Because tritium in particular is an integral part of certain thermonuclear devices (though in quantities several thousand times larger than that in a keychain), consumer and safety devices containing tritium for use in the United States are subject to certain possession, resale, disposal, and use restrictions.
True, accidents are usually caused by driver/ped/bicycle not following road rules and/or not paying attention. This all works well if only vehicles are in use on the roads, but this is not usually the case in most major cities. To plow into ped/bicycle with a two ton vehicle as the logic of the driver assistance has been told to do exactly that might be questionable. I guess the problem here is should we allow the programming to make the decision to selectively edit the gene pool (for better or worse).
The articles' logic is flawed. If everyone (car, bicycle, pedestrian) is following laws of the road and the above logic is used, this could be considered homicide almost to the point of premeditated. I bet if this logic is used some countries will ban the sale of said vehicles.
The thing that should be considered is if a collision is unavoidable, the person in the vehicle will have WAY more protection than a bicycle of pedestrian. In other words the car should hit the wall, not the pedestrian.
Mercedes needs a new Manager of driver assistance systems.
The government of course. This supports their desire to create and maintain an ignorant and thus compliant citizenry. By only providing information that they want you to have under the illusion that they are being open with you.
It kind of reminds me of of the movie "Animal House" where Kevin Bacon is trying to quell a stampede at the parade ALL IS WELL
She was not deemed negligent, but "extremely careless". That is the excuse Comey gave even after evidence was gathered as in similar cases. These are already prosecutions that have taken place and should show precedence to at least proceed to an indictment. So no she was not treated as others who have mishandled classified information. Even some of the FBI investigators are upset about this decision. Many references to this: example Gotta disagree with you on that one.
This case was already decided by the White House and on the tarmac of an Arizona airport.
Agreed! This is why media is now at it lowest integrity in their history. I believe that only 30% believe all or most of the information is it's highest rating for ALL news media. This should work well for those who want to foster independent thought, but a nightmare for those who want sheeple.
Garbage in, garbage out.
This has always been the case for any data collection. Heck, Statistics is based on "lets see what the data collection tells me, or in some cases what I can get the data to say what I want"
Granted, using a similar Chicago Gun Control reference was/is just a political justification that gun control does/does not work unless applied to EVERYBODY. But then the same argument would have to be asked "Does this also apply to handling of Classified Material as well?". Each side of the political spectrum will only use the data that benefits them and supports their agenda. While this is not the basis behind statistical analysis, but is often the result when it has to do with politics. Conversely, the argument could be used that the increase in gun sales could be used to the lower crime rate in other areas. Why would you commit a crime when you know the potential victim is also armed? Gun crime increase in Chicago could also be attributed to only criminals have them now, thus the increase
We always have to validate the integrity of the data being used whether it crime rate, weather patterns, public and private records, etc.. In other words independent thought. (I know, I know, some consider this dangerous)
I have always wondered why it takes so long for some data that is supposed to be public records are not released until a set time has expired? Why did it take so long for all the JFK files to be released (final release date somewhere in 2017). Is this reason so questions can no longer be asked by anybody who was part of the data collection/retention? I would not be surprised that sometime in 2070, the Clinton emails will also be released long after any of the political figures are no longer available to answer questions. Or who knows, some data just may disappear all together. But you have to admit it is getting more difficult to hide information now than it was 50 years ago.
If you are going to denounce "greed", start with your own — manifested by the desires to a) be paid more; b) save money.
I find it amusing that everyone points back to greed being two-sided as well. I do not desire to be paid more, just so I can survive in the region where I live. I do not strive to save money, it is just an after effect of "Do I need it or Do I want it" type spending habits. You are stereotyping that all people are greedy. Shame on you.
If you are saying that free trade is all about greed, then you are correct, this is about free trade.
It's simple: why should they care about long-term impacts? They'll have left the company with their golden parachute long before the shit hits the fan.
Your mistake is thinking that political and business leaders have any kind of conscience or care for the state of their nation in 10 years' time.
You say "not exactly", but then affirm my point...
You can be a criminal but not an enemy. And an enemy isn't necessarily a criminal. Being one of them does not make them the other. I know its semantics, but they are two different meanings.
Unless you are going to suggest, the Indians or the University's management are the enemies implied in the text of the Oath, the question is not pertinent...
I am suggesting that SOMEONE has been told to cut costs anyway they can to fund something else. Oh wait, here is the reason.
The concern in TFA is that a bunch of people lost their jobs, because their employer decided to switch labor-suppliers. Even when/if we develop Free(er) Trade, this is going to continue happening.
I do not believe that this is a Free Trade issue, see the LA Time link that I provided. This is about what is called GREED that is running rampant in the executive ranks of everything in the public and private sectors of government and business
Its graduate students and research grants are federally supported. What good would cutting off their funding do?
Because I as a tax-payer I am funding it, does not matter how much, but utilizing tax-payer money to actually CAUSE unemployment is fundamentally WRONG.
For the same reasons you buy Chinese phones, German cars, French wine, Canadian wood and paper, and New Zealand Kiwis. I mean, if your reasoning applies to IT services, why not to all other products?
I do not buy foreign products, I only shop at local grocery chain, I still have my Motorola flip phone and I have exactly done the opposite that you are suggesting I do. I have minimized everything in my life. I look at everything as "Do I really need this or would I just like to have it?" I no longer have a car, I ride a bicycle everywhere I go that was manufactured in the good ole state of Tennessee, I do not Drink, Kiwis are overrated, etc.... It sounds to be you are trying to make me a hypocrite. Weeelllll, nice try, but you failed!
Seriously, you think like the mercantilists and fascists of past centuries.
I would like to think that I represent the people that do not want to be controlled by a society that thinks these practices are the norm and are acceptable.
BTW, you have the smack of a Globalism troll at worst or just a current/recent MBA graduate.
I don't see how. These are temporary workers and presumably paid more than their US equivalents while in the US. The fact that they (or others) may eventually replace US workers doesn't make their work illegal.
That is supposed to be the case, but it is not! They are only required to pay a minimum of 60k/yr by federal law. Now, what is the average wage in Silicon Valley for an IT worker? Example in San Francisco, a Network Technician with 5+ years has an average salary 97k/yr. Do the math. This is exactly the abuse that is going on all across the country.
Umm, if this is a federally subsidized academic institution, I would support removing ALL tax-payer funding from this institution. Why the heck should I pay to have jobs exported to a foreign country?
No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.
Not exactly...
Basically all forms of an oath for public service at the federal level are:
"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God is optional for President]".
This poses the question of what/who are to be considered enemies?
Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...
This is the argument that has in my opinion not gotten enough analysis. How can a country approach a 100% consumer society when all the production had moved out of the country. There is no longer anything to trade from local resources, labor, goods, etc.. All is being either outsourced or imported (and this is the current trend).
If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogusexcuses), for example?
I do not believe the concerns today are about banning trade, but eliminate one-sided trade practices (H1B abuse is one of them along with market saturation of government-subsidized lower cost items). This is not free trade.
Easy solution to that is stop paying the bills (I know, almost impossible to unrealistic). But to bring the long-term impact into the short-term gains that the current Executives are basing their business logic on. Bring the pain they are causing into the realm they are looking at instead of the actual end solution.
This is what I have been observing for the past ten or so years while talking with a lot of business major currently working on their Masters (MBAs), they are only looking at the cause and effect by the quarter and this is where their emphasis is put. How much can I make in the shortest amount of time and get out before it implodes. In most cases they do not even look at ten years down the line.
This is the part that is baffling to me. When workers are replaced for cheaper foreign labor, are they looking at the short term gain only and not realizing that the people are no longer able to purchase their product as they are being replaced by foreign workers and the money is literally leaving their country. Are they hoping that the cheaper foreign labor will buy their product or service?
I would like to hear arguments on this type of model that has taken over MOST businesses, local and international
Where the heck is your logic in this. She is part of the Establishment. She just happens to play both sides as her leaked emails have shown. Her public and private views are diametrically opposed to each other. She is saying one thing to the masses and doing the opposite when implementing her plan. In other words she is exhibiting the classical "How can you tell if a politician is lying.... Answer: Their lips are moving" characteristic. The whole Trump "harassment" is a tactic of "LOOK OVER HERE, LOOK OVER HERE... NO!!! PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE PERSON BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!".
This may seem offensive to some (but I honestly do not care if it does), but I have seen with my own eyes that the opposite sex of a ANY celebrity will allow a celebrity to do anything to them just because they are a celebrity. This even happens in everyday life with ordinary folks as well. This is an example of control through sexuality. It is human nature.
After seeing all the Republicans willing to drop Trump, or even in some cases, endorse Hitlery, I'm more convinced than ever that you're right. I mean, we had Bill Clinton as a president - the entire saga w/ Monica and the stories about Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning and Juanita Broderick, and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? Had Trump been a Democrat and this all came out, the Dems would be busy closing ranks around him. Just like they're standing steadfast behind her despite the emails.
As for Paul Ryan, I was disappointed that the other Paul didn't win.
Agreed, not only did stalwart Republican (i.e. Bush family) denounce him, but are endorsing Clinton proves there is now a Third Party that has infused both sides of the Traditional two party system.
Unlike Paul Ryan, Trump stuck to his oath to the Republican party and supported Ryan for the Republican re-election. He is nothing but an Establishment shill masking himself inside the Republican party.
After hearing all the things that both sides are saying (i.e. Republican v. Democrat), I am now even more convinced that this battle is between the Establishment versus the the constituents. Realize that Hillary is now more an Establishment player than she is Democrat.
This became more evident that once Trump showed the slightest decline in his campaign, even his own party (Republicans) are trying to abandon him (at least the Establishment on the Republican side). So who is the real problem in this election year?
I believe it is not the Democrat or the Republican parties as a whole, it is the Establishment member that are causing the problems. After this election is over, I will be taking note on the upcoming House and Senate elections that will be coming and decide which side of the line the candidates are on. Establishment or the constituents.
If any of them had any pro Establishment support, then they will be disqualified from my vote.
Just my opinion, if I lived in Wisconsin that scumbag Ryan would be the first to be removed from office.
I have had a similar experience with Amazon. Going through their interview process to demonstrate CS101 type questions (which I haven't encountered in over 15 years) only to be told that they chose someone else. I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but they contacted me 4 times after they chose someone asking me if I wanted to apply for an exciting position. I finally had to tell them that I had no interest in working for them ever and specifically told them to never contact me again. I wonder how long this will last.
Slashdot Mirror
Because tritium in particular is an integral part of certain thermonuclear devices (though in quantities several thousand times larger than that in a keychain), consumer and safety devices containing tritium for use in the United States are subject to certain possession, resale, disposal, and use restrictions.
Hmm, I wonder?
True, accidents are usually caused by driver/ped/bicycle not following road rules and/or not paying attention. This all works well if only vehicles are in use on the roads, but this is not usually the case in most major cities. To plow into ped/bicycle with a two ton vehicle as the logic of the driver assistance has been told to do exactly that might be questionable. I guess the problem here is should we allow the programming to make the decision to selectively edit the gene pool (for better or worse).
The articles' logic is flawed. If everyone (car, bicycle, pedestrian) is following laws of the road and the above logic is used, this could be considered homicide almost to the point of premeditated. I bet if this logic is used some countries will ban the sale of said vehicles.
The thing that should be considered is if a collision is unavoidable, the person in the vehicle will have WAY more protection than a bicycle of pedestrian. In other words the car should hit the wall, not the pedestrian.
Mercedes needs a new Manager of driver assistance systems.
As long as ads systems are an avenue to infiltrate and infect systems with malware do not expect blocking to be unjustified by the user.
The government of course. This supports their desire to create and maintain an ignorant and thus compliant citizenry. By only providing information that they want you to have under the illusion that they are being open with you.
It kind of reminds me of of the movie "Animal House" where Kevin Bacon is trying to quell a stampede at the parade ALL IS WELL
They are operating in panic mode as their current tactics are not having the desired effect. This is human nature.
She was not deemed negligent, but "extremely careless". That is the excuse Comey gave even after evidence was gathered as in similar cases. These are already prosecutions that have taken place and should show precedence to at least proceed to an indictment. So no she was not treated as others who have mishandled classified information. Even some of the FBI investigators are upset about this decision. Many references to this: example Gotta disagree with you on that one.
This case was already decided by the White House and on the tarmac of an Arizona airport.
Agreed! This is why media is now at it lowest integrity in their history. I believe that only 30% believe all or most of the information is it's highest rating for ALL news media. This should work well for those who want to foster independent thought, but a nightmare for those who want sheeple.
Garbage in, garbage out. This has always been the case for any data collection. Heck, Statistics is based on "lets see what the data collection tells me, or in some cases what I can get the data to say what I want"
Granted, using a similar Chicago Gun Control reference was/is just a political justification that gun control does/does not work unless applied to EVERYBODY. But then the same argument would have to be asked "Does this also apply to handling of Classified Material as well?". Each side of the political spectrum will only use the data that benefits them and supports their agenda. While this is not the basis behind statistical analysis, but is often the result when it has to do with politics. Conversely, the argument could be used that the increase in gun sales could be used to the lower crime rate in other areas. Why would you commit a crime when you know the potential victim is also armed? Gun crime increase in Chicago could also be attributed to only criminals have them now, thus the increase
We always have to validate the integrity of the data being used whether it crime rate, weather patterns, public and private records, etc.. In other words independent thought. (I know, I know, some consider this dangerous)
I have always wondered why it takes so long for some data that is supposed to be public records are not released until a set time has expired? Why did it take so long for all the JFK files to be released (final release date somewhere in 2017). Is this reason so questions can no longer be asked by anybody who was part of the data collection/retention? I would not be surprised that sometime in 2070, the Clinton emails will also be released long after any of the political figures are no longer available to answer questions. Or who knows, some data just may disappear all together. But you have to admit it is getting more difficult to hide information now than it was 50 years ago.
I thought I saw this in a movie (Minority Report). Though it was accomplished by a retina scan, but same concept. Would this be considered prior art?
If you are going to denounce "greed", start with your own — manifested by the desires to a) be paid more; b) save money.
I find it amusing that everyone points back to greed being two-sided as well. I do not desire to be paid more, just so I can survive in the region where I live. I do not strive to save money, it is just an after effect of "Do I need it or Do I want it" type spending habits. You are stereotyping that all people are greedy. Shame on you.
If you are saying that free trade is all about greed, then you are correct, this is about free trade.
It's simple: why should they care about long-term impacts? They'll have left the company with their golden parachute long before the shit hits the fan.
Your mistake is thinking that political and business leaders have any kind of conscience or care for the state of their nation in 10 years' time.
That is why I said "bring the pain to them"
You say "not exactly", but then affirm my point...
You can be a criminal but not an enemy. And an enemy isn't necessarily a criminal. Being one of them does not make them the other. I know its semantics, but they are two different meanings.
Unless you are going to suggest, the Indians or the University's management are the enemies implied in the text of the Oath, the question is not pertinent...
I am suggesting that SOMEONE has been told to cut costs anyway they can to fund something else. Oh wait, here is the reason.
The concern in TFA is that a bunch of people lost their jobs, because their employer decided to switch labor-suppliers. Even when/if we develop Free(er) Trade, this is going to continue happening.
I do not believe that this is a Free Trade issue, see the LA Time link that I provided. This is about what is called GREED that is running rampant in the executive ranks of everything in the public and private sectors of government and business
Its graduate students and research grants are federally supported. What good would cutting off their funding do?
Because I as a tax-payer I am funding it, does not matter how much, but utilizing tax-payer money to actually CAUSE unemployment is fundamentally WRONG.
For the same reasons you buy Chinese phones, German cars, French wine, Canadian wood and paper, and New Zealand Kiwis. I mean, if your reasoning applies to IT services, why not to all other products?
I do not buy foreign products, I only shop at local grocery chain, I still have my Motorola flip phone and I have exactly done the opposite that you are suggesting I do. I have minimized everything in my life. I look at everything as "Do I really need this or would I just like to have it?" I no longer have a car, I ride a bicycle everywhere I go that was manufactured in the good ole state of Tennessee, I do not Drink, Kiwis are overrated, etc.... It sounds to be you are trying to make me a hypocrite. Weeelllll, nice try, but you failed!
Seriously, you think like the mercantilists and fascists of past centuries.
I would like to think that I represent the people that do not want to be controlled by a society that thinks these practices are the norm and are acceptable.
BTW, you have the smack of a Globalism troll at worst or just a current/recent MBA graduate.
I don't see how. These are temporary workers and presumably paid more than their US equivalents while in the US. The fact that they (or others) may eventually replace US workers doesn't make their work illegal.
That is supposed to be the case, but it is not! They are only required to pay a minimum of 60k/yr by federal law. Now, what is the average wage in Silicon Valley for an IT worker? Example in San Francisco, a Network Technician with 5+ years has an average salary 97k/yr. Do the math. This is exactly the abuse that is going on all across the country.
Umm, if this is a federally subsidized academic institution, I would support removing ALL tax-payer funding from this institution. Why the heck should I pay to have jobs exported to a foreign country?
No, it is not. The government's duty is to protect us from external enemies and internal criminals. Nobody owes you any actual support — that is, you can not count on other people giving you anything of theirs, only on them not taking away anything of yours.
Not exactly... Basically all forms of an oath for public service at the federal level are: "I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God is optional for President]". This poses the question of what/who are to be considered enemies?
Back to the original topic, I can not see, how an employer can be considered wrong not buying labor from the same folks, who are themselves happy to buy imported goods. We are all selling something (such as our labor) to buy something — and Free Trade expands the markets for both sellers and buyers. It sucks to be on the losing side, but that's life...
This is the argument that has in my opinion not gotten enough analysis. How can a country approach a 100% consumer society when all the production had moved out of the country. There is no longer anything to trade from local resources, labor, goods, etc.. All is being either outsourced or imported (and this is the current trend).
If you ban trading with India, the employer may consider moving work away from the expensive California towards a cheaper State — will we be talking about banning interstate commerce next, the way health insurance is already banned (under a variety of bogus excuses), for example?
I do not believe the concerns today are about banning trade, but eliminate one-sided trade practices (H1B abuse is one of them along with market saturation of government-subsidized lower cost items). This is not free trade.
Easy solution to that is stop paying the bills (I know, almost impossible to unrealistic). But to bring the long-term impact into the short-term gains that the current Executives are basing their business logic on. Bring the pain they are causing into the realm they are looking at instead of the actual end solution.
This is what I have been observing for the past ten or so years while talking with a lot of business major currently working on their Masters (MBAs), they are only looking at the cause and effect by the quarter and this is where their emphasis is put. How much can I make in the shortest amount of time and get out before it implodes. In most cases they do not even look at ten years down the line.
This is the part that is baffling to me. When workers are replaced for cheaper foreign labor, are they looking at the short term gain only and not realizing that the people are no longer able to purchase their product as they are being replaced by foreign workers and the money is literally leaving their country. Are they hoping that the cheaper foreign labor will buy their product or service?
I would like to hear arguments on this type of model that has taken over MOST businesses, local and international
I do not recall seeing a Trump Death List YET, however there is a Clinton Death List
This may seem offensive to some (but I honestly do not care if it does), but I have seen with my own eyes that the opposite sex of a ANY celebrity will allow a celebrity to do anything to them just because they are a celebrity. This even happens in everyday life with ordinary folks as well. This is an example of control through sexuality. It is human nature.
After seeing all the Republicans willing to drop Trump, or even in some cases, endorse Hitlery, I'm more convinced than ever that you're right. I mean, we had Bill Clinton as a president - the entire saga w/ Monica and the stories about Kathleen Willey, Dolly Kyle Browning and Juanita Broderick, and we're now questioning Trump's qualifications for that office for something he said, not did 11 years ago? Had Trump been a Democrat and this all came out, the Dems would be busy closing ranks around him. Just like they're standing steadfast behind her despite the emails.
As for Paul Ryan, I was disappointed that the other Paul didn't win.
Agreed, not only did stalwart Republican (i.e. Bush family) denounce him, but are endorsing Clinton proves there is now a Third Party that has infused both sides of the Traditional two party system.
Unlike Paul Ryan, Trump stuck to his oath to the Republican party and supported Ryan for the Republican re-election. He is nothing but an Establishment shill masking himself inside the Republican party.
This became more evident that once Trump showed the slightest decline in his campaign, even his own party (Republicans) are trying to abandon him (at least the Establishment on the Republican side). So who is the real problem in this election year?
I believe it is not the Democrat or the Republican parties as a whole, it is the Establishment member that are causing the problems. After this election is over, I will be taking note on the upcoming House and Senate elections that will be coming and decide which side of the line the candidates are on. Establishment or the constituents.
If any of them had any pro Establishment support, then they will be disqualified from my vote.
Just my opinion, if I lived in Wisconsin that scumbag Ryan would be the first to be removed from office.
And they want me to disable my Ad Blocker? I think not!!
I have had a similar experience with Amazon. Going through their interview process to demonstrate CS101 type questions (which I haven't encountered in over 15 years) only to be told that they chose someone else. I wouldn't have thought anything of it, but they contacted me 4 times after they chose someone asking me if I wanted to apply for an exciting position. I finally had to tell them that I had no interest in working for them ever and specifically told them to never contact me again. I wonder how long this will last.
Need I say more?