Employers have been doing clerical work gratis for the government for a long time. For example, they're already required to process income tax withholding and to verify the immigration status of job applicants.
I think Timothy is having reading comprehension trouble again. TFA I read says in the first two words of the bloody *headline* that it was the State Department, not DoD, who demanded the takedown. There's a big difference. The State Department has been in charge of export control regulations for a long time. You can check out the Wikipedia article on ITAR for the history; a quick scan says these regulations have been in place since 1976.
The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it... entirely circumvent[s] gun control laws.
I'm sorry, that is just false. In my state, Massachusetts, for example, you need a license to *possess* any firearm.
All 3D-printable weapons really circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show. Well, that and whatever state laws may require a license to buy a gun but not to own or carry it. (Those may or may not exist; if they do then they seem pretty stupid.)
It would be smart to at least check what the laws in your state actually are, before you print one of these puppies out.
It's not dumb, it's fraudulent. They have no intention of actually launching a spacecraft. This is America. Imagine the lawsuits when a crew full of TV stars dies!
It just doesn't make financial sense when you think about the end game. I am sure their intention to actually launch a spacecraft is every bit as real as the Amish mafia.
In over 52% of the murders in the US in 2011 in which the race of the murderer was known, the murderer was black. Over half of the victims of murder were also black. But blacks are only 13.6% of the population. Put all that together, and the murder rate in the US for non-blacks was more like 2.6 per 100,000 in 2011.
As Peter Baldwin put it in his book, The Narcissism of Minor Differences, "Take out the black underclass from the statistics, and even American murder rates fall to European levels."
Now, I take away a different message from that article than GP intended: middle-class white people generally don't need to be afraid of getting shot, even in the US. More guns will not make them safer.
How to address black-on-black violence in the US is a very different subject.
Next time you want to refactor or "fix" something he's produced, ask his opinion of your proposed change. It's possible you are doing him and your team a favor, and it's possible you are wasting your time on pointless re-work and acting like a know-it-all. Find out which.
I started reading the report and I quit halfway through the executive summary. This is one of those reports that says, "We documented a bunch of stuff happening. No idea why it happened, but let's speculate." I generally respect the folks at White Hat (have met several at conferences etc.) but I simply don't see the value in this report. I think they've lost track of why it's worthwhile to conduct a study in the first place. Perhaps Richard Feynman can help.
There's a difference between FMLA leave, which is not required to be paid, and paid parental leave, which is not required by law in my state and which Yahoo and other employers (Google comes to mind) offer voluntarily.
If the employer is offering paid leave voluntarily, in excess of what's required by law, then I think they are entitled to attach some strings to that.
It's not discrimination for a company to say "we don't want to give lots of paid leave to both parents." It is discrimination to say "we arbitrarily decide one parent deserves more leave than the other."
In other words, I am fine with giving extensive parental leave to only one parent -- but I think the beneficiary, not the employer, should decide which parent deserves the benefit. I think in more than 90% of the cases, it will be the mother who wants it. I could be wrong about that, and even if I'm not, real equality includes having the freedom to switch roles if you want.
This is, of course, complicated by two factors. Most couples don't both work for the same company, so the employer can't tell who is taking time off to be the primary care giver. That could be addressed by making the employee sign some papers promising he/she is really using the leave for child care. Another problem is that mothers have medical recovery, but that could be addressed by having separating medical leave from parental leave and having them run consecutively (not concurrently) when appropriate.
Maybe because it was so obviously a stupid accident that even the DA felt some compassion, or at least made the calculation that the case would probably not result in a conviction if it went to trial.
And I don't think you understand what injured means here. Being butt hurt because someone let a minor explosion off at school is way different then someone dying. Big fucking time.
Absolutely. I think you missed the intent of the quotation marks I put around "injured." I don't actually think the school or its officials were injured. Butt hurt, as you put it, is exactly what I think was going on here.
This article includes the police report and some really asinine statements from school officials. Those make it sound like the school and DA are reacting out of butt hurt.
On the one hand, I don't see any reason to attribute racism here. From what I see, "OMG hazardous chemicals at school! My butt hurts!" is apparent motive for dropping the hammer on the student.
On the other hand, I would be very interested to know the racial makeup of the school, both the student body and the school administration. Based on what the school official has said to the press, they don't sound very interested in justice in this case. Maybe the blame is shared between the DA and the school, or maybe it primarily lies with one or the other. The more I read about the case, the further I get from giving the school any benefit of the doubt.
In the black girl's case, there is not even an injury, yet the People are supposed to get involved? Are we supposed to care about the embarrassment of a school official over a dead child?
Forget injury, there wasn't even property damage! Of course we're not supposed to care more about an embarrassed school official than a dead child, but the DA evidently does, and that's my point. I am suggesting her priorities are screwed up. Government officials can be unfair in more ways than one, and I'm suggesting pro-authority bias (coming down hard because the incident happened at a school) as an alternative explanation instead of anti-racial bias (coming down hard because the accused is black).
The girl wanted to find out what happens if she mixes aluminum and drain cleaner. Her findings: under the experimental conditions (unsupervised, on school property, post-9/11), there is a fizz and a bang, a bunch of adults overreact, and you get charged with a felony.:-(
Well, the white 13-year-old with the BB gun was a boy. But there's another difference. I'm not a lawyer (thankfully for everyone) but whether the DA presses charges depends, as far as I understand it, partly on whether the injured party wants revenge (commonly phrased as "justice").
In the white boy's case, the injured party was obviously the boy who got shot, but he was past the point of caring. The remaining injured party were the victim's parents, who were also the parents of the shooter.
In the black girl's case, the "injured" party were the school officials, who presumably are going to be facing a lot of questions from angry and/or panicked parents, school board members, etc. about why an explosion occurred on school property.
Are you sure race is the only difference that matters?
I think there is abundant evidence that the American justice system is biased against blacks. That does not make it OK to say "that individual is biased against blacks" based on two anecdotes.
Really, the journalists missed an opportunity to discuss what's really important when the spectre of racial bias comes up: what the state (Florida in this case) is doing or failing to do to address bias within its criminal justice system.
Slashdot Mirror
Partly, bad timing: his party's brand was tarnished by George W. Bush. Partly, bad choice of running mate.
Blame the party leadership, not McCain himself.
Employers have been doing clerical work gratis for the government for a long time. For example, they're already required to process income tax withholding and to verify the immigration status of job applicants.
Why they put up with this escapes me.
I think Timothy is having reading comprehension trouble again. TFA I read says in the first two words of the bloody *headline* that it was the State Department, not DoD, who demanded the takedown. There's a big difference. The State Department has been in charge of export control regulations for a long time. You can check out the Wikipedia article on ITAR for the history; a quick scan says these regulations have been in place since 1976.
I'm sorry, that is just false. In my state, Massachusetts, for example, you need a license to *possess* any firearm.
All 3D-printable weapons really circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show. Well, that and whatever state laws may require a license to buy a gun but not to own or carry it. (Those may or may not exist; if they do then they seem pretty stupid.)
It would be smart to at least check what the laws in your state actually are, before you print one of these puppies out.
It's not dumb, it's fraudulent. They have no intention of actually launching a spacecraft. This is America. Imagine the lawsuits when a crew full of TV stars dies!
It just doesn't make financial sense when you think about the end game. I am sure their intention to actually launch a spacecraft is every bit as real as the Amish mafia.
But it is much easier to be indifferent toward someone if they are on Mars with no possibility of return. :-)
I've never been in the armed service, but I would expect them to have occasional drills.
Flying cars: be careful what you wish for.
That's a bit of an exaggeration, since 2.6 per 100,000 is still more than double the murder rate of major European countries like Poland and Spain.
Now, I take away a different message from that article than GP intended: middle-class white people generally don't need to be afraid of getting shot, even in the US. More guns will not make them safer.
How to address black-on-black violence in the US is a very different subject.
Next time you want to refactor or "fix" something he's produced, ask his opinion of your proposed change. It's possible you are doing him and your team a favor, and it's possible you are wasting your time on pointless re-work and acting like a know-it-all. Find out which.
May I borrow that video?
I started reading the report and I quit halfway through the executive summary. This is one of those reports that says, "We documented a bunch of stuff happening. No idea why it happened, but let's speculate." I generally respect the folks at White Hat (have met several at conferences etc.) but I simply don't see the value in this report. I think they've lost track of why it's worthwhile to conduct a study in the first place. Perhaps Richard Feynman can help.
EA makes every day "Fuck You, You're Going To Buy Our Games Anyway" Day.
"Best practices" is a synonym for groupthink.
There's a difference between FMLA leave, which is not required to be paid, and paid parental leave, which is not required by law in my state and which Yahoo and other employers (Google comes to mind) offer voluntarily.
If the employer is offering paid leave voluntarily, in excess of what's required by law, then I think they are entitled to attach some strings to that.
It's not discrimination for a company to say "we don't want to give lots of paid leave to both parents." It is discrimination to say "we arbitrarily decide one parent deserves more leave than the other."
In other words, I am fine with giving extensive parental leave to only one parent -- but I think the beneficiary, not the employer, should decide which parent deserves the benefit. I think in more than 90% of the cases, it will be the mother who wants it. I could be wrong about that, and even if I'm not, real equality includes having the freedom to switch roles if you want.
This is, of course, complicated by two factors. Most couples don't both work for the same company, so the employer can't tell who is taking time off to be the primary care giver. That could be addressed by making the employee sign some papers promising he/she is really using the leave for child care. Another problem is that mothers have medical recovery, but that could be addressed by having separating medical leave from parental leave and having them run consecutively (not concurrently) when appropriate.
That's an optimistic view. I think they won't rest until the Web is like a telescreen.
DRM is worse than Flash or Silverlight. Those, at least, are free-as-in-beer.
Maybe because it was so obviously a stupid accident that even the DA felt some compassion, or at least made the calculation that the case would probably not result in a conviction if it went to trial.
Absolutely. I think you missed the intent of the quotation marks I put around "injured." I don't actually think the school or its officials were injured. Butt hurt, as you put it, is exactly what I think was going on here.
This article includes the police report and some really asinine statements from school officials. Those make it sound like the school and DA are reacting out of butt hurt.
On the one hand, I don't see any reason to attribute racism here. From what I see, "OMG hazardous chemicals at school! My butt hurts!" is apparent motive for dropping the hammer on the student.
On the other hand, I would be very interested to know the racial makeup of the school, both the student body and the school administration. Based on what the school official has said to the press, they don't sound very interested in justice in this case. Maybe the blame is shared between the DA and the school, or maybe it primarily lies with one or the other. The more I read about the case, the further I get from giving the school any benefit of the doubt.
Forget injury, there wasn't even property damage! Of course we're not supposed to care more about an embarrassed school official than a dead child, but the DA evidently does, and that's my point. I am suggesting her priorities are screwed up. Government officials can be unfair in more ways than one, and I'm suggesting pro-authority bias (coming down hard because the incident happened at a school) as an alternative explanation instead of anti-racial bias (coming down hard because the accused is black).
Murder is more *likely* to be prosecuted if there is someone to complain about it.
The girl wanted to find out what happens if she mixes aluminum and drain cleaner. Her findings: under the experimental conditions (unsupervised, on school property, post-9/11), there is a fizz and a bang, a bunch of adults overreact, and you get charged with a felony. :-(
Well, the white 13-year-old with the BB gun was a boy. But there's another difference. I'm not a lawyer (thankfully for everyone) but whether the DA presses charges depends, as far as I understand it, partly on whether the injured party wants revenge (commonly phrased as "justice").
In the white boy's case, the injured party was obviously the boy who got shot, but he was past the point of caring. The remaining injured party were the victim's parents, who were also the parents of the shooter.
In the black girl's case, the "injured" party were the school officials, who presumably are going to be facing a lot of questions from angry and/or panicked parents, school board members, etc. about why an explosion occurred on school property.
Are you sure race is the only difference that matters?
I think there is abundant evidence that the American justice system is biased against blacks. That does not make it OK to say "that individual is biased against blacks" based on two anecdotes.
Really, the journalists missed an opportunity to discuss what's really important when the spectre of racial bias comes up: what the state (Florida in this case) is doing or failing to do to address bias within its criminal justice system.