While I think every company has the right to ensure that employees do not consume drugs while at work, I cannot possibly see why they should even be allowed to dictate your behaviour when you are not at work.
That's not an unreasonable criticism, though I believe the fact that illegal drug use is, well, illegal comes into play.
There is an element of double standards here too - boozy working lunches are ok, a spliff to relax after work is verboten.
In cases where that's true, then also fair criticism. Though most corporate cultures seem to be tending toward no-alcohol-during-the-workday type of policies.
Blacks, Muslims, and homosexuals are boogeymen to lots of people, too
None of which are illegal (well, YMMV on the last item). Nor is it illegal to be old or female, or to discriminate based on those traits.
But we don't hire people based on correlations.
Of course we do. Past performance is the best indicator of future success, i.e. a good track record correlates strongly with ability to do a similar job well.
What next? A company won't hire you because you don't eat your vegetables?
Possibly. Though I expect that it is more likely that companies will simply let employees, especially less healthy ones, bear more of the cost of health insurance. I don't like the idea, but it may be coming. I believe there have already been attempts to bar employees from smoking on their own time to reduce the cost of health insurance.
Who probably does something else equally as offensive to the concept of freedom? Like drug testing?
Like it or not, drugs are the boogeyman to lots of people. And drug use correlates to other behaviors generally considered undesirable in an employee. Thus it is sensible and economical to use drug screening in the hiring process. Still, not all companies do so. So if you choose to do drugs, or don't want anyone to know if you do or not, work for a company that doesn't require it. Or do you propose that private entities entering into an employment agreement should have their freedom to include such stipulations (as drug testing) abridged because you don't like the idea?
Nobody is forcing you to work for a bank.
Just your stomach and the roof over your head that require cash to maintain.
Neither my stomach nor my roof has ever expressed a preference for the type of company that I work for. Probably what you mean is that the best paycheck (or the one most able to support the type of lifestyle you have chosen) for the type of work you are capable of and would most like to do comes from a company (e.g. a financial institution) that requires a greater degree of trust, and thus fingerprinting, background check, drug testing. If your privacy is that important, find another employer or profession and/or scale back you lifestyle to something you can support on less money. Set your priorities (more money, more privacy, whatever) and choose accordingly.
If you live in the major metropolitan areas (NYC, LA, Chicago, etc) where there are jobs that can pay higher wages (leaving out COL), its hard to imagine getting anything approaching that in other areas.
So what you're saying is only 100% conversion to solar is good enough? I don't get that. We are talking about grid-tied systems, right? Why else would the power companies' caps be relevant? So if one could replace 50-60% of their usage with cheap solar cells for a fraction of the cost (more than 10%, since other hardware and labor would cost the same), why not? You might even do better, say 70-80% of usage since it appears that the material could be used on walls as well. And if some of that savings on the initial investment is used to upgrade to more efficient appliances, etc... you might even cover all your usage after all.
Bringing the cost down as significantly as advertised seems like a winning proposition. Isn't the big issue with solar that it is not yet cost competitive (enough)? And I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to do a solar installation but can't/won't due to the initial upfront expense. If this technology pans out, it brings that cost barrier down significantly.
Tried what? To recover the data from the HD, the backup HD, or the tapes? I'm not saying no one thought of trying different recovery methods on the disks, but that line from the article doesn't actually say they did anything with the disks. It's possible they spent a lot of time working on the backup tapes since that was their first recovery option when they realized the HDs had been formatted.
Or it could be that trying to recover from tape put enough scrambled data on the HD to put it beyond the more economical/basic data recovery methods.
It is possible that some state laws preclude the state's public libraries from retaining records of materials checked out by patrons. More likely, though, individual libraries (or cooperatives/whatever, e.g. at the county level) would set the policy on record retention. I've been told that my local public library does not keep a record of who has previously checked out an item once it has been returned (in usable condition) and checked back in (unless there is an overdue fine, in which case the details remain in the system along with the fine information until the charge is resolved).
And it doesn't make much sense for libraries to retain all that data anyway. What would be the benefit? Usually when a company collects that kind of data, it is for targetted marketing of new/different services based on inferred customer preferences. For a company, this usually means more (often premium) revenue. For a library, it sounds like a lot of extra work and resources for perhaps a small gain in usage. Their marketing dollars are probably much better spent bringing in new users than trying to get a little more from current users.
It has been reported that agriculture is dead, owing to the abundance of available "off the shelf" food products that magically appear in grocery and other stores worldwide.
What the article is really lamenting are two things: the increased efficiency realized by buying a commercial product that suits ones needs rather than building from scratch for every problem; and the increased efficiency realized by frequently using high level tools when customization is needed. In other words "Wah! People don't need highly skilled programmers for every computer problem/task/upgrade. We're not as important as we used to be!"
I agree that it is wrong to pay closer attention to workers close to retirement to find reasons to terminate them for cause and thus (potentially) deny them their pensions. And although IANAL, I believe it would be illegal age discrimination. However, there is no evidence to suggest that is what happened in this case.
Here is how I see the situation: The employer (IBM) claims they have a clear policy the prohibits the activity the guy is accused of. They say he was warned for a prior offense that another incident could result in dismissal. The employee says he was not warned, and implies that he sought help from IBM for his alleged internet addiction and sex addiction. All of this should be documented by Human Resources and thus fairly easy to verify. The fact that IBM is seeking summary judgement would seem to indicate that the documentation exists and supports their case.
With regard to the man's pension, these things are highly regulated by the government. He may be entitled to the benefits he had accrued at the time he was fired (though there is usually a fairly significant difference between full and partial benefits). That is typically the case when a worker is laid off, but I'm not sure if the same is true if one is fired. I'm not sure how pensions work outside the U.S., but here, traditional pensions (which are becoming quite scarce) are typically funded by the employer and pay a defined benefit (based on years of service and some type of average compensation calculation) for a retiree's life, often with survivor benefits for a spouse even after the retiree dies. That type of plan has been giving way to defined contribution plans, in which the employee, the employer, or both contribute a defined amount which is invested. This money is actually owned by the employee (there is usually a vesting period for funds contributed by the employer). Unless it is fully funded by the employer, the employee has some control over how it is invested, as well. At retirement, the worker gets whatever amount the investments have grown to over the years.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor, nor a pension/retirement plan specialist. YMMV.
Overall wealth is not taxed in the U.S. You mention payroll taxes, which can consume a greater portion of income for those earning less (due to the cap on payroll taxes), but you ignore property taxes which are a form of wealth tax. And there are many other taxes to figure in, if you want to do a thorough analysis.
Why? Perhaps if she is under 18 (varies by state). But last I checked 18,19 and 20 year olds are adults who can legally do adult things like get married and have sex (with other adults, of course). However, these ages are less than 21 (feel free to check my math if you like...) which is the legal drinking age in most if not all of the United States.
Agreed. It seems to be a "use it or lose" proposition. Old people who stay mentally and physically active -- particularly when the activities include learning new things -- tend to live longer and be less susceptible to diminished memory and reasoning capacity.
On a related note, I'm very concerned for the younger generations. Many amoung them seem to be suffering diminished physical and mental capacity already due to inactivity.
Of course there are, but what does that have to do with the economy? Your entire argument is off the point.
Perhaps you're considering the word "economy" too literally. This word does not imply that using hydrogen as fuel is less costly (in direct, present value terms) than fossil fuels. "Hydrogen economy" simply refers to a hypothetical energy system (or "economy") in which hydrogen is the primary consumer-level fuel. The idea that oil will eventually be unreasonably costly is only one reason for all the talk about switching to a hydrogen economy.
The hydrogen is just a vessel.
We aren't in Iraq to insure our supply of gas cans.
That's a key aspect of the "hydrogen economy" idea. Having the flexibility to use something besides oil for a major portion of our energy consumption (transportation) means we can substitute in biofuels, solar, nuclear, or what have you for the generation side with minimal aspect to the consumer fuel side as the other alternatives become available/competitive. And of course, it can be mix and match, deflating the (weak) argument that always comes up about how much it would cost (in dollars, land, manpower, whatever) to "switch the whole country over to X".
f one could get all their power from renewable resources... Say... Solar panels on their roof?
Wouldn't saving power be a moot point?
Well, no. Renewable <> free. In fact, because the up-front investment in solar is significant, the incentive to save power is greater (so your investment is smaller in dollars, which also means smaller output).
Truth in labeling can be arguably called broken. There is no way to fix it -- the laws are too complicated...
I wouldn't go that far. My understanding is that if there is less than 1 gram, but more than.5 grams of [fat, protein, saturated fat, etc...] it can be listed as <1. If there is less than.5 gram, it can be listed as zero (which I don't particularly like. If there is any, it should be listed appropriately, e.g. <1 gram). It seems a little shady, but it is just a matter of know the rules. And if you're that concerned about trans fats, just check the ingredient list for things like "shortening", "partially hydrogenated" oils, etc.... You're probably better off going that route than depending on some customer hotline operator 1) knowing the correct answer to your question; and 2) giving the correct answer.
Also, in reference to your previous comment "organic" on a food label has a very specific definition(press release).
I still stick to the fact that the poor around the world are generally BETTER OFF because of advancing in science...
Which was kinda my point. Perhaps I should have been clearer when I said "solar" - I didn't mean the sun wasn't going to cut it, I meant commercial solar power generation wasn't going to cut it.
Fair enough. And I didn't really convey my meaning fully either. I agree that today solar is not cost competitive for most applications. But sooner or later, either due to rising market prices or improvements in solar (most likely both) -- or maybe massive government grants to push hydrogen -- solar will get close enough in cost to start getting wider, more mainstream adoption.
I don't think you quite grasp the amount of power we're talking about here. Solar isn't going to cut it.
The amount of energy coming from the sun is not a problem. And converting it to something usable isn't really a problem either. The issues are doing it cost effectively and scaling up. If you're going to go to all that trouble, though, it would be more efficient to just use electricity directly. Unless you go directly to hydrogen. See below.
Got a link? I'm curious to see whether this "artificial photosynthesis" exists...
Perhaps he meant something like this, which, as you can see, may or may not quite be there yet from an economic standpoint. Interesting, though.
Yes, hydrogen is a fuel, but it is not an energy source. It is a fuel you have to put the power into.
Very true.
The phrase "hydrogen economy" is an idiocy at best; a fraud at worst.
This, I don't agree with so much. There are a couple of advantages to hydrogen. First, as you point out, anything can be used to generate power: nuclear, solar, wind, "clean" coal (hey, it could happen), cold fusion (okay, maybe not). This gives us the flexibility to make our distributed power use (i.e. vehicles) cleaner in a variety of ways such as using cleaner technologies to begin with, or trapping harmful emissions better (and in one place). Plus, it allows for the possibility of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil (by substituting more coal and natural gas in the short term, other options indicated above over the longer term). Electricity does the same, but until battery (or capacitor, whatever) technology improves, it has the inherent disadvantage of range issues and long refueling time (personally, I think electric vehicles (EVs) would be better in the short term with hybrids/plug-in hybrids filling the aforementioned gaps). The other advantage of hydrogen (or electricity) is that emissions are concentrated in drastically fewer locations: i.e. power plants and/or generation stations rather than every vehicle on the road.
On the whole, I think EVs, hybrids, and biofuels (there has been some promising development on biofuels from agricultural and consumer waste) are more likely alternatives than hydrogen. But hydrogen is not quite as pie-in-the-sky as you imply. What we will most likely see is all of these technologies developing small niches in the market over time until one (or perhaps a combination, e.g. biofuel hybrid electrics) becomes dominant.
...remember that no fuel cell system aimed at the mass market take pure hydrogen as an input, mainly because of it's inherent danger (think Hindenburg).
Why think Hindenburg? Seems like it would be much better to store the hydrogen in modern pressurized tanks than fabric treated with flammable doping compounds. A more likely danger is the extremely high pressure (10,000 psi) at which the hydrogen needs to be stored to give a reasonable energy density.
Slashdot Mirror
Homes in Manhattan, KS
So, if you wanted to let someone else use your Ipod, you'd just have to tell them the PIN, not give them your fingerprint (or finger)? Brilliant!
I don't think any of this is regulated anyway.
Well, I didn't look for soup, but juice content has pretty specific requirements in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
It is easier to just throw in a browser check and call it good.
I seemed to have missed the part where you explain how this doesn't fall under the "lazy" category cited by the OP?
If in fact all your users are locked into IE, why even bother with a browser check?
Bringing the cost down as significantly as advertised seems like a winning proposition. Isn't the big issue with solar that it is not yet cost competitive (enough)? And I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to do a solar installation but can't/won't due to the initial upfront expense. If this technology pans out, it brings that cost barrier down significantly.
Because race is a social construct, not a scientific classification.
Or it could be that trying to recover from tape put enough scrambled data on the HD to put it beyond the more economical/basic data recovery methods.
Well, you have a point, but this wasn't all that smart.
And it doesn't make much sense for libraries to retain all that data anyway. What would be the benefit? Usually when a company collects that kind of data, it is for targetted marketing of new/different services based on inferred customer preferences. For a company, this usually means more (often premium) revenue. For a library, it sounds like a lot of extra work and resources for perhaps a small gain in usage. Their marketing dollars are probably much better spent bringing in new users than trying to get a little more from current users.
What the article is really lamenting are two things: the increased efficiency realized by buying a commercial product that suits ones needs rather than building from scratch for every problem; and the increased efficiency realized by frequently using high level tools when customization is needed. In other words "Wah! People don't need highly skilled programmers for every computer problem/task/upgrade. We're not as important as we used to be!"
Here is how I see the situation: The employer (IBM) claims they have a clear policy the prohibits the activity the guy is accused of. They say he was warned for a prior offense that another incident could result in dismissal. The employee says he was not warned, and implies that he sought help from IBM for his alleged internet addiction and sex addiction. All of this should be documented by Human Resources and thus fairly easy to verify. The fact that IBM is seeking summary judgement would seem to indicate that the documentation exists and supports their case.
With regard to the man's pension, these things are highly regulated by the government. He may be entitled to the benefits he had accrued at the time he was fired (though there is usually a fairly significant difference between full and partial benefits). That is typically the case when a worker is laid off, but I'm not sure if the same is true if one is fired. I'm not sure how pensions work outside the U.S., but here, traditional pensions (which are becoming quite scarce) are typically funded by the employer and pay a defined benefit (based on years of service and some type of average compensation calculation) for a retiree's life, often with survivor benefits for a spouse even after the retiree dies. That type of plan has been giving way to defined contribution plans, in which the employee, the employer, or both contribute a defined amount which is invested. This money is actually owned by the employee (there is usually a vesting period for funds contributed by the employer). Unless it is fully funded by the employer, the employee has some control over how it is invested, as well. At retirement, the worker gets whatever amount the investments have grown to over the years.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor, nor a pension/retirement plan specialist. YMMV.
Overall wealth is not taxed in the U.S. You mention payroll taxes, which can consume a greater portion of income for those earning less (due to the cap on payroll taxes), but you ignore property taxes which are a form of wealth tax. And there are many other taxes to figure in, if you want to do a thorough analysis.
Why? Perhaps if she is under 18 (varies by state). But last I checked 18,19 and 20 year olds are adults who can legally do adult things like get married and have sex (with other adults, of course). However, these ages are less than 21 (feel free to check my math if you like...) which is the legal drinking age in most if not all of the United States.
Agreed. It seems to be a "use it or lose" proposition. Old people who stay mentally and physically active -- particularly when the activities include learning new things -- tend to live longer and be less susceptible to diminished memory and reasoning capacity.
On a related note, I'm very concerned for the younger generations. Many amoung them seem to be suffering diminished physical and mental capacity already due to inactivity.
Perhaps you're considering the word "economy" too literally. This word does not imply that using hydrogen as fuel is less costly (in direct, present value terms) than fossil fuels. "Hydrogen economy" simply refers to a hypothetical energy system (or "economy") in which hydrogen is the primary consumer-level fuel. The idea that oil will eventually be unreasonably costly is only one reason for all the talk about switching to a hydrogen economy.
That's a key aspect of the "hydrogen economy" idea. Having the flexibility to use something besides oil for a major portion of our energy consumption (transportation) means we can substitute in biofuels, solar, nuclear, or what have you for the generation side with minimal aspect to the consumer fuel side as the other alternatives become available/competitive. And of course, it can be mix and match, deflating the (weak) argument that always comes up about how much it would cost (in dollars, land, manpower, whatever) to "switch the whole country over to X".
Well, no. Renewable <> free. In fact, because the up-front investment in solar is significant, the incentive to save power is greater (so your investment is smaller in dollars, which also means smaller output).
I wouldn't go that far. My understanding is that if there is less than 1 gram, but more than .5 grams of [fat, protein, saturated fat, etc...] it can be listed as <1. If there is less than .5 gram, it can be listed as zero (which I don't particularly like. If there is any, it should be listed appropriately, e.g. <1 gram). It seems a little shady, but it is just a matter of know the rules. And if you're that concerned about trans fats, just check the ingredient list for things like "shortening", "partially hydrogenated" oils, etc.... You're probably better off going that route than depending on some customer hotline operator 1) knowing the correct answer to your question; and 2) giving the correct answer.
Also, in reference to your previous comment "organic" on a food label has a very specific definition (press release).
I'll agree with you there.
Fair enough. And I didn't really convey my meaning fully either. I agree that today solar is not cost competitive for most applications. But sooner or later, either due to rising market prices or improvements in solar (most likely both) -- or maybe massive government grants to push hydrogen -- solar will get close enough in cost to start getting wider, more mainstream adoption.
The amount of energy coming from the sun is not a problem. And converting it to something usable isn't really a problem either. The issues are doing it cost effectively and scaling up. If you're going to go to all that trouble, though, it would be more efficient to just use electricity directly. Unless you go directly to hydrogen. See below.
Perhaps he meant something like this, which, as you can see, may or may not quite be there yet from an economic standpoint. Interesting, though.
Regards
Very true.
This, I don't agree with so much. There are a couple of advantages to hydrogen. First, as you point out, anything can be used to generate power: nuclear, solar, wind, "clean" coal (hey, it could happen), cold fusion (okay, maybe not). This gives us the flexibility to make our distributed power use (i.e. vehicles) cleaner in a variety of ways such as using cleaner technologies to begin with, or trapping harmful emissions better (and in one place). Plus, it allows for the possibility of reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil (by substituting more coal and natural gas in the short term, other options indicated above over the longer term). Electricity does the same, but until battery (or capacitor, whatever) technology improves, it has the inherent disadvantage of range issues and long refueling time (personally, I think electric vehicles (EVs) would be better in the short term with hybrids/plug-in hybrids filling the aforementioned gaps). The other advantage of hydrogen (or electricity) is that emissions are concentrated in drastically fewer locations: i.e. power plants and/or generation stations rather than every vehicle on the road.
On the whole, I think EVs, hybrids, and biofuels (there has been some promising development on biofuels from agricultural and consumer waste) are more likely alternatives than hydrogen. But hydrogen is not quite as pie-in-the-sky as you imply. What we will most likely see is all of these technologies developing small niches in the market over time until one (or perhaps a combination, e.g. biofuel hybrid electrics) becomes dominant.
Why think Hindenburg? Seems like it would be much better to store the hydrogen in modern pressurized tanks than fabric treated with flammable doping compounds. A more likely danger is the extremely high pressure (10,000 psi) at which the hydrogen needs to be stored to give a reasonable energy density.