Driving is a privilege, not a right. No one has to drive.
Although... Hospital ERs (at least in Virginia) are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Payment gets worked out later. Expenses for those that cannot pay get shifted to the rest of us. So treatment is basically a right. With rights come responsibilities.
Abolish the right to treatment and I'll go along with your argument.
...the disk presented to the SCSI controller just fine -- but it also didn't seem to spin up at all...
Ya, I had that happen once, but I simply rapped my SCSI drive with the handle of my screwdriver - hard - right on the spindle head while the controller was trying to spin it up - "WHACK". Sucker spun up on the second hit. Still works fine.
Once users are banned from installing applications, or modifying the system security, usability, and more are improved.
Keep them from installing the OS and the box will be very secure, though usability may suffer a bit. I've always thought that security wonks are only really happy with a system while it's powered off or still in the box.
The problem is individuals who believe that their sick day coverage can be treated as a free bank of personal days. That isn't the contract that they signed; that isn't the benefit that they're entitled to; that isn't the cost that the company has budgeted for.
It might be, depends on the company and its policies, which, of course, they are free to modify at will.
There isn't a Magic Benefit Fairy that lets companies turn a sick day allowance into personal days on a one-for-one basis...
Actually, companies can do whatever they want, so yes there is. They just have to decide to make it so. For example, "salaried" employees simply work and get paid, regardless of their hours...
To summarize and finish this thread:
[... yak, yak, yak...]
As I said. To solve the problem, change sick days to personal days. I understand *all* your points -- and they may actually be good points, in some context, for some workers or types of workers, at some companies -- but you're really just rationalizing the status-quo.
Sick days are insurance, not vacation. They pay out only if something bad happens to you.
You make assumptions and/or work for a piss-poor company. The last several companies for which I have worked, [like (my present company), The New York Times, SAIC, Unisys] give their employees personal days, that expire at the end of the year, and encourage that they be used. We have separate "vacation" days that can rollover year-to-year. For illnesses exceeding three days, we have short-term disability and for those longer than (some other period of time) long-term disability.
My "personal" days can be for illness or whatever - I don't even have to provide a reason. They are not insurance, so I'm not abusing an insurance program or fucking my co-workers, I'm utilizing my benefits. For the short/long term disability benefit, one needs a doctor's note, so you actually have to be sick, and that *is* insurance.
As I said, the problem stated in the article can be solved by redefining "sick" days as "personal" days and (I will now add) providing *real* sick-time insurance that requires a doctor visit to utilize. And, of course, treat your employees like people, not property.
You don't have sick days so that you can stay home and get paid for an extra two weeks a year.
Which is, of course, exactly what happens if one actually gets sick. Restricting use of those days means that management is betting most employees won't actually get sick and/or use those days and the unused "benefit" will cost the company nothing.
You have sick days so that if you get sick and can't come in to work, you a) don't end up losing pay for that time you were sick; b) aren't tempted to force yourself to come in to work and infect all your coworkers in the process; and c) don't have to burn your vacation days or cancel your planned trip to Florida because you got the flu this year and need to make up the hours.
Dear Management Wanker,
Thank you so much for deciding how I should live my life. I couldn't possibly manage to take responsibility for the decisions I make all by myself. Can you come by my house and make sure I chew my food well, don't run with scissors, and brush my teeth before bedtime too?
... their only excuse is: 'I just can't help it.' According to researchers at Binghamton University, they may be right. The propensity for infidelity could very well be in their DNA.
Yes, yes and one day we will develop big brains that will allow us to control our base urges and rise above being mere animals. And, yes, I have friends who are recovering alcoholics, so I'm sympathetic to the underlying issue. Still, poor impulse control is what usually gets you into the trouble you can't handle...
Actually, it's called turning your head and looking back over your shoulder. Way, WAY back when, my driver ed teacher said he'd fail us if we tried to just use the mirror.
Granted, depending on its position, a camera will probably see things lower than the driver's line of sight and a backup sensor would be even more helpful.
I'll second this. In addition, the Direct Marketing Association and pre-approved credit card opt-outs have worked very well. I get almost zero junk mail. See this for details:
World Privacy Forum's Top Ten Opt Outs
Microsoft said... that Google simply doesn't understand what businesses need, and is failing at pushing its way into the enterprise.
Or, perhaps companies don't like having "solutions" forced on them.
He also said he thinks Google will be shocked to see Microsoft's momentum into the enterprise cloud sector.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but if any of my employees ever says, "To the cloud!" I will fire them on the spot. Fucking stupid commercials. Yes, the OS is so powerful, one has to offload processing elsewhere.
I've heard about studies and seen the Mythbusters check out dirty things, but my feeling is that if we were so fragile a species that our systems can't cope with a kitchen sponge, we'd have died out a long, long time ago. A little bacteria here and there gives our immune systems something to do.
A number of epidemiological studies have shown that people infected with parasitic worms suffer less from allergies and other immune diseases, and research in animal models designed to mimic these diseases supports these findings.
The people in the US and UK are routinely subjected to various kinds of surveillance and scrutiny - like the US warrant-less wiretaps and TSA peep-shows - and told by our governments and pundits, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." I say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I suspect our governments have been very bad at times and indeed have things to hide - not only from others, but from their own people.
I was joking, of course, but mixing weed and stress is like mixing antihistamines, Mountain Dew and a few days of sleep deprivation. The results are not pretty - though the colors are nice, even if everything is a bit shaky.
Most people I know that work in IT smoke egregious amounts of pot.
Luckily, it hasn't affected me, though the disk arrays keep looking at me - with their constant blinking... blinkity, blink, blink - QUIT LOOKIN' AT ME!
Now, if the TSA is right about the necessity of these scanners and enhanced pat-downs, this move to temporarily disable the scanners seems like a massive security problem.
If they were sure they were right, they would never bypass them. The fact that they do indicates that they are not a necessity, just a convenience or scare tactic. Rumor is that the enhanced pat-downs were initiated to "encourage" people into accepting the back-scatter scans.
I read an article that the TSA is considering software to either distort the back-scatter images or reduce them to stick-figure images, with any anomalies highlighted. If true and implemented, then this should reduce some of the complaints about the scans. If simple stick-figures are shown, then there wouldn't be a need for a monitor in another room for "privacy"; the monitor could be out next to the scanner.
I can't speak for the overall legal/privacy or radiation concerns, though if the specs are correct, any radiation exposure should be very minimal for the average air traveler.
The post was asking about digital (DSLR) vs. film (SLR) cameras, not DSLR vs. other types of digital cameras. Of course, in the latter context, the ban doesn't makes sense except that DSLR cameras probably offer higher resolution, more lens options and better picture quality than point-and-shoot cameras - as do (film) SLR cameras.
I'm guessing digital SLRs are banned because the photos can be easily copied/uploaded whereas those on actual film cannot. Control the flow of information.
You were mod'ed "funny", but seriously, I've been using tcsh (interactively) since the 80s and prefer it to bash. I also tend to write scripts in ksh as that's been more portable and available (native) than bash on non-Linux systems - though that's changing.
I was going to say too many politicians drive off the road and kill their passengers, but I guess the famous one who did that didn't bother calling the cops AT ALL, much less from the scene.
If you're referring to Chappaquiddick, then, for those that don't know the reference, please realize that cell phones didn't exist in 1969. Of course, a call could have been made after the crash from any one of the four houses along the walk home - the nearest being only 150 yards away - but I digress.
If your point is that politicians are, by and large, uncaring, narrow-minded, self-serving scum, you'll get no argument from me.
Why, even here in California, this remarkable bacteria, showing much more intelligence and logical-thought ability than anyone else on the ticket, would have been a write-in landslide victory for governor!
Unfortunately, most Americans probably cannot spell "Escherichia coli", "bacteria", or even "E. coli" (trouble w/the "E", I'm sure) so the write-in campaign would have failed. Some would deny that the bacteria could have even evolved to be so intelligent. A few would have questioned the bacteria's citizenship.
Slashdot Mirror
Although... Hospital ERs (at least in Virginia) are required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay. Payment gets worked out later. Expenses for those that cannot pay get shifted to the rest of us. So treatment is basically a right. With rights come responsibilities.
Abolish the right to treatment and I'll go along with your argument.
Ya, I had that happen once, but I simply rapped my SCSI drive with the handle of my screwdriver - hard - right on the spindle head while the controller was trying to spin it up - "WHACK". Sucker spun up on the second hit. Still works fine.
Keep them from installing the OS and the box will be very secure, though usability may suffer a bit. I've always thought that security wonks are only really happy with a system while it's powered off or still in the box.
Not in this case, tobacco is a vegetable.
It might be, depends on the company and its policies, which, of course, they are free to modify at will.
Actually, companies can do whatever they want, so yes there is. They just have to decide to make it so. For example, "salaried" employees simply work and get paid, regardless of their hours...
To summarize and finish this thread:
As I said. To solve the problem, change sick days to personal days. I understand *all* your points -- and they may actually be good points, in some context, for some workers or types of workers, at some companies -- but you're really just rationalizing the status-quo.
You make assumptions and/or work for a piss-poor company. The last several companies for which I have worked, [like (my present company), The New York Times, SAIC, Unisys] give their employees personal days, that expire at the end of the year, and encourage that they be used. We have separate "vacation" days that can rollover year-to-year. For illnesses exceeding three days, we have short-term disability and for those longer than (some other period of time) long-term disability.
My "personal" days can be for illness or whatever - I don't even have to provide a reason. They are not insurance, so I'm not abusing an insurance program or fucking my co-workers, I'm utilizing my benefits. For the short/long term disability benefit, one needs a doctor's note, so you actually have to be sick, and that *is* insurance.
As I said, the problem stated in the article can be solved by redefining "sick" days as "personal" days and (I will now add) providing *real* sick-time insurance that requires a doctor visit to utilize. And, of course, treat your employees like people, not property.
Which is, of course, exactly what happens if one actually gets sick. Restricting use of those days means that management is betting most employees won't actually get sick and/or use those days and the unused "benefit" will cost the company nothing.
Dear Management Wanker,
Thank you so much for deciding how I should live my life. I couldn't possibly manage to take responsibility for the decisions I make all by myself. Can you come by my house and make sure I chew my food well, don't run with scissors, and brush my teeth before bedtime too?
Yes, yes and one day we will develop big brains that will allow us to control our base urges and rise above being mere animals. And, yes, I have friends who are recovering alcoholics, so I'm sympathetic to the underlying issue. Still, poor impulse control is what usually gets you into the trouble you can't handle...
Actually, it's called turning your head and looking back over your shoulder. Way, WAY back when, my driver ed teacher said he'd fail us if we tried to just use the mirror.
Granted, depending on its position, a camera will probably see things lower than the driver's line of sight and a backup sensor would be even more helpful.
I'll second this. In addition, the Direct Marketing Association and pre-approved credit card opt-outs have worked very well. I get almost zero junk mail. See this for details: World Privacy Forum's Top Ten Opt Outs
Or, perhaps companies don't like having "solutions" forced on them.
Perhaps a bit off-topic, but if any of my employees ever says, "To the cloud!" I will fire them on the spot. Fucking stupid commercials. Yes, the OS is so powerful, one has to offload processing elsewhere.
For example, see: Fighting Allergies by Mimicking Parasitic Worms
See Rule 34.
Perhaps forcing him to spend his days going through enhanced pat-downs at TSA checkpoints? Though that should probably be reserved for the innocent...
The people in the US and UK are routinely subjected to various kinds of surveillance and scrutiny - like the US warrant-less wiretaps and TSA peep-shows - and told by our governments and pundits, "If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide." I say that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I suspect our governments have been very bad at times and indeed have things to hide - not only from others, but from their own people.
I was joking, of course, but mixing weed and stress is like mixing antihistamines, Mountain Dew and a few days of sleep deprivation. The results are not pretty - though the colors are nice, even if everything is a bit shaky.
Luckily, it hasn't affected me, though the disk arrays keep looking at me - with their constant blinking... blinkity, blink, blink - QUIT LOOKIN' AT ME!
If they were sure they were right, they would never bypass them. The fact that they do indicates that they are not a necessity, just a convenience or scare tactic. Rumor is that the enhanced pat-downs were initiated to "encourage" people into accepting the back-scatter scans.
I read an article that the TSA is considering software to either distort the back-scatter images or reduce them to stick-figure images, with any anomalies highlighted. If true and implemented, then this should reduce some of the complaints about the scans. If simple stick-figures are shown, then there wouldn't be a need for a monitor in another room for "privacy"; the monitor could be out next to the scanner.
I can't speak for the overall legal/privacy or radiation concerns, though if the specs are correct, any radiation exposure should be very minimal for the average air traveler.
The post was asking about digital (DSLR) vs. film (SLR) cameras, not DSLR vs. other types of digital cameras. Of course, in the latter context, the ban doesn't makes sense except that DSLR cameras probably offer higher resolution, more lens options and better picture quality than point-and-shoot cameras - as do (film) SLR cameras.
I'm guessing digital SLRs are banned because the photos can be easily copied/uploaded whereas those on actual film cannot. Control the flow of information.
I was busy - working.
You were mod'ed "funny", but seriously, I've been using tcsh (interactively) since the 80s and prefer it to bash. I also tend to write scripts in ksh as that's been more portable and available (native) than bash on non-Linux systems - though that's changing.
If you're referring to Chappaquiddick, then, for those that don't know the reference, please realize that cell phones didn't exist in 1969. Of course, a call could have been made after the crash from any one of the four houses along the walk home - the nearest being only 150 yards away - but I digress.
If your point is that politicians are, by and large, uncaring, narrow-minded, self-serving scum, you'll get no argument from me.
Unfortunately, most Americans probably cannot spell "Escherichia coli", "bacteria", or even "E. coli" (trouble w/the "E", I'm sure) so the write-in campaign would have failed. Some would deny that the bacteria could have even evolved to be so intelligent. A few would have questioned the bacteria's citizenship.