any company from hosting from multiple colos. Who cares if they have operation in India, China, Europe, the US and South America. They get one colo or we round them all up and shoot them for getting preferential treatment to the poor bastards who can't afford to do that. Then we need to round up all the companies who are big enough to get multiple dedicates links to the internet. Then the ones who get to run their own colos and manage routing at a higher level.
There is a difference between "pay money or get worse treatment because we wish to make more money" and "pay money to bypass technological/physical restrictions."
corporate servers go down, corporate networks go down
None of these should keep everyone from getting their work done. I can still use my computer and almost everything I need is on that computer. Hosted applications would be even more vulnerable to a network outage as well as vulnerable to internet outages and any network server outages.
worms infest every machine at once, etc.
Worms rarely kill machines although they may kill the network. See above.
You're not getting paid for 40 hours, you're getting paid for 60 hours that are listed as 40 hours (ie: your hourly rate should be higher than if you actually got paid via overtime). These are all things that you should have looked into before accepting a job and you should be aware of what you're actually getting paid for (ie: it's NOT 40 hours of work). If you want to get paid 30+% less (not linear due to constant costs of benefits irrespective of salary) and work 40 hours that's a separate issue and there probably are employers like that. Of course then you'd get paid less because you work less which seems like a concept that you're not able to understand.
That said there are edge cases such as minimum wage, perception of salary issues and general human stupidity (ie: they don't realize that the non-exempt job with a lower hourly rate may in fact pay more). In other words these laws are there to protect idiots and they assume the generally higher-end exempt positions don't get filled by idiots (ie: they require creativity or some such).
Why do you assume that hourly pay will magically make this better? You'll still get paid $x per year however now your official hourly pay will be lower (since it's computed based on worked hours not a 40 hour week). So no I wouldn't be underpaid but instead I would be paid exactly as much as I deserve given how much I work (ie: less than I may at another company). Like I said if I'm working too much or being paid too little for how much I work I will find another job. If the industry has changed so that my position is now worth less than I'll notice this in job offers and adjust my expectations accordingly (or change the types of jobs I apply to).
New York City has a government mandated monopoly on cable internet and probably phone lines as well. So thank you for disproving your own point, saves me the trouble of doing so.
"Professional" hourly workers (and I mean outside the IT world) generally don't bother with time cards, except as a once-a-week formality ("You worked 40hrs?" "Yup" "okay").
I don't even know how many hours a week I work, not with any accuracy at least. I mean does the time on the craper when I think over a problem and come up with a brilliant solution count?
Well, can't help you with that one, except to say that it depends on the averaging period for what your employer calls "full time". If they strictly insist you must work 40/wk for full-time status, then yeah, you just need to use some of your PTO. More often, they average that biweekly or monthly, so yes, you can still do exactly what you describe.
Good point.
Um, hello? It only varies upward as a result of OT. I'd take that in a heartbeat over having my effective hourly rate start slowly dropping after I hit 40 hours for the week, since my pay won't change no matter how long I stay... But wow does my motivation level start dropping at that point.
It varies upwards from a lower baseline and that's assuming your base hours don't vary. Salaries of course take this into account and are higher to make up for any extra hours that are worked on average.
I effectively get paid more to solve problems more efficiently and in less time. In other words the better I work the more I get paid which is a great incentive to get stuff done.
Managers and HR departments have learned the fine art of pushing "just barely okay". I agree with you, if I worked 60hrs a week every week, I'd find a new job. But, liking my job otherwise, will I quit because I find myself pushing 45 hours more often than not? Unlikely.
I wouldn't quit a 60 hours job over money necessarily because likely my salary will be higher to take the extra hours into account. I'd quit if they changed the hours expected or if I didn't want to spend that much time at work (I don't).
That's probably a quirk of moving people around and trying to not visibly cut their salaries. If anyone else got hired for their positions the hourly pay would be 10-20% less. Likewise if you got hired for salaried the base pay would be 10-20% higher than hourly.
I never said anything about Apple (note how I was replyign to someone who wanted to expand non-exempt) although I will now.
These are well paid employees and most likely Apple is not exploiting them. In other words if they were hourly then they'd probably be paid exactly the same amount on average. That is to say if Apple hired someone now they'd give them a lower hourly rate than if they were salaried since overtime is not part of it (salaries should be based on the hours worked).
Having managers only be exempt is not the law, I was replying to someone with my post for a bloody reason.
Unfortunately not everyone is so good at being able to raise issues with their employer
Their problem, should we now be paying the mentally retarded $100k a year to make up for the fact that they're not able to do that on their own?
not everyone is in a work place that encourages such issues as yours obviously does.
Then change jobs.
Surely legislation that protects workers from the worst excesses of the corporate world is good. If you're able to negotiate better conditions for yourself then brilliant, but ultimately companies need to realise they have a obligation to treat their workers fairly. Large swathes workers are unable to stand up for themselves, in this situation knowing that you have the law on your side is a good thing.
Currently exempt status applies only to upper tier workers and not to the bottom of the rung employees. I never said anything about that part since I was only replying to someone who wanted to extend the scheme. If you're making $100k a year and being "creative" then you're very likely not an idiot who can't ass 2 and 2.
Working unpaid hours is not on, the company profits from this unpaid labour, they physically make more money because people end up working for nothing because they feel obliged to. I fail to see the different in a workplace that forces you to work unpaid hours and indentured labour.
They're not unpaid hours. They're factored into your base salary and if you're not an idiot you should have asked before starting how much you're expected to work. If this changes then talk to your manager or find another job.
Yes, I understand there is a need for flexibility in the workplace BUT not when that extra time becomes a de-facto standard. If it's expected you work extra hours then the company MUST pay for this or renegotiate your terms, if they are unwilling to or make your working situation that much more difficult because you wish to renegotiate then this is surely where the law must support you.
It's called your salary. In some industries it's quite high because it's expected that you will work 80 hours a week. In other places it's quite a bit lower because you're not expected to work 80 hours a week.
Otherwise everyone is simply left to fend for themselves which in modern western society is anathema.
Everyone fends for themselves. Those who don't realize this stay in the shit pile because in fact very few people care about helping you. I don't believe in shackling everyone for the sake of a few people.
Gotta love people who think that what they'd like is what everyone else wants. I prefer being salaried; I hate having to deal with time-cards and I hate being told I can't do something (ie: work 80 hours this week then work 20 the next). I like not having to deal with an ever changing income flow depending on how much overtime I took that particular month.
If I thought I was being paid too little then I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. If I thought I was working too long I'd talk to my manager and/or find another job. And before you ask I can do this because I'm not an idiot and I put saving for a rainy day above everything else.
History books also omit the 50 billion other coincidences that didn't have any backing for them. If you're working in hindsight you can even make things look like coincidences by reinterpreting them (see prophecies of a certain dead guy).
Not really, it only implies someone thought an attack using anthrax was possible. In other it means nothing except someone was intelligent enough to realize anthrax was a plausible biological weapon. Conspiracy theories exist because human brains are pattern matching machines and if you look enough at something you'll find some form of pattern by pure chance. Science and statistics exist because someone realized that without rigorous standards the conclusion we draw are often less than worthless.
Canadians are very aware of how distinct we are from the US
Given your post you apparently have little idea of what the US is like which makes me wonder how you can claim to know you're different from it.
It didn't seem to fail except in the sense that it doesn't provide 100% from all possible methods of attack. If someone is able to get physical control of your token and learn your password then you have bigger problems to worry about.
I don't often pirate DRM heavy software but rather I simply ignore it. There are lots of games which don't force me to put up with such crap so I just buy those instead.
The way I understand it the network itself was not secure rather than the computer's the journalists using being insecure. If any computer on the network can intercept traffic going through the network then generally that is a problem.