I don't know the details, and if his CV really did contain confidential info, the the employer was correct. If it did not, then I hope he wins the suit. Posting your resume/CV on a networking/career site is not a valid reason for dismissal (or creating a hostile environment such that the employee quits). If that is indeed what happened, make them pay dearly, both as a penalty to BG Group and as a precedent and caution to other employers.
But it's all MS, so it all integrates and works together seamlessly, right? And it's all managed centrally using AD, right? I mean, that's got to result in significant savings, right? Oh, and the agreement covers all our computers and all this extra software that would cost us so much separately, so we're really getting a great deal on it. Please, MS Salesman, tell us something that's easy to believe and we'll sign.
In theory, if you could deploy such a worm within your own network (e.g. corporation) and guarantee it wouldn't infect any other machines, then MAYBE, but how would you guarantee that?
What works is a vulnerability scanner (e.g. satan type programs) to detect and inform you of potential vulnerabilities in your system plus a known malware scanner (e.g. MSRT, MalwareBytes, AV software). plus "behavior detection" software that flags malware-like behavior.
Such software must be installed and run by an administrator/root and should be scheduled to run periodically. You can't rely upon users to run it because users who are sufficiently security aware to run it periodically are the ones least likely run untrusted software and get infected.
Given that the site is called "divorceonline", any of it's clients or visitors are more likely to be regular internet users, therefore, it'll be a biased sample. Were they self-selected voters?
Those bulbs were just introduced in the past 12 months, specifically because they can be sold after the regulations take effect. They are legal today. You do not understand the regulations.
And that changes nothing. Any type of portable electric heater will have heating efficiency at least as good as an incandescent bulb. There is no situation in which the energy efficiency of an incandescent bulb is better than a system designed to heat. If it's cold enough that you need to apply the heat, incandescent bulbs alone are not the solution, nor the most efficient one.
And that still puts far less mercury into the environment than the coal burned to create the energy to power a comparable incandescent bulb. As for relying upon coal, see my other post.
And yet, the 95W bulbs are allowed under the new regulations, therefore, you have misinterpreted the regulations. So no, I'm not lying about them. You can believe whatever you wish, but go to the store and you can buy the bulbs I referenced.
Most ultraviolet [including UVA, UVB, and UVC] is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from about 150 nm ('vacuum' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but this type of ultraviolet is not very penetrating and is blocked by air.
Most electricity in the US is produced from coal. You don't have any control over the source of your electric power. In some states you can choose your electricity retailer, and select a plan that is "100% renewable", but that doesn't actually control the source of your power. Once it's in the grid, it's all electricity and you have zero control over the source.
Your claims about mercury content are seriously flawed. Do some research and stop spouting disproven lies.
Incorrect. GE and Sylvania both offer incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. I'm sure there are others, but that's enough to disprove your claims. Do some research before making your absurd claims.
I've used these bulbs extensively, and I have "perfect" color vision (I've been tested multiple times). These bulbs aren't for photographic, ad/preprint work, but for household use they're great. Try them before you bash them on specs that you clearly don't fully understand.
That's correct. 20 years ago, the battle was over "copy protection", which invariably made it hard for the legitimate purchaser to install and use the software. They battle has moved to "DRM" (same thing, slightly more encompassing), but it's the same battle 20 years later. "Anti-theft" methods that inconvenience legitimate purchasers are ONLY a hindrance to legitimate purchasers. Pirates/thieves/crooks are not stopped by locks or laws, those only keep honest people honest. But when the locks or laws hamper legitimate use by purchasers, people will resort to breaking the locks and laws, and once they resort to having to break them, it's harder to justify spending money to purchase it (e.g. "why should I buy it knowing that I'm going to have to break the lock or 'illegally' download an unlocked copy?").
Copy-protection failed because of this, DRM is failing for the same reasons, and DRM that hampers legitimate users will ALWAYS fail, no matter how strong the DRM or how severe the laws. Make DRM that doesn't hamper legitimate uses and both your DRM costs and your piracy rate will fall. It's a win for everyone (yes, even the crooks who are going to pirate it no matter what).
Electric heat is inefficient. A light bulb is not more efficient as a heater than an electric heating element, and it's less efficient than natural gas and other types of heat. So it's at best break-even when cold, and it's a waste when it's warm enough that you don't need the heater. Unless you're in the arctic or antarctic, it's a net loss, and if you have a more efficient heat source such as natural gas or an electric heat pump, it's still a net loss.
I haven't had any of those Sylvania CFL bulbs burn out, and I've been using them for about 10 years. I've had one or two dead out of the box, and I've been through several "outdoor" models that I left on 24/7 on my front porch. But for indoor, part time use, none have died.
I won't buy a non-incandescent bulb that doesn't specify the color temp. My preference is 2700k. 3000k is decent, 3500k-5500k is really annoying to me.
You're correct, anything over $10 for a non-specialty bulb is too much, I haven't even paid more than $5 for an indoor CFL.
Fewer than 10% of bulbs are used with a dimmer, so it makes no sense to make dimmable bulbs the norm. Adding that cost to 90+% of bulbs that will never be dimmed isn't practical.
Phase out could have been handled better, but when the Gov't sets the rules, I expect them to be a bad compromise. Every once in a while they approve a sane plan, but not very often.
LED is definitely not quite ready to be the mainstream replacement. It'll probably get there, but to get the brightness, life, color temp, and dispersion is still too costly or not possible. They're great for some uses, but not yet ready to replace mainstream CFL or halogen.
I suggest you consider the bulbs in this post. Not dimmable (dimmable available), but I think you'll find they fulfill all your requirements for non-dimmable bulbs.
Then you haven't looked very hard. I buy CFLs (2700k color temp) on sale 3 for $4.97 at Lowe's. Excellent color, very close to incandescent. 8000 hr average life. Nearly instant on. Here's a 4-pack of Sylvania 13W(60Weq) 2700k 12,000 hr CFL bulbs for $10.02. If you prefer 3000k or 5000k color temp, they have those too.
I simply pointed out that your examples aren't examples of the situation you specified. I never said CFL's are appropriate for all uses, nor are LEDs. But it's not because "the large ballast in CFL will cast a huge shadow near the base, making it unsuitable in many applications." You gave one example where that issue might be a problem, which is a far cry from "many applications".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know the details, and if his CV really did contain confidential info, the the employer was correct. If it did not, then I hope he wins the suit. Posting your resume/CV on a networking/career site is not a valid reason for dismissal (or creating a hostile environment such that the employee quits). If that is indeed what happened, make them pay dearly, both as a penalty to BG Group and as a precedent and caution to other employers.
Yes. RTFA.
But it's all MS, so it all integrates and works together seamlessly, right? And it's all managed centrally using AD, right? I mean, that's got to result in significant savings, right? Oh, and the agreement covers all our computers and all this extra software that would cost us so much separately, so we're really getting a great deal on it. Please, MS Salesman, tell us something that's easy to believe and we'll sign.
In theory, if you could deploy such a worm within your own network (e.g. corporation) and guarantee it wouldn't infect any other machines, then MAYBE, but how would you guarantee that?
What works is a vulnerability scanner (e.g. satan type programs) to detect and inform you of potential vulnerabilities in your system
plus a known malware scanner (e.g. MSRT, MalwareBytes, AV software).
plus "behavior detection" software that flags malware-like behavior.
Such software must be installed and run by an administrator/root and should be scheduled to run periodically. You can't rely upon users to run it because users who are sufficiently security aware to run it periodically are the ones least likely run untrusted software and get infected.
+1 ^^^
Given that the site is called "divorceonline", any of it's clients or visitors are more likely to be regular internet users, therefore, it'll be a biased sample. Were they self-selected voters?
Actually, McKay is the expert on Ancient technology, annoying as he is.
Because they haven't sold enough WP7 to anyone to waste their time trying.
Those bulbs were just introduced in the past 12 months, specifically because they can be sold after the regulations take effect. They are legal today. You do not understand the regulations.
And that changes nothing. Any type of portable electric heater will have heating efficiency at least as good as an incandescent bulb. There is no situation in which the energy efficiency of an incandescent bulb is better than a system designed to heat. If it's cold enough that you need to apply the heat, incandescent bulbs alone are not the solution, nor the most efficient one.
Wrong, these sites aren't "walled" in any way. Get an account, upload software. No validation of the account owner or the software.
And that still puts far less mercury into the environment than the coal burned to create the energy to power a comparable incandescent bulb. As for relying upon coal, see my other post.
And yet, the 95W bulbs are allowed under the new regulations, therefore, you have misinterpreted the regulations. So no, I'm not lying about them. You can believe whatever you wish, but go to the store and you can buy the bulbs I referenced.
And that's why "walled gardens" are safer for the vast majority of users.
Incorrect, both bulbs are permitted under the new regulations. You're misreading the standards.
However, UV light.
Most ultraviolet [including UVA, UVB, and UVC] is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from about 150 nm ('vacuum' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but this type of ultraviolet is not very penetrating and is blocked by air.
Most electricity in the US is produced from coal. You don't have any control over the source of your electric power. In some states you can choose your electricity retailer, and select a plan that is "100% renewable", but that doesn't actually control the source of your power. Once it's in the grid, it's all electricity and you have zero control over the source.
Your claims about mercury content are seriously flawed. Do some research and stop spouting disproven lies.
Incorrect. GE and Sylvania both offer incandescent bulbs that meet the standard. I'm sure there are others, but that's enough to disprove your claims. Do some research before making your absurd claims.
I've used these bulbs extensively, and I have "perfect" color vision (I've been tested multiple times). These bulbs aren't for photographic, ad/preprint work, but for household use they're great. Try them before you bash them on specs that you clearly don't fully understand.
That's correct. 20 years ago, the battle was over "copy protection", which invariably made it hard for the legitimate purchaser to install and use the software. They battle has moved to "DRM" (same thing, slightly more encompassing), but it's the same battle 20 years later. "Anti-theft" methods that inconvenience legitimate purchasers are ONLY a hindrance to legitimate purchasers. Pirates/thieves/crooks are not stopped by locks or laws, those only keep honest people honest. But when the locks or laws hamper legitimate use by purchasers, people will resort to breaking the locks and laws, and once they resort to having to break them, it's harder to justify spending money to purchase it (e.g. "why should I buy it knowing that I'm going to have to break the lock or 'illegally' download an unlocked copy?").
Copy-protection failed because of this, DRM is failing for the same reasons, and DRM that hampers legitimate users will ALWAYS fail, no matter how strong the DRM or how severe the laws. Make DRM that doesn't hamper legitimate uses and both your DRM costs and your piracy rate will fall. It's a win for everyone (yes, even the crooks who are going to pirate it no matter what).
Electric heat is inefficient. A light bulb is not more efficient as a heater than an electric heating element, and it's less efficient than natural gas and other types of heat. So it's at best break-even when cold, and it's a waste when it's warm enough that you don't need the heater. Unless you're in the arctic or antarctic, it's a net loss, and if you have a more efficient heat source such as natural gas or an electric heat pump, it's still a net loss.
I haven't had any of those Sylvania CFL bulbs burn out, and I've been using them for about 10 years. I've had one or two dead out of the box, and I've been through several "outdoor" models that I left on 24/7 on my front porch. But for indoor, part time use, none have died.
I won't buy a non-incandescent bulb that doesn't specify the color temp. My preference is 2700k. 3000k is decent, 3500k-5500k is really annoying to me.
You're correct, anything over $10 for a non-specialty bulb is too much, I haven't even paid more than $5 for an indoor CFL.
Fewer than 10% of bulbs are used with a dimmer, so it makes no sense to make dimmable bulbs the norm. Adding that cost to 90+% of bulbs that will never be dimmed isn't practical.
Phase out could have been handled better, but when the Gov't sets the rules, I expect them to be a bad compromise. Every once in a while they approve a sane plan, but not very often.
LED is definitely not quite ready to be the mainstream replacement. It'll probably get there, but to get the brightness, life, color temp, and dispersion is still too costly or not possible. They're great for some uses, but not yet ready to replace mainstream CFL or halogen.
I suggest you consider the bulbs in this post. Not dimmable (dimmable available), but I think you'll find they fulfill all your requirements for non-dimmable bulbs.
Those aren't the dimmable model, but they fit your other criteria. Dimmables are slightly higher.
Then you haven't looked very hard. I buy CFLs (2700k color temp) on sale 3 for $4.97 at Lowe's. Excellent color, very close to incandescent. 8000 hr average life. Nearly instant on. Here's a 4-pack of Sylvania 13W(60Weq) 2700k 12,000 hr CFL bulbs for $10.02. If you prefer 3000k or 5000k color temp, they have those too.
I simply pointed out that your examples aren't examples of the situation you specified. I never said CFL's are appropriate for all uses, nor are LEDs. But it's not because "the large ballast in CFL will cast a huge shadow near the base, making it unsuitable in many applications." You gave one example where that issue might be a problem, which is a far cry from "many applications".