"Similarly, I don't think that society is going to callapse if cellphones become unreliable. Unlike you young whippersnappers, I remember the ers BC... Before Cellphones. Civilization survived thousands of years without cellphones, and can do so again."
The same can be said for electricity. So, does your logic hold up there?
Because they were asked to sign a release from being sued. Not being told that they were signing away normal military benefits. For example, there is nothing there that says they were signing away their families benefit of military housing. A lawsuit is an iffy thing. Particularly if it is a lawsuit for someone getting injured as an enlisted. The military offers a lot of benefits that are not won through lawsuits. To understand why they might logically sign the documents, you must first understand that liability for death or injury is not the only benefit that enlisted and their families receive for service done by the enlisted.
Well, there are plenty of people that might not want their wife and children thrown out into the street with no medical care, and no income. You might be willing to screw over your wife and children because the military was screwing you over, but I would say that most people have more concern for their families.
Unless the lawsuit fails, AND you get dishonorably discharged, so your family looses any non-lawsuit related payments the military might make. I highly doubt that you being dead would prevent the military from giving you a dishonorable discharge if your last act before death was to disobey a direct order. The question to anyone in the military is... What benefits do the family of dead enlisted get when they die in the line of duty? I would assume that at least their medical insurance stays intact.
Whether the coal industry has any say in the matter will depend on whether a home electrolysis device can be produced. Home generation of electricity is a genie that is already out of the bottle. If there was a reasonable way to store it (i.e. hydrogen) and convert it back to electricity on demand, you would see more and more people move that direction.
I had been under the impression though that most fuel cells could work both ways. If you applied electricity, you could get hydrogen out.
You can look at it as a loss, or you can look at it as a stepping stone. The move from oil run cars to wind run cars is simply never going to happen, and if by some miracle it did happen, it will be a very long time coming. It is a chicken and egg scenario. You simply cannot reduce the use of oil if every car on the planet uses it to run. If you can get the cars to run off of electricity delivered via hydrogen as a carrier, you have a foot in the door. Even if in the short run, the electricity is generated via coal, you can then attack the coal generation by pushing other forms of electrical generation.
I think the situation is worse than you think. Just walk through any library, and you will find that there is plenty of junk in the non-fiction section of your local library. I believe there is a lot less 'vetting' by librarians than you think. I am no expert on that subject, and can only use what I have found on the shelves as evidence.
You should also keep in mind that it is a small subset of papers written that cite Academic journals. The vast majority of papers written use non-peered reviewed sources. This is particularly true in high schools. I would certainly hope that the poster who prompted my comment was refering to either a high school or jr. high school. It would be very sad if it were a collage that was blocking access to Wikipedia.
It would even be safe to say that in many disciplines, there are no experiments to prove ones claims. It is also common that 'primary sources' are no better than those posting in Wikipedia, but are just buried under enough layers of referencing that nobody notices.
As opposed to books? Last I checked, anybody can write a book, and the only thing required to get it bound and distributed is money. Either a publishers, or your own. It doesn't say much for the school when they either don't understand how books are published, or are encouraging the idea that "money makes right".
That is a fine temporary solution, but the proper long term solution is to stop certifying any large commercial aircraft for flight that has internal access between the cockpit and the passenger section. If there is no door, there is no way for a hijacker to get control of the plane, even if they wanted to.
Maybe the lawyers in your area are just more hungry than in mine. My wife was fired for filing a sexual harassment complaint when her boss started harassing her for having gotten pregnant. She had an email that was cc'd to her from the head of HR that said they were hoping the problem would go away by getting her to just quit. They had gone around the office asking each and every person if they had heard her using racial slurs, which was an attempt to smear her reputation. She never had, so obviously they didn't find anyone who had, but that doesn't change the fact that they were trying to convince people that she was a racist. Finally when they couldn't find anything to fire her over, they just fired her with the reason of "Hostile towards the company". This was in writing.
Both lawyers that would even bother talking to her, both told her that she didn't make nearly enough money to make it worth going after.
The pathetic thing is that she didn't even want to file a complaint. She just wanted her boss to be told to stop giving her a hard time about being pregnant. They told her that they wouldn't even discuss it without a formal complaint.
You are correct that refusing to forge documents is the correct answer, and that is what she did. Unfortunately, they don't fire you for it. They just make sure that you get all of the crappiest work, no longer receive any kind of raise, and transfer you the department that is being downsized. If necessary, they will create a brand new department for you to work in so that in 3 to 6 months, they can simply claim that the department didn't work out and lay off everybody in the department. You. I have seen this happen to many people. It is a common practice.
"Wrongful Termination" only applies to those that make a very large amount of money, people who were fired by companies to stupid to realize that you don't have to give the real reason for firing someone, or people who fall into very narrow categories of popular to protect groups.
And that is the answer that most people miss. I would say that frequently, even if an employee wanted to follow policy, they could not because their jobs actually require them to violate the policies.
This is not limited to IT policy though. At 2 of the last 3 jobs my wife had, she would be told by her manager that they didn't care how she got a new copy of documents dated three days early, but that she better do it. It was obviously an instruction to not only violate policy, but the law. Of course the firings for following policy generally could be described as "encouraging to quit".
These kinds of instructions are common outside of IT, so I can't understand why anyone would expect IT to be any different. Oh, that's right, it's on a computer.;)
Clearly you didn't understand the link you put in your post. The victim in this case, thought that this manager could stop him from leaving with his property. There was clearly intimidation involved, or the guy would have left with his hard drive. Thus robbery.
Either way, a crime was committed. Seizing another persons property without their permission is a crime. This was definitely a police matter, and the victim should have treated it as such.
What you are missing is that the store did in fact refund the persons money. The person then purchased a new hard drive. The store manager proceeded to commit a robbery by seizing the persons property without their permission. The property that was siezed was a hard drive. The transaction concerning the tiles was over and done with in a legal fashion.
To use your analogy, if you showed me a picture of Tower Bridge, and delivered the London Bridge, (Yes, even though I am an America, I do understand the difference.;) ) and when I called you on it, you told me that sometimes this mistake happens, and delivered the Tower Bridge, there would be no breach of contract. Of course, if after the transaction is over, and the correct bridge has been delivered, you turned around and seize the Tower bridge from me, and told me to take it up with your corporate headquarters, you would not be in breach of contract. It would be a simple robbery. OK, not simple. It is a bridge after all, but it would still be robbery.
The issue here isn't that the store refused the return. The took the return. The real issue is that after the guy bought a real (presumably) function hard drive, the manager of the store approached the customer, and seized his property. That is robbery.
I'm not sure what you are talking about 'breach of contract'. Breach of contract would have been if they agreed to take returns in the contract, and then refused to honor that contract. If the description is to be believed, this was simple robbery. It is no different than if some guy standing outside grabbed the hard disk you just bought. The proper course of action would be to take out your cell phone, and call the police. Have the individual that robbed you arrested, and the security tapes secured. Once the transaction is over, the hard drive is your property, and the store has no rights concerning the property.
"So I guess by having the ten commandments in the supreme courthouse of the US fornication is illegal?"
Yes. It is.
"Using what precedent? Laws in the US are passed by congress, signed by the president and vetted by the courts please let me know how a monument on court property circumvents this process? you can claim it all you want but monument != law.."
You can talk about how the law is supposed to work all you want, but the reality is that judges often go against what is written down, and what has gone through the legal channels. The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution is a perfect example. District Attorneys are well known for pointing out that they do not prosecute all crimes, but decide what prosecution is in the best interest of the public, so if they decide that the ten commandments are the law of the land, they make their choices based on those, and thus circumvent the written law. And finally, very few citizens really understand how laws are supposed to be passed, yet are expected to live by them. So, the average person's understanding of the law consists of what they read on signs, hear on the TV and radio, or read in the paper. Since a courthouse is generally considered a legitimate source of information concerning the law, the average citizen will understandably believe that when they see laws engraved in stone on the front steps of a courthouse, that those laws apply to our country.
"Protesters / Looters at the wto meeting in Seattle a few years back decided to follow their beliefs even though they contradict law and the did it *gasp* without a monument telling them it was ok. Muslims (some) in Canada and England are pushing for Sharia law courts *gasp* without a monument and fornication was not made illegal in Alabama even *gasp* with a monument. People will always thing their way is above the law regardless of weather or not their way is religious or *gasp* enforced by a monument."
Poor attempt at straw man fallacies. Certainly no one is claiming that ALL religious violence and discrimination is caused because they were all convinced in a very specific way. You need to work on your straw men if you want them to slip by.
Well, you would be wrong. When you place a tablet with religious laws at the steps of a courthouse, you are making a declaration that those are the laws of the land. People who enter that courthouse see them as officially sanction, which they are. Those that agree with them start to take an attitude that it is ok to follow these religious laws when carrying out their state duties, even when they disagree with the states laws. Guess what. Now you have lost your separation of church and state. I will believe that it is not discriminatory when the municipalities authorize monuments that display the Sign of Baphomet. Goats head and all.
The issue I tend to take with people talking down Wikipedia is that there are very few true "primary sources". Virtually all sources end up being "mostly likely to be accurate" sources. Research tends to be a lot like security. How valuable is what you are trying to protect vs. how much money does it cost to protect it. With research, it becomes how important is it to be accurate vs. how much time do you want to spend researching it. Of course when it comes to research in anything that is not a hard science, as often as not, Wikipedia is as good a source as one can find.
I actually doubt that would matter. As Danny Bonoduchi said when asked what would make him cheat on his wife if his wife was a perfect 10, "A 6 that I haven't slept with yet.
Of course that doesn't invalidate your point or joke. I'll just go away now....
"In fact, I posit that no matter how much your budget is, you'll get more "power" by buying new low-mid machines as often as your budget allows rather than buying monster machines that drain the budget infrequently."
This is the crucial point in comparing a console to a PC that is consistently missed. It is always the cost of a high end PC vs. a mid range console. That means that with the current generation of systems, any cost comparison to achieve resolutions beyond 1920x1080 are pointless since that is the absolute highest resolution that the current generation systems will ever achieve. And with any prior systems, the limit was 1280x720. The same can be said about comparing frame rates beyond 30fps.
As a happy Vonage customer, I would cancel my service if any of those companies bought them. If I wanted to have my phone service with one of the big abusive incumbents, I would already have service with them. It's not like I am unaware of their existence after all.
Personally I would be more concerned with a Varicella pandemic. Most of the kids in the U.S are now being vaccinated against it. The problem is that the Vaccine is only temporary, so we are trading a major childhood inconvenience for a serious life threatening adult disease.
Don't forget our public schools. If you think that the work place is bad, just consider what our public schools have created. We are talking about large numbers of people who are even less likely to have proper hygiene, forced into tight quarters for hours on end, frequently being forced into physical contact with each other. Even worse is when they reach ~12 years old, when they have a bell that goes off approximately once an hour where the 30 or so people all get up and swap seats so that they are now in tight quarters with 30 new people.
To make matters worse, many schools will punish students if they stay home for being sick. And the new trick is to actually try and charge parents money if they keep their kids home when they are ill.
Slashdot Mirror
"Similarly, I don't think that society is going to callapse if cellphones become unreliable. Unlike you young whippersnappers, I remember the ers BC... Before Cellphones. Civilization survived thousands of years without cellphones, and can do so again."
The same can be said for electricity. So, does your logic hold up there?
Because they were asked to sign a release from being sued. Not being told that they were signing away normal military benefits. For example, there is nothing there that says they were signing away their families benefit of military housing. A lawsuit is an iffy thing. Particularly if it is a lawsuit for someone getting injured as an enlisted. The military offers a lot of benefits that are not won through lawsuits. To understand why they might logically sign the documents, you must first understand that liability for death or injury is not the only benefit that enlisted and their families receive for service done by the enlisted.
Well, there are plenty of people that might not want their wife and children thrown out into the street with no medical care, and no income. You might be willing to screw over your wife and children because the military was screwing you over, but I would say that most people have more concern for their families.
Unless the lawsuit fails, AND you get dishonorably discharged, so your family looses any non-lawsuit related payments the military might make. I highly doubt that you being dead would prevent the military from giving you a dishonorable discharge if your last act before death was to disobey a direct order. The question to anyone in the military is... What benefits do the family of dead enlisted get when they die in the line of duty? I would assume that at least their medical insurance stays intact.
Whether the coal industry has any say in the matter will depend on whether a home electrolysis device can be produced. Home generation of electricity is a genie that is already out of the bottle. If there was a reasonable way to store it (i.e. hydrogen) and convert it back to electricity on demand, you would see more and more people move that direction.
I had been under the impression though that most fuel cells could work both ways. If you applied electricity, you could get hydrogen out.
You can look at it as a loss, or you can look at it as a stepping stone. The move from oil run cars to wind run cars is simply never going to happen, and if by some miracle it did happen, it will be a very long time coming. It is a chicken and egg scenario. You simply cannot reduce the use of oil if every car on the planet uses it to run. If you can get the cars to run off of electricity delivered via hydrogen as a carrier, you have a foot in the door. Even if in the short run, the electricity is generated via coal, you can then attack the coal generation by pushing other forms of electrical generation.
I think the situation is worse than you think. Just walk through any library, and you will find that there is plenty of junk in the non-fiction section of your local library. I believe there is a lot less 'vetting' by librarians than you think. I am no expert on that subject, and can only use what I have found on the shelves as evidence.
You should also keep in mind that it is a small subset of papers written that cite Academic journals. The vast majority of papers written use non-peered reviewed sources. This is particularly true in high schools. I would certainly hope that the poster who prompted my comment was refering to either a high school or jr. high school. It would be very sad if it were a collage that was blocking access to Wikipedia.
It would even be safe to say that in many disciplines, there are no experiments to prove ones claims. It is also common that 'primary sources' are no better than those posting in Wikipedia, but are just buried under enough layers of referencing that nobody notices.
That's because Magic the Gathering is a game designed to test the financial fortitude of its players, where as D&D is a game about swords and sorcery.
As opposed to books? Last I checked, anybody can write a book, and the only thing required to get it bound and distributed is money. Either a publishers, or your own. It doesn't say much for the school when they either don't understand how books are published, or are encouraging the idea that "money makes right".
That is a fine temporary solution, but the proper long term solution is to stop certifying any large commercial aircraft for flight that has internal access between the cockpit and the passenger section. If there is no door, there is no way for a hijacker to get control of the plane, even if they wanted to.
Maybe the lawyers in your area are just more hungry than in mine. My wife was fired for filing a sexual harassment complaint when her boss started harassing her for having gotten pregnant. She had an email that was cc'd to her from the head of HR that said they were hoping the problem would go away by getting her to just quit. They had gone around the office asking each and every person if they had heard her using racial slurs, which was an attempt to smear her reputation. She never had, so obviously they didn't find anyone who had, but that doesn't change the fact that they were trying to convince people that she was a racist. Finally when they couldn't find anything to fire her over, they just fired her with the reason of "Hostile towards the company". This was in writing.
Both lawyers that would even bother talking to her, both told her that she didn't make nearly enough money to make it worth going after.
The pathetic thing is that she didn't even want to file a complaint. She just wanted her boss to be told to stop giving her a hard time about being pregnant. They told her that they wouldn't even discuss it without a formal complaint.
You are correct that refusing to forge documents is the correct answer, and that is what she did. Unfortunately, they don't fire you for it. They just make sure that you get all of the crappiest work, no longer receive any kind of raise, and transfer you the department that is being downsized. If necessary, they will create a brand new department for you to work in so that in 3 to 6 months, they can simply claim that the department didn't work out and lay off everybody in the department. You. I have seen this happen to many people. It is a common practice.
"Wrongful Termination" only applies to those that make a very large amount of money, people who were fired by companies to stupid to realize that you don't have to give the real reason for firing someone, or people who fall into very narrow categories of popular to protect groups.
And that is the answer that most people miss. I would say that frequently, even if an employee wanted to follow policy, they could not because their jobs actually require them to violate the policies.
;)
This is not limited to IT policy though. At 2 of the last 3 jobs my wife had, she would be told by her manager that they didn't care how she got a new copy of documents dated three days early, but that she better do it. It was obviously an instruction to not only violate policy, but the law. Of course the firings for following policy generally could be described as "encouraging to quit". These kinds of instructions are common outside of IT, so I can't understand why anyone would expect IT to be any different. Oh, that's right, it's on a computer.
Clearly you didn't understand the link you put in your post. The victim in this case, thought that this manager could stop him from leaving with his property. There was clearly intimidation involved, or the guy would have left with his hard drive. Thus robbery.
Either way, a crime was committed. Seizing another persons property without their permission is a crime. This was definitely a police matter, and the victim should have treated it as such.
What you are missing is that the store did in fact refund the persons money. The person then purchased a new hard drive. The store manager proceeded to commit a robbery by seizing the persons property without their permission. The property that was siezed was a hard drive. The transaction concerning the tiles was over and done with in a legal fashion.
;) ) and when I called you on it, you told me that sometimes this mistake happens, and delivered the Tower Bridge, there would be no breach of contract. Of course, if after the transaction is over, and the correct bridge has been delivered, you turned around and seize the Tower bridge from me, and told me to take it up with your corporate headquarters, you would not be in breach of contract. It would be a simple robbery. OK, not simple. It is a bridge after all, but it would still be robbery.
To use your analogy, if you showed me a picture of Tower Bridge, and delivered the London Bridge, (Yes, even though I am an America, I do understand the difference.
The issue here isn't that the store refused the return. The took the return. The real issue is that after the guy bought a real (presumably) function hard drive, the manager of the store approached the customer, and seized his property. That is robbery.
I'm not sure what you are talking about 'breach of contract'. Breach of contract would have been if they agreed to take returns in the contract, and then refused to honor that contract. If the description is to be believed, this was simple robbery. It is no different than if some guy standing outside grabbed the hard disk you just bought. The proper course of action would be to take out your cell phone, and call the police. Have the individual that robbed you arrested, and the security tapes secured. Once the transaction is over, the hard drive is your property, and the store has no rights concerning the property.
"So I guess by having the ten commandments in the supreme courthouse of the US fornication is illegal?"
Yes. It is.
"Using what precedent? Laws in the US are passed by congress, signed by the president and vetted by the courts please let me know how a monument on court property circumvents this process? you can claim it all you want but monument != law.."
You can talk about how the law is supposed to work all you want, but the reality is that judges often go against what is written down, and what has gone through the legal channels. The interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution is a perfect example. District Attorneys are well known for pointing out that they do not prosecute all crimes, but decide what prosecution is in the best interest of the public, so if they decide that the ten commandments are the law of the land, they make their choices based on those, and thus circumvent the written law. And finally, very few citizens really understand how laws are supposed to be passed, yet are expected to live by them. So, the average person's understanding of the law consists of what they read on signs, hear on the TV and radio, or read in the paper. Since a courthouse is generally considered a legitimate source of information concerning the law, the average citizen will understandably believe that when they see laws engraved in stone on the front steps of a courthouse, that those laws apply to our country.
"Protesters / Looters at the wto meeting in Seattle a few years back decided to follow their beliefs even though they contradict law and the did it *gasp* without a monument telling them it was ok. Muslims (some) in Canada and England are pushing for Sharia law courts *gasp* without a monument and fornication was not made illegal in Alabama even *gasp* with a monument. People will always thing their way is above the law regardless of weather or not their way is religious or *gasp* enforced by a monument."
Poor attempt at straw man fallacies. Certainly no one is claiming that ALL religious violence and discrimination is caused because they were all convinced in a very specific way. You need to work on your straw men if you want them to slip by.
Well, you would be wrong. When you place a tablet with religious laws at the steps of a courthouse, you are making a declaration that those are the laws of the land. People who enter that courthouse see them as officially sanction, which they are. Those that agree with them start to take an attitude that it is ok to follow these religious laws when carrying out their state duties, even when they disagree with the states laws. Guess what. Now you have lost your separation of church and state. I will believe that it is not discriminatory when the municipalities authorize monuments that display the Sign of Baphomet. Goats head and all.
The issue I tend to take with people talking down Wikipedia is that there are very few true "primary sources". Virtually all sources end up being "mostly likely to be accurate" sources. Research tends to be a lot like security. How valuable is what you are trying to protect vs. how much money does it cost to protect it. With research, it becomes how important is it to be accurate vs. how much time do you want to spend researching it. Of course when it comes to research in anything that is not a hard science, as often as not, Wikipedia is as good a source as one can find.
I actually doubt that would matter. As Danny Bonoduchi said when asked what would make him cheat on his wife if his wife was a perfect 10, "A 6 that I haven't slept with yet.
Of course that doesn't invalidate your point or joke. I'll just go away now....
Lotus Domino has offered off-line storage for web applications being on it since v6.0 in 2002.
"In fact, I posit that no matter how much your budget is, you'll get more "power" by buying new low-mid machines as often as your budget allows rather than buying monster machines that drain the budget infrequently."
This is the crucial point in comparing a console to a PC that is consistently missed. It is always the cost of a high end PC vs. a mid range console. That means that with the current generation of systems, any cost comparison to achieve resolutions beyond 1920x1080 are pointless since that is the absolute highest resolution that the current generation systems will ever achieve. And with any prior systems, the limit was 1280x720. The same can be said about comparing frame rates beyond 30fps.
As a happy Vonage customer, I would cancel my service if any of those companies bought them. If I wanted to have my phone service with one of the big abusive incumbents, I would already have service with them. It's not like I am unaware of their existence after all.
Personally I would be more concerned with a Varicella pandemic. Most of the kids in the U.S are now being vaccinated against it. The problem is that the Vaccine is only temporary, so we are trading a major childhood inconvenience for a serious life threatening adult disease.
Don't forget our public schools. If you think that the work place is bad, just consider what our public schools have created. We are talking about large numbers of people who are even less likely to have proper hygiene, forced into tight quarters for hours on end, frequently being forced into physical contact with each other. Even worse is when they reach ~12 years old, when they have a bell that goes off approximately once an hour where the 30 or so people all get up and swap seats so that they are now in tight quarters with 30 new people.
To make matters worse, many schools will punish students if they stay home for being sick. And the new trick is to actually try and charge parents money if they keep their kids home when they are ill.