In the meantime we'd appreciate it if you metric faggots would shut the hell up. Your base-10 systems never got you to the Moon, did they?
You can always tell when someone has lost the argument, because they resort to calling names in a pathetic attempt to intimidate their opponent into shutting up.
Oh...and by the way, as has been posted elsewhere in the comments to this story, you'll find that the standard unit of measurement in science is, and for a long, long time, has been....drum roll please...metric units. So yeah, I guess the metric system did get us to the moon after all, even if the Saturn V and the Apollo capsule was built according to Imperial specs (since that's what we use for manufacturing in the U.S.).
But why introduce more errors into the system than necessary?
I see your point, and I don't entirely disagree with you. Communication always has been and always will be a significant source of problems. However, if you can eliminate one potential communication error, doesn't it make sense to do so? That's kind of the idea behind standards -- to make sure everyone is speaking the same language so that people work well together.
Granted, you probably don't want to redesign from the ground up and retool all of your production in the middle of a program (the space shuttle, for example), but when you are shifting from one program to another, that seems to be a logical place to make the switch. I'm not second guessing NASA in this particular decision, but I am saying that it probably would be a good thing if the U.S. would begin transitioning to metric whenever possible.
lol. Of course, I imagine that engine technology has improved to the point that it is now possible to extract a lot more H.P. from that same 1.6L now than it was when my car was built back in '83:)
That's what I'm worried about -- if the U.S. insists on being harder to work with than other industrial countries, we will become one of those relics that you sometimes still see in Europe (and Asia, and...)
...as an only language. Point being you learn what you are taught and what you use. Set the bar, and people will rise to meet it...but only if you don't allow failure to be a viable option.
You know, a lot of Europeans probably think that U.S. reluctance to embrace the metric system is just another example of our arrogance...The real problem is that it is surprisingly hard to embrace a new system of measurement when you've spent your entire life thinking in different terms.
Great. Now we Americans look stupid as well as arrogant.
Maybe it's just because I spent half of my childhood years overseas, but seriously, metric is not that hard. It's kind of like learning a foreign language. If you only spend an hour a day at it, it's tough. But if you drop yourself into that culture so that you are forced to use it ALL THE TIME, it's really not that difficult.
That's an awful lot of judgment from someone who presumably doesn't even work in the aerospace engineering industry (basing that on the lack of "...I work for ${engineering_firm}, and in my experience..." in your post). Keep in mind PP probably didn't work at the firm when the conversion from paper to electronic began, and therefore PP does NOT share the blame for that lack of archiving. Furthermore, even if the original paper drawings *are* archived (in paper), there is still an enormous cost of converting them to electronic format, then tracking down every single revision since that drawing was originally created, then making sure every unit conversion from the original document to the final version is correct.
Rocket science is rocket science because there is very, very little margin for error. We've had...three?...space shuttles destroyed in flight because of errors. It is non-trivial to change things, and the debugging process sometimes costs people their lives.
As far as the budget issues...have you ever had a car that kept having problems, but you kept repairing it instead of replacing it because the cost of the next repair was still less than the cost of buying a new car? It's only when you finally get fed up with having the car in the shop AGAIN that you bite the bullet and shop for a new car...of course by then, your old car is virtually new, since you've replaced just about every component in it already, so you still keep thinking that "well, maybe this will be the last repair it needs for a while..." Same thing here.
Since I was born and live in the U.S., I tend to think in Imperial units, too. However, the fallacy with your argument is that it is only intuitive to you and I because that is what we are accustomed to using. I submit that, had you and I been brought up using SI units, 5'3" would sound just as foreign as 1.6m currently does to us.
In other words, it only takes a generation for your argument to no longer be valid.
You are correct, except for one thing. Regardless of which standard of measurement you use -- SI or Imperial -- the problem doesn't come from converting units WITHIN that standard of measurement. The problem comes when working with a team in another locale that uses an entirely difference standard of measurement...which inevitably leads to screwups as one team or the other forgets to convert from the standard they are used to using as they collaborate with the other team.
This has causedproblems before. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't really feel like Googling for them now;)
If we want to stay relevant in the industrial world, I think there is probably a good argument to be made for the U.S. (and I say this as an American) to stop being so obstinate and get with the program. When the hassle of dealing with us oddball Yanks and our Imperial system of measurement becomes greater than the benefits of doing business with us, the rest of the world will leave us behind.
Displacement in a lot of American cars -- even in the States, mind you -- are measured in liters as well. My first car, a Ford, had a whopping 1.6L engine (and went from 0-60 in 5.4 months, lol). My wife's F150 has a 5.4L V8, and her previous car, a Jeep Grand Cherokee had a 4L V6 (?).
All of the other cars I've ever owned had engine capacities measured in liters too, but they were Japanese cars (even though two had the ostensibly American "Eagle" brand name...but in reality, they were Mitsubishis imported by Chrysler).
The mere possession of ${Sum_Of_Money} raises suspicion of smuggling money and avoiding the IRS on a domestic flight? In fairness, I copied the "on international flights" in my quote above; that was an oversight on my part, and I (grudgingly) relent in that area. But I stand by my argument that if I am travelling within the country, then it matters not a whit if I am carrying $10, $10,000 or $10,000,000. The mere possession of that money does nothing to prove that I have done anything illegal, and the government has no right to detain me on the basis of that cash alone.
I am reminded of the old joke about the lady whose husband was an avid fisherman. As they are vacationing on a lake, she decides to take his boat out on the lake to read alone for a while. Some time later, the Fish and Game officer motors up to her and asks to see her fishing license. "I don't have one," she says. "Well then, I am going to have to write you a ticket for fishing without a license," the officer replies. "But I am not fishing," she replies. "I am only reading my book." "Yes, but you have all of the necessary equipment for fishing in the boat with you,"the officer replies. "Therefore, you might have been fishing before I arrived, and you might go fishing again after I leave." "Very well," the lady replies. "But just as soon as I get back to shore, I am going to call the local police and report that you raped me." Obviously disturbed, the officer protests, "What?!?! I haven't even touched you!" "No, you haven't," the lady answers, "but you have all of the necessary equipment."
Just because you could have doesn't mean you did, and if there is no probable cause to believe that you have actually committed a crime, then the government has no right to detain you.
While the claimantsâ(TM) explanation for these circumstances may be âoeplausible,â
we think it is unlikely. We therefore conclude that the government proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially
connected to a narcotics offense.
They did nothing of the sort. The dissenting judge did a far, far better job of dissecting the decision than I can, but the gist of it is that, while the circumstances may indeed look like they could be suspicious, there was no evidence proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the men involved did anything at all illegal, much less that the money seized was "substantially connected to a narcotics offense."
<offtopic>I'm actually looking forward to jury duty next month. This kind of crap has got to stop.</offtopic>
I don't think there is a limit for domestic travel BUT it would be wise to declare it with the airlines at least 24 hours before you boarded.
For the love of everything holy, WHY?!?!?!? If there is no legal requirement to declare the money, then for what reason would it be wise to declare cash with the airlines before boarding a flight? Is the passenger sitting next to you or a flight attendent possibly going to have a reasonable fear that you might bludgeon them with a wad of cash?
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer...
From a practical standpoint, maybe so, but why should we, as law-abiding citizens of what was once one of the freest nations in the world, be forced and willing to hand over those freedoms to a thug just because he wears a uniform?!?!? If I don't have a legal requirement to answer the question, you don't have a legal right to detain me. PERIOD. The sooner we as a nation start getting outraged at abuses of power and start standing up for our RIGHTS the sooner we can live in a country we are proud of again.
Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.
Maybe. But maybe Bierfeldt just seized an opportunity that presented itself. I admire his courage, and hope that, should I ever be in a similar position, I would do likewise.
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Reread his post. He specifically states that one of the reasons he hates the ACLU is because, not only do they frequently choose not to pursue 2nd amendment liberties, but they have even opposed 2nd amendment liberties.
The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Not necessarily. Their entire purpose is to further their political agenda, which frequently -- but not always -- coincides with OUR liberties. However, as OP stated, they sometimes have taken positions on issues that violated our liberties because it did not mesh with their political ideologies.
Don't get me wrong. While I sometimes (maybe even "often") disagree with the ACLU, I think the ACLU is probably a net good. But I would say that it is dangerous to assume that they -- or any other political action group -- is always entirely benevolent.
To my knowledge, the only time you have to declare currency is on international flights and on amounts over $10,000.
I believe you are right, but IANAL so take with NaCl as required. However, even that degree of invasion of my privacy irks me. What is the difference between $10,000 and $4700 (yes, I know...$5300)? Why is one okay and the other not? If the only suspicion you have that I committed a crime is $10,001 (or even $100,000) on my person, then I submit that you have no legitimate reason to detain me. Carrying cash is not (yet) a crime.
TFA is light on details, so maybe this isn't what happened, but it is plausible:
Biefeldt leaves Campaign for Liberty without sufficient time to stop at a bank, grocery store, etc. before he needs to be at the airport to catch his flight. Therefore, although it may not be good practice generally speaking, Bierfeldt elects to carry cash on his return flight rather than converting the cash to a money order or cashier's check first.
All of which is irrelevent anyway. The simple fact is that, whether or not you think it is wise to carry that much cash on your person, Bierfeldt was well within his rights to carry cash on the flight. TSA/DHS is well overdue for a reality check in the court system.
In my case, the union was trying to expand its membership, so it opened itself up to a group of employees that traditionally were not part of a union (IT workers). What that meant was that we were the "ugly step-sisters" in the union. The rank and file union members liked a fixed working schedule -- 8-5, five days a week, and anything outside of that schedule billed on a progressively more expensive overtime schedule.
IT, on the other hand, was used to being a salaried group, with flexible working hours and flexible shifts. If we needed to work on a server after hours, we'd take time off during the day to compensate. If an 8-5 schedule didn't work for someone, we'd do 7-4 or 9-6 or...... Quite frankly, there weren't enough of us to make it worth the union's time to figure out a way to write the flexibility we desired into the collective bargaining agreement.
Yes, actually they did. I actually asked about that, but was told that once a 4x10 shift was approved for anyone, then the employer had a precedent for establishing that as an accepted shift, and could then try to force everyone into a 4x10 shift [:rolleyes:]
Of course, you could attent Union meetings, and try to get the rules on breaks and workweeks changed.
That might work when there are enough similarly minded people in the union. In my case, there were six of us in the shop, and oh....a couple hundred linemen who liked things the way they were. It would have taken an act of God to change things there.
...but isn't it better that the workers have the ability to change the rules instead of the employer?
I guess that depends upon how marketable your talents are. I've only had one job, waaaaay back at the beginning of my career, where I couldn't negotiate better working conditions for myself. Since then, I have found that things are better when I negotiate my own terms of employment than when a union does it "on my behalf".
That was my point -- I doubt it is illegal to ask. However, I strongly suspect (not being a lawyer, and all that) that it would be illegal to require that information as a condition of employment.
The government is an agent working on your behalf.
I'm sorry -- I seemed to have missed the "/s" tag at the end of your post. I just know that had to be a typo or accidental ommision because absolutely no one on/. (or at least no one with any grasp of history) could possibly have said that with a straight face.
Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.
That's been my experience in the one union I was in. My working relationship with my employer was great...until the group went union (it was a done deal by the time I started working there). At that point, my boss became paranoid about being grieved for anything and everything, and therefore, the freedom I had had to just do what needed to be done disappeared. Two examples: 4-10 work weeks ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies 5-8s for your position") and combining two 15 minute breaks and the 30 minute lunch break into a single lunch break of 1 hour ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement says that you have to be given a 15 minute break after 2 hours, a 30 minute lunch at four hours and another 15 minute break at 6 hours").
The Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs your workplace is truly a double-edged sword. It limits what your employer can require you to do, but it also limits what your employer can allow you to do as well.
I honestly couldn't care less if an employer asks for my account information -- even passwords. However, the answer I'm likely to give goes something like, "MYOFB."
If they REQUIRE that information, then the answer becomes "Go screw."
Slashdot Mirror
Oops...I think you're right. I was focusing on the 4L six, and threw in the V from the F150. My bad.
In the meantime we'd appreciate it if you metric faggots would shut the hell up. Your base-10 systems never got you to the Moon, did they?
You can always tell when someone has lost the argument, because they resort to calling names in a pathetic attempt to intimidate their opponent into shutting up.
Oh...and by the way, as has been posted elsewhere in the comments to this story, you'll find that the standard unit of measurement in science is, and for a long, long time, has been....drum roll please...metric units. So yeah, I guess the metric system did get us to the moon after all, even if the Saturn V and the Apollo capsule was built according to Imperial specs (since that's what we use for manufacturing in the U.S.).
You fail, but thanks for playing.
But why introduce more errors into the system than necessary?
I see your point, and I don't entirely disagree with you. Communication always has been and always will be a significant source of problems. However, if you can eliminate one potential communication error, doesn't it make sense to do so? That's kind of the idea behind standards -- to make sure everyone is speaking the same language so that people work well together.
Granted, you probably don't want to redesign from the ground up and retool all of your production in the middle of a program (the space shuttle, for example), but when you are shifting from one program to another, that seems to be a logical place to make the switch. I'm not second guessing NASA in this particular decision, but I am saying that it probably would be a good thing if the U.S. would begin transitioning to metric whenever possible.
lol. Of course, I imagine that engine technology has improved to the point that it is now possible to extract a lot more H.P. from that same 1.6L now than it was when my car was built back in '83 :)
540
That's what I'm worried about -- if the U.S. insists on being harder to work with than other industrial countries, we will become one of those relics that you sometimes still see in Europe (and Asia, and...)
...as an only language. Point being you learn what you are taught and what you use. Set the bar, and people will rise to meet it...but only if you don't allow failure to be a viable option.
You know, a lot of Europeans probably think that U.S. reluctance to embrace the metric system is just another example of our arrogance...The real problem is that it is surprisingly hard to embrace a new system of measurement when you've spent your entire life thinking in different terms.
Great. Now we Americans look stupid as well as arrogant.
Maybe it's just because I spent half of my childhood years overseas, but seriously, metric is not that hard. It's kind of like learning a foreign language. If you only spend an hour a day at it, it's tough. But if you drop yourself into that culture so that you are forced to use it ALL THE TIME, it's really not that difficult.
That's an awful lot of judgment from someone who presumably doesn't even work in the aerospace engineering industry (basing that on the lack of "...I work for ${engineering_firm}, and in my experience..." in your post). Keep in mind PP probably didn't work at the firm when the conversion from paper to electronic began, and therefore PP does NOT share the blame for that lack of archiving. Furthermore, even if the original paper drawings *are* archived (in paper), there is still an enormous cost of converting them to electronic format, then tracking down every single revision since that drawing was originally created, then making sure every unit conversion from the original document to the final version is correct.
Rocket science is rocket science because there is very, very little margin for error. We've had...three?...space shuttles destroyed in flight because of errors. It is non-trivial to change things, and the debugging process sometimes costs people their lives.
As far as the budget issues...have you ever had a car that kept having problems, but you kept repairing it instead of replacing it because the cost of the next repair was still less than the cost of buying a new car? It's only when you finally get fed up with having the car in the shop AGAIN that you bite the bullet and shop for a new car...of course by then, your old car is virtually new, since you've replaced just about every component in it already, so you still keep thinking that "well, maybe this will be the last repair it needs for a while..." Same thing here.
Since I was born and live in the U.S., I tend to think in Imperial units, too. However, the fallacy with your argument is that it is only intuitive to you and I because that is what we are accustomed to using. I submit that, had you and I been brought up using SI units, 5'3" would sound just as foreign as 1.6m currently does to us.
In other words, it only takes a generation for your argument to no longer be valid.
You are correct, except for one thing. Regardless of which standard of measurement you use -- SI or Imperial -- the problem doesn't come from converting units WITHIN that standard of measurement. The problem comes when working with a team in another locale that uses an entirely difference standard of measurement...which inevitably leads to screwups as one team or the other forgets to convert from the standard they are used to using as they collaborate with the other team.
;)
This has caused problems before. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't really feel like Googling for them now
If we want to stay relevant in the industrial world, I think there is probably a good argument to be made for the U.S. (and I say this as an American) to stop being so obstinate and get with the program. When the hassle of dealing with us oddball Yanks and our Imperial system of measurement becomes greater than the benefits of doing business with us, the rest of the world will leave us behind.
Displacement in a lot of American cars -- even in the States, mind you -- are measured in liters as well. My first car, a Ford, had a whopping 1.6L engine (and went from 0-60 in 5.4 months, lol). My wife's F150 has a 5.4L V8, and her previous car, a Jeep Grand Cherokee had a 4L V6 (?).
All of the other cars I've ever owned had engine capacities measured in liters too, but they were Japanese cars (even though two had the ostensibly American "Eagle" brand name...but in reality, they were Mitsubishis imported by Chrysler).
The mere possession of ${Sum_Of_Money} raises suspicion of smuggling money and avoiding the IRS on a domestic flight? In fairness, I copied the "on international flights" in my quote above; that was an oversight on my part, and I (grudgingly) relent in that area. But I stand by my argument that if I am travelling within the country, then it matters not a whit if I am carrying $10, $10,000 or $10,000,000. The mere possession of that money does nothing to prove that I have done anything illegal, and the government has no right to detain me on the basis of that cash alone.
I am reminded of the old joke about the lady whose husband was an avid fisherman. As they are vacationing on a lake, she decides to take his boat out on the lake to read alone for a while. Some time later, the Fish and Game officer motors up to her and asks to see her fishing license. "I don't have one," she says. "Well then, I am going to have to write you a ticket for fishing without a license," the officer replies. "But I am not fishing," she replies. "I am only reading my book." "Yes, but you have all of the necessary equipment for fishing in the boat with you,"the officer replies. "Therefore, you might have been fishing before I arrived, and you might go fishing again after I leave." "Very well," the lady replies. "But just as soon as I get back to shore, I am going to call the local police and report that you raped me." Obviously disturbed, the officer protests, "What?!?! I haven't even touched you!" "No, you haven't," the lady answers, "but you have all of the necessary equipment."
Just because you could have doesn't mean you did, and if there is no probable cause to believe that you have actually committed a crime, then the government has no right to detain you.
While the claimantsâ(TM) explanation for these circumstances may be âoeplausible,â we think it is unlikely. We therefore conclude that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant currency was substantially connected to a narcotics offense.
They did nothing of the sort. The dissenting judge did a far, far better job of dissecting the decision than I can, but the gist of it is that, while the circumstances may indeed look like they could be suspicious, there was no evidence proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the men involved did anything at all illegal, much less that the money seized was "substantially connected to a narcotics offense."
<offtopic>I'm actually looking forward to jury duty next month. This kind of crap has got to stop.</offtopic>
I don't think there is a limit for domestic travel BUT it would be wise to declare it with the airlines at least 24 hours before you boarded.
For the love of everything holy, WHY?!?!?!? If there is no legal requirement to declare the money, then for what reason would it be wise to declare cash with the airlines before boarding a flight? Is the passenger sitting next to you or a flight attendent possibly going to have a reasonable fear that you might bludgeon them with a wad of cash?
It's also wise from a practical standpoint to either give up your rights and cooperate with the agents asking questions you have a right to not answer...
From a practical standpoint, maybe so, but why should we, as law-abiding citizens of what was once one of the freest nations in the world, be forced and willing to hand over those freedoms to a thug just because he wears a uniform?!?!? If I don't have a legal requirement to answer the question, you don't have a legal right to detain me. PERIOD. The sooner we as a nation start getting outraged at abuses of power and start standing up for our RIGHTS the sooner we can live in a country we are proud of again.
Unless you are deliberately out to "test the system" you will just make your life miserable with nothing to show for it.
Maybe. But maybe Bierfeldt just seized an opportunity that presented itself. I admire his courage, and hope that, should I ever be in a similar position, I would do likewise.
Then you hate liberty and freedom. The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Reread his post. He specifically states that one of the reasons he hates the ACLU is because, not only do they frequently choose not to pursue 2nd amendment liberties, but they have even opposed 2nd amendment liberties.
The ACLU's entire purpose is the protection of YOUR liberty.
Not necessarily. Their entire purpose is to further their political agenda, which frequently -- but not always -- coincides with OUR liberties. However, as OP stated, they sometimes have taken positions on issues that violated our liberties because it did not mesh with their political ideologies.
Don't get me wrong. While I sometimes (maybe even "often") disagree with the ACLU, I think the ACLU is probably a net good. But I would say that it is dangerous to assume that they -- or any other political action group -- is always entirely benevolent.
To my knowledge, the only time you have to declare currency is on international flights and on amounts over $10,000.
I believe you are right, but IANAL so take with NaCl as required. However, even that degree of invasion of my privacy irks me. What is the difference between $10,000 and $4700 (yes, I know...$5300)? Why is one okay and the other not? If the only suspicion you have that I committed a crime is $10,001 (or even $100,000) on my person, then I submit that you have no legitimate reason to detain me. Carrying cash is not (yet) a crime.
TFA is light on details, so maybe this isn't what happened, but it is plausible:
Biefeldt leaves Campaign for Liberty without sufficient time to stop at a bank, grocery store, etc. before he needs to be at the airport to catch his flight. Therefore, although it may not be good practice generally speaking, Bierfeldt elects to carry cash on his return flight rather than converting the cash to a money order or cashier's check first.
All of which is irrelevent anyway. The simple fact is that, whether or not you think it is wise to carry that much cash on your person, Bierfeldt was well within his rights to carry cash on the flight. TSA/DHS is well overdue for a reality check in the court system.
In my case, the union was trying to expand its membership, so it opened itself up to a group of employees that traditionally were not part of a union (IT workers). What that meant was that we were the "ugly step-sisters" in the union. The rank and file union members liked a fixed working schedule -- 8-5, five days a week, and anything outside of that schedule billed on a progressively more expensive overtime schedule.
IT, on the other hand, was used to being a salaried group, with flexible working hours and flexible shifts. If we needed to work on a server after hours, we'd take time off during the day to compensate. If an 8-5 schedule didn't work for someone, we'd do 7-4 or 9-6 or...... Quite frankly, there weren't enough of us to make it worth the union's time to figure out a way to write the flexibility we desired into the collective bargaining agreement.
Yes, actually they did. I actually asked about that, but was told that once a 4x10 shift was approved for anyone, then the employer had a precedent for establishing that as an accepted shift, and could then try to force everyone into a 4x10 shift [:rolleyes:]
Of course, you could attent Union meetings, and try to get the rules on breaks and workweeks changed.
That might work when there are enough similarly minded people in the union. In my case, there were six of us in the shop, and oh....a couple hundred linemen who liked things the way they were. It would have taken an act of God to change things there.
...but isn't it better that the workers have the ability to change the rules instead of the employer?
I guess that depends upon how marketable your talents are. I've only had one job, waaaaay back at the beginning of my career, where I couldn't negotiate better working conditions for myself. Since then, I have found that things are better when I negotiate my own terms of employment than when a union does it "on my behalf".
That was my point -- I doubt it is illegal to ask. However, I strongly suspect (not being a lawyer, and all that) that it would be illegal to require that information as a condition of employment.
The government is an agent working on your behalf.
I'm sorry -- I seemed to have missed the "/s" tag at the end of your post. I just know that had to be a typo or accidental ommision because absolutely no one on /. (or at least no one with any grasp of history) could possibly have said that with a straight face.
Unfortunately, enough unions stray far enough outside those lines that in many cases they are a worse taskmaster than the companies from which they are supposedly trying to protect you.
That's been my experience in the one union I was in. My working relationship with my employer was great...until the group went union (it was a done deal by the time I started working there). At that point, my boss became paranoid about being grieved for anything and everything, and therefore, the freedom I had had to just do what needed to be done disappeared. Two examples: 4-10 work weeks ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement specifies 5-8s for your position") and combining two 15 minute breaks and the 30 minute lunch break into a single lunch break of 1 hour ("No, the Collective Bargaining Agreement says that you have to be given a 15 minute break after 2 hours, a 30 minute lunch at four hours and another 15 minute break at 6 hours").
The Collective Bargaining Agreement that governs your workplace is truly a double-edged sword. It limits what your employer can require you to do, but it also limits what your employer can allow you to do as well.
I honestly couldn't care less if an employer asks for my account information -- even passwords. However, the answer I'm likely to give goes something like, "MYOFB."
If they REQUIRE that information, then the answer becomes "Go screw."