While I've never cheated. It's hard enough being an honest college student nowdays.
I think the problem is the higher education has gone in the wrong direction. First of all since many people feel that it is required for employment it drives up the costs for those few who want to learn for the sake of learning or that college education has something useful in their said field.
What pissed me off about college in the 90's is that it had nothing to do with the work force in the 2000's. Technology changed... Ideas changed... And I'm still not using anything useful from English 101.
What higher education should focus on is actually training for specific field for hands on training or actually on the job training rather than writing hundreds of useless papers that won't have anything to do (or ones that you will even remember) about your job in 10 years.
Unless of course you want to go into a field that actually requires you to write papers.
Second, a five year moratorium on biofuels is not what is needed. A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need.
I have a hunch that we needed to go with more nuclear plants and hydrogen fueled cars all along. Personally, I'm hoping for a solar and hydrogen revolution because if the technology gets good enough I could produce my own hydrogen locally since I don't think anyone would approve of a nuclear reactor in my back yard.
What's the big deal about Microsoft tacking the GPLv3 on their bulleting board at the office? Was it covering up the employee who was offering guitar lessons memo?
You can't really blame the ISP's as providing full bandwidth to all would be overly costly and ridiculous given the original traffic patterns but they are going to have to adapt to the new data patterns of their subscribers or lose to those who will provide it.
Then maybe they should advertise it as such. I haven't seen a single add anywhere for an ISP that says web page and email use only. I personally wouldn't mind these policies if the the companies were up front and said "Bandwidth limited" rather than "Unlimited bandwidth*"
All day we're around Microwaves, XRays, High voltage lines, lights, televisions and Radio signals. There are TONS, of course... but how much more is actually from outside the atmosphere?
Actually, in the late 1890's and early 1900's people who worked in the field of XRays often died from over exposure of radiation. They simply didn't know what they heck they were working with. Thomas Edison was so horrified of what happened to his worker Clarence Dally due to radiation poisoning that he abandoned any further research with X-rays. Not to mention Marie Curie death due to exposure to radiation and countless others that worked in her field.
Back then of course people thought drinking radium was a good health product and that shoe sales man could operate their x-ray on a casual basis to fit shoes giving them more REM exposure in a day than a modern nuclear power plant worker is allowed a year.
I'm not saying that WiFi is dangerous, but as a precedent people have often generally underestimated some dangers with emerging technologies and we should never discount such a thing could happen. Of course we due scientific study than complete news worthy paranoia.
The same name can be trademarked by multiple companies as long as they don't have the same type of business.
Exmaple of similar trademarked companys:
Apple Records (the ones the Beatles owned) Apple Computers (the one that Jobs owns) Apple Vacations
Remember there was a big legal stink between Apple Records and Apple Computers when the former released a sound card in their computer. Apple Records said that meant they were getting into the music business and then latter with iTunes.
So? All matter in the universe is energy storage including ground based petroleum and bio-fuels. These energy resources don't just spontaneously come into being.
Hydrogen efficient in releasing energy, but rather difficult to use energy to produce it.
Consider that aluminum used to worth more than gold back in the 1800's. Now we can go to the grocery stores and buy a six pack of drinks with cans made of this stuff.
Give it time and the production might be even more efficient.
I fail to see how employment position is a realisic and valid way to determine attention span.
One could argue that personality types do affect what profession you will pursue. Although this is not 100% and there are many exceptions to this rule.
And alternatively, you can argue that your profession could be affecting your personality on how you deal with your work.
As a person who has to make constant and man decisions on an daily (if not hourly) basis, then you tend to prefer information that is as concise as possible. You simply don't have the time to read thousands of pages for yourself and expect to make timely choices and therefore have to have your information condenses and presented to you in that fashion.
I'm not saying there are people out there in management that don't actually read the source material instead of skimming the Powerpoint hand outs, but I would suspect they are a rare bunch due to the nature of the job.
Where as a coder would see his job differently in how he goes about taking in information due to the nature of his work.
As one could say... If all you have is a hammer, then all problems look like nails. So from that aspect, management will address problems with management solutions whereas someone who is strictly technical would search for a more technical solution.
If there were no legal fictions, there wouldn't be satellite radio.
No. It would be just companies owned by individuals who may or may not be rather wealthy. (Think Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch)
However, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be stocks, shareholders, and CEOs but rather that corporations should not have their cake and eat it too by affording government protection from wrong doing.
As in either corporations must either by regulated by government since they are getting protection or they shouldn't be regulated by government and receive no government protection (I prefer the latter since I have Libertarian views towards economics)
The problem is that corporations of today are effectively using government regulations such as taxes, employment laws, lack of liability, stock market regulation, and of course local, state, and federal governments passing legislation on the request of corporate lobbyists. I could also say that the certain corporations are abusing FDA regulations, copyrights, and patents in order to gain profit at the expense of the free market and of course their competitors.
So in that respect, they have violated the spirit of private property and there should be some recourse... Either give up the benefits to be truly laissez-faire or expect more regulation.
Personally, I dislike the thought of more regulation internally so I would like to see more liability and responsibility of corporations by making it more privatized. That sounds like a paradox I know, but if corporations were treated or were required to have individual responsibility (like real people) as in the the company does a crime and CEO goes to jail for it and the stock holders are punished much like someone who owns a private business that isn't public, then the corporations will of course behave better ethically.
Of course in my idea, stockholders that didn't want to face such actions could simply buy non-voting stock for pure investment purposes, but if you have a say in the company that you should be responsible for what it does.
If you can simply hold companies accountable then we can start treating them like private citizens who are responsible enough to own their own property.
On a side note... I'd like to point out that corporations who maintain the majority of the voting stock in a small group of hands or have a single authority figure like Microsoft, Google, and Apple tend to have better control of where the direction of the company is going in a positive long term fashion. Much like private feudal fiefs (or mini-dictators as you could call Gates and Jobs) often have a vision that is good for the long term role of the company.
Companies that simply hire the latest and greatest CEO for a year or so are usually followed by share holders who don't give a damn about whether the company goes under in 6 months as long as they make a quarterly profit. These types of companies are usually headless chickens who hire way too many people, overspend, and always end up laying off people in the end.
In truth the best investments are in companies that the investors have little control over the actual business process itself which is why I argue even without change in the legality of corporations that the best businesses are ones that retain centralized private control rather than a board of directions elected by many shareholders.
As an environment-conscious individual, I relish higher gas prices. $3 a gallon? Why not $5 or $10? I truly believe hitting people in the wallet is the *only* way to incite change in habits as deeply-rooted as our gasoline addiction.
Great! Now even if I ride a bike or walk to grocery store, I'll still get slapped in the face with inflation due to rising costs in shipping!
But seriously, I would agree with you but the majority of shipping and handling in the states relies on automobiles and not trains or boats.
If gas prices rise too high... So does transporting goods which means everything is more expensive for everyone in the states regardless if you drive an SUV or walk everywhere you go. People can't stop eating without dying. Just not going to happen.
This is why alternative fuels must happen as soon as possible... The only way that the Fed can combat inflation due to rise in energy costs is to raise interest rates which of course stagnates the economy.
One might be able to imaging fuel prices at $5 gallon with subsequent hikes of the interest rate may cause a major recession... Leading to massive unemployment due to business expense costs increases (employers not able to hire as many people with the money that they have due to their own expenses and the fact they have to pay everyone more because of inflation).
Of course, my scenario is a bit over the top, I believe that since we heavily rely on trucks for our goods (rather than boat or train) that higher gas prices will hurt us all regardless of our behavior.
I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes.
Unfortunately, this means even if people stopped commuting your groceries and commodities would face higher costs due to inflation.
The US does not have an efficient train network and goods and services primarily use automobiles to transport goods. This is why it is critical for lower gas prices regardless of driving habits.
If you got a letter from a business containing a typo on almost every line, would you do business with them?
Seems to work well enough for email spammers.
Re:Here's how it works from another perspective
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 1
"It works because some rat fuckers out there buy the shit that's being advertised."
Personally, I don't think there should be legislation aimed at spammers directly because it is useless to try to bring someone in Eastern Europe or Asia to justice or even stop spam.
We should however pass legislation against companies who ads or information appear in spam messages. Obviously, the are companies that are often in the states who could be punished.
There is no way to program around users that blindly say yes to every prompt.
I'm not suggesting providing a prompt at all. If a program wants to modify the OS, it should not be given an option. It should not even prompt to run the password for an admin account. It simply should not be allowed.
If a user really wants to install it, they they need to run an application much like OS X's Net Info manager which they had to specially type in a string text to enable the root account.
(I would like to also point out that OS X does allow programs and installation packages to modify the OS which without root which is a flaw as well... It will require you a password, but I personally disagree with this policy was well and I'm surprised we haven't seen more OS X viruses)
I just feel that the OS should remain the same of regardless of what is going on or being installed and the applications change to work with it... Not the other way.
Seriously, why make a point about the operating system being designed improperly if you're going to support it with completely false evidence.
But it isn't like this out of the box! There are millions of people who do not have the knowledge for the home computers and I dare say there are plenty of Network Admins who are clueless too.
Hence, this is why OS is designed improperly. It should be secure as soon as you install it... Not after tweaking it and locking it down.
This is why we have millions of zombies sending you and me spam on a daily basis. An OS should be locked down by default and then users should unlock features they need.
..well...what SHOULD the response have been? "Microsoft has also set up a military strike team that can travel through time, stopping virus and trojan developers before they infect the future."
Sure, but I think it would be more cost effective if they made the OS impossible to have a Trojan in the first place.
Here is my take... A 3rd party application should never... EVER be able to modify anything with the OS unless the user specifically jumps through hoops of fire to allow this. It should not be a cancel or allow type of think, but you specifically had to go and enable a root account and click through at least two prompts and one requiring an admin account password. A 3rd party program should not be able to call this feature automatically, but must be instituted by user action.
The maximum amount of damage any program should be allowed to do is delete your home directory.
The problem here is that this program if it does get run on someone computers has the ability to attack the OS (or getting the OS to something automatically without user intervention), which IMO is a big no no for OS design.
I work for a large financial organization that was *just* venturing outside of Microsoft operating systems and the lawyers sent out a notice today that we are to remove all traces of "open source" software, effective immediately.
Could you give me a hint of which financial company? I'm worried that I'm keeping my nest egg funds in a company who lets idiocy run its course without actually checking the facts. I suppose such a company would likely panic for any non-serious market trends which leads to me being poor because someone freaked out over something that was simply not true.
Closing all vulnerabilities is not practical. In any sufficiently complex piece of software, there will be bugs and security holes.
I hate to say this, but if your software is so complex that it is impossible to fix all the security holes... Then maybe you shouldn't make it so complex.
I mean even something as complex as OS X has security holes, but not so many that it requires the developers to throw their hands in the air and say "Oh we give up!" at some point.
Seriously, if your product is so complex and possibly bloated to a point to where it would be impossible to fix something without breaking another part, then you should really consider starting over from scratch. Maybe fire and hire a few new programmers and stop listening to customers for every inane feature possible because a security breach will cost your customer's more money than lack of functionality ever will and possibly cause you to loose them as a future customer.
But I believe we might also have a difference of opinion of what a security hole is...
Even a minor hole should be tracked and at least reported. Heck even Apple patched that wifi hole that required 3rd party hardware to do. That might not even constitute 0.001% of their consumer base, but they fixed it.
But it's all right for the restaurant and bar owners to make their employees breathe that smoke eight hours a day in order to make a living?
But it's all right for oil companies to put their employees on highly dangerous oil rigs, or fishing companies put their men out in highly dangerous and freezing cold seas? Or the US military puts its men in harms way?
The professions I mentioned usually involve more deaths than a waitress working in a smokey bar and are paid as such... One could say you know the dangers when you take the job, so if you aren't up to it... Then don't take the job.
Of course there are plenty of highly dangerous situations that were rectified such as coal mines and factory work.... But again... At some point you do have to take personally responsibility for your own health and your own job.
I have a hunch that one day my job will kill me through stress related health problems, but it is primarily my fault for not finding another line of work.
And yes... There is plenty of other work than working as a waitress... Work at a grocery store, retail, warehouse, or factory. Most of the people that I know work at restaurants and bars smoked themselves anyways.
And keep in mind I don't smoke, but I feel that is a personal choice and responsibility of the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
While I've never cheated. It's hard enough being an honest college student nowdays.
I think the problem is the higher education has gone in the wrong direction. First of all since many people feel that it is required for employment it drives up the costs for those few who want to learn for the sake of learning or that college education has something useful in their said field.
What pissed me off about college in the 90's is that it had nothing to do with the work force in the 2000's. Technology changed... Ideas changed... And I'm still not using anything useful from English 101.
What higher education should focus on is actually training for specific field for hands on training or actually on the job training rather than writing hundreds of useless papers that won't have anything to do (or ones that you will even remember) about your job in 10 years.
Unless of course you want to go into a field that actually requires you to write papers.
Second, a five year moratorium on biofuels is not what is needed. A permanent moratorium on growing plants in soil as a biofuel feedstock is what we need.
I have a hunch that we needed to go with more nuclear plants and hydrogen fueled cars all along. Personally, I'm hoping for a solar and hydrogen revolution because if the technology gets good enough I could produce my own hydrogen locally since I don't think anyone would approve of a nuclear reactor in my back yard.
What's the big deal about Microsoft tacking the GPLv3 on their bulleting board at the office? Was it covering up the employee who was offering guitar lessons memo?
You can't really blame the ISP's as providing full bandwidth to all would be overly costly and ridiculous given the original traffic patterns but they are going to have to adapt to the new data patterns of their subscribers or lose to those who will provide it.
Then maybe they should advertise it as such. I haven't seen a single add anywhere for an ISP that says web page and email use only. I personally wouldn't mind these policies if the the companies were up front and said "Bandwidth limited" rather than "Unlimited bandwidth*"
All day we're around Microwaves, XRays, High voltage lines, lights, televisions and Radio signals. There are TONS, of course... but how much more is actually from outside the atmosphere?
Actually, in the late 1890's and early 1900's people who worked in the field of XRays often died from over exposure of radiation. They simply didn't know what they heck they were working with. Thomas Edison was so horrified of what happened to his worker Clarence Dally due to radiation poisoning that he abandoned any further research with X-rays. Not to mention Marie Curie death due to exposure to radiation and countless others that worked in her field.
Back then of course people thought drinking radium was a good health product and that shoe sales man could operate their x-ray on a casual basis to fit shoes giving them more REM exposure in a day than a modern nuclear power plant worker is allowed a year.
I'm not saying that WiFi is dangerous, but as a precedent people have often generally underestimated some dangers with emerging technologies and we should never discount such a thing could happen. Of course we due scientific study than complete news worthy paranoia.
The same name can be trademarked by multiple companies as long as they don't have the same type of business.
Exmaple of similar trademarked companys:
Apple Records (the ones the Beatles owned)
Apple Computers (the one that Jobs owns)
Apple Vacations
Remember there was a big legal stink between Apple Records and Apple Computers when the former released a sound card in their computer. Apple Records said that meant they were getting into the music business and then latter with iTunes.
So? All matter in the universe is energy storage including ground based petroleum and bio-fuels. These energy resources don't just spontaneously come into being.
Hydrogen efficient in releasing energy, but rather difficult to use energy to produce it.
Consider that aluminum used to worth more than gold back in the 1800's. Now we can go to the grocery stores and buy a six pack of drinks with cans made of this stuff.
Give it time and the production might be even more efficient.
I fail to see how employment position is a realisic and valid way to determine attention span.
One could argue that personality types do affect what profession you will pursue. Although this is not 100% and there are many exceptions to this rule.
And alternatively, you can argue that your profession could be affecting your personality on how you deal with your work.
As a person who has to make constant and man decisions on an daily (if not hourly) basis, then you tend to prefer information that is as concise as possible. You simply don't have the time to read thousands of pages for yourself and expect to make timely choices and therefore have to have your information condenses and presented to you in that fashion.
I'm not saying there are people out there in management that don't actually read the source material instead of skimming the Powerpoint hand outs, but I would suspect they are a rare bunch due to the nature of the job.
Where as a coder would see his job differently in how he goes about taking in information due to the nature of his work.
As one could say... If all you have is a hammer, then all problems look like nails. So from that aspect, management will address problems with management solutions whereas someone who is strictly technical would search for a more technical solution.
If there were no legal fictions, there wouldn't be satellite radio.
No. It would be just companies owned by individuals who may or may not be rather wealthy. (Think Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch)
However, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be stocks, shareholders, and CEOs but rather that corporations should not have their cake and eat it too by affording government protection from wrong doing.
As in either corporations must either by regulated by government since they are getting protection or they shouldn't be regulated by government and receive no government protection (I prefer the latter since I have Libertarian views towards economics)
The problem is that corporations of today are effectively using government regulations such as taxes, employment laws, lack of liability, stock market regulation, and of course local, state, and federal governments passing legislation on the request of corporate lobbyists. I could also say that the certain corporations are abusing FDA regulations, copyrights, and patents in order to gain profit at the expense of the free market and of course their competitors.
So in that respect, they have violated the spirit of private property and there should be some recourse... Either give up the benefits to be truly laissez-faire or expect more regulation.
Personally, I dislike the thought of more regulation internally so I would like to see more liability and responsibility of corporations by making it more privatized. That sounds like a paradox I know, but if corporations were treated or were required to have individual responsibility (like real people) as in the the company does a crime and CEO goes to jail for it and the stock holders are punished much like someone who owns a private business that isn't public, then the corporations will of course behave better ethically.
Of course in my idea, stockholders that didn't want to face such actions could simply buy non-voting stock for pure investment purposes, but if you have a say in the company that you should be responsible for what it does.
If you can simply hold companies accountable then we can start treating them like private citizens who are responsible enough to own their own property.
On a side note... I'd like to point out that corporations who maintain the majority of the voting stock in a small group of hands or have a single authority figure like Microsoft, Google, and Apple tend to have better control of where the direction of the company is going in a positive long term fashion. Much like private feudal fiefs (or mini-dictators as you could call Gates and Jobs) often have a vision that is good for the long term role of the company.
Companies that simply hire the latest and greatest CEO for a year or so are usually followed by share holders who don't give a damn about whether the company goes under in 6 months as long as they make a quarterly profit. These types of companies are usually headless chickens who hire way too many people, overspend, and always end up laying off people in the end.
In truth the best investments are in companies that the investors have little control over the actual business process itself which is why I argue even without change in the legality of corporations that the best businesses are ones that retain centralized private control rather than a board of directions elected by many shareholders.
As an environment-conscious individual, I relish higher gas prices. $3 a gallon? Why not $5 or $10? I truly believe hitting people in the wallet is the *only* way to incite change in habits as deeply-rooted as our gasoline addiction.
Great! Now even if I ride a bike or walk to grocery store, I'll still get slapped in the face with inflation due to rising costs in shipping!
But seriously, I would agree with you but the majority of shipping and handling in the states relies on automobiles and not trains or boats.
If gas prices rise too high... So does transporting goods which means everything is more expensive for everyone in the states regardless if you drive an SUV or walk everywhere you go. People can't stop eating without dying. Just not going to happen.
This is why alternative fuels must happen as soon as possible... The only way that the Fed can combat inflation due to rise in energy costs is to raise interest rates which of course stagnates the economy.
One might be able to imaging fuel prices at $5 gallon with subsequent hikes of the interest rate may cause a major recession... Leading to massive unemployment due to business expense costs increases (employers not able to hire as many people with the money that they have due to their own expenses and the fact they have to pay everyone more because of inflation).
Of course, my scenario is a bit over the top, I believe that since we heavily rely on trucks for our goods (rather than boat or train) that higher gas prices will hurt us all regardless of our behavior.
I'll support these outrageous gas prices if they're finally high enough to make people rethink their horribly inefficient daily commutes.
Unfortunately, this means even if people stopped commuting your groceries and commodities would face higher costs due to inflation.
The US does not have an efficient train network and goods and services primarily use automobiles to transport goods. This is why it is critical for lower gas prices regardless of driving habits.
Since most pirated installations don't have the install media either, it's a sure fired way to wipe out thousands of fake installs in one fell swoop.
I don't think it will hurt the pirates that much to redownload it.
If they aren't patient enough they can walk down the corner store and pick themselves up a "copy" of Windows XP for $3.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
;)
Always attribute to stupidity which could be adequately explained by malice?
Sometimes it is pretty malicious to remain so willfully stupid.
Although, I don't think Symantec is on good terms with Microsoft these days.
If you got a letter from a business containing a typo on almost every line, would you do business with them?
Seems to work well enough for email spammers.
"It works because some rat fuckers out there buy the shit that's being advertised."
Personally, I don't think there should be legislation aimed at spammers directly because it is useless to try to bring someone in Eastern Europe or Asia to justice or even stop spam.
We should however pass legislation against companies who ads or information appear in spam messages. Obviously, the are companies that are often in the states who could be punished.
There is no way to program around users that blindly say yes to every prompt.
I'm not suggesting providing a prompt at all. If a program wants to modify the OS, it should not be given an option. It should not even prompt to run the password for an admin account. It simply should not be allowed.
If a user really wants to install it, they they need to run an application much like OS X's Net Info manager which they had to specially type in a string text to enable the root account.
(I would like to also point out that OS X does allow programs and installation packages to modify the OS which without root which is a flaw as well... It will require you a password, but I personally disagree with this policy was well and I'm surprised we haven't seen more OS X viruses)
I just feel that the OS should remain the same of regardless of what is going on or being installed and the applications change to work with it... Not the other way.
Seriously, why make a point about the operating system being designed improperly if you're going to support it with completely false evidence.
But it isn't like this out of the box! There are millions of people who do not have the knowledge for the home computers and I dare say there are plenty of Network Admins who are clueless too.
Hence, this is why OS is designed improperly. It should be secure as soon as you install it... Not after tweaking it and locking it down.
This is why we have millions of zombies sending you and me spam on a daily basis. An OS should be locked down by default and then users should unlock features they need.
..well...what SHOULD the response have been? "Microsoft has also set up a military strike team that can travel through time, stopping virus and trojan developers before they infect the future."
Sure, but I think it would be more cost effective if they made the OS impossible to have a Trojan in the first place.
Here is my take... A 3rd party application should never... EVER be able to modify anything with the OS unless the user specifically jumps through hoops of fire to allow this. It should not be a cancel or allow type of think, but you specifically had to go and enable a root account and click through at least two prompts and one requiring an admin account password. A 3rd party program should not be able to call this feature automatically, but must be instituted by user action.
The maximum amount of damage any program should be allowed to do is delete your home directory.
The problem here is that this program if it does get run on someone computers has the ability to attack the OS (or getting the OS to something automatically without user intervention), which IMO is a big no no for OS design.
That's just speculate.
I know an earth bound asteroid who would disagree.
I work for a large financial organization that was *just* venturing outside of Microsoft operating systems and the lawyers sent out a notice today that we are to remove all traces of "open source" software, effective immediately.
Could you give me a hint of which financial company? I'm worried that I'm keeping my nest egg funds in a company who lets idiocy run its course without actually checking the facts. I suppose such a company would likely panic for any non-serious market trends which leads to me being poor because someone freaked out over something that was simply not true.
So we pay a little more for CD's, and that money goes to the copyright holders (we hope).
Why would you pay copyright holders anything when you don't use the blank CDRs to copy copyrighted material?
What if you simply used those CDs to burn Linux distro's or make fair use backups? Why should you pay the tax?
storm smacks down phone lines leaving landlines useless!
;)
Two words...
HAM RADIO
Seriously folks, if you are that concerned about loss of communication during a disaster, buy a generator and a short wave radio.
The only thing better is a true blue satellite phone which most of us don't have the money to keep around.
Closing all vulnerabilities is not practical. In any sufficiently complex piece of software, there will be bugs and security holes.
I hate to say this, but if your software is so complex that it is impossible to fix all the security holes... Then maybe you shouldn't make it so complex.
I mean even something as complex as OS X has security holes, but not so many that it requires the developers to throw their hands in the air and say "Oh we give up!" at some point.
Seriously, if your product is so complex and possibly bloated to a point to where it would be impossible to fix something without breaking another part, then you should really consider starting over from scratch. Maybe fire and hire a few new programmers and stop listening to customers for every inane feature possible because a security breach will cost your customer's more money than lack of functionality ever will and possibly cause you to loose them as a future customer.
But I believe we might also have a difference of opinion of what a security hole is...
Even a minor hole should be tracked and at least reported. Heck even Apple patched that wifi hole that required 3rd party hardware to do. That might not even constitute 0.001% of their consumer base, but they fixed it.
But it's all right for the restaurant and bar owners to make their employees breathe that smoke eight hours a day in order to make a living?
But it's all right for oil companies to put their employees on highly dangerous oil rigs, or fishing companies put their men out in highly dangerous and freezing cold seas? Or the US military puts its men in harms way?
The professions I mentioned usually involve more deaths than a waitress working in a smokey bar and are paid as such... One could say you know the dangers when you take the job, so if you aren't up to it... Then don't take the job.
Of course there are plenty of highly dangerous situations that were rectified such as coal mines and factory work.... But again... At some point you do have to take personally responsibility for your own health and your own job.
I have a hunch that one day my job will kill me through stress related health problems, but it is primarily my fault for not finding another line of work.
And yes... There is plenty of other work than working as a waitress... Work at a grocery store, retail, warehouse, or factory. Most of the people that I know work at restaurants and bars smoked themselves anyways.
And keep in mind I don't smoke, but I feel that is a personal choice and responsibility of the end user.
Preview works fine in OS X without downloading anything made by Adobe. Heck... I can make PDFs with OS X without even installing anything Adobe.