Unlikely. Any employer that's that concerned with getting sued doesn't do the background or credit check themselves. Normally they hire out a third party to do it for them. On the off chance that they get sued for discrimination they can say legitimately that they didn't know anything that the applicant didn't provide on the application.
It's something the employers do and they have to be really careful about it. I remember accepting a job offer which required me to drop a quarter at college. I went to the job training that I'd agreed to and found myself interviewing for the job I'd already offered. Apparently the general manager at that location wasn't authorized to hire me but one of his subordinates was.
It wasn't really worth my time to actually sue over it, but it was a serious pain in the ass. And definitely illegal, you can't rescind a job offer you've given and you definitely can't hire somebody for a job which doesn't exist and expect to get away with it.
In my view they need to also be careful that it doesn't have the effect of discriminating. The last thing that the HR department ought to be doing is going back to the days when certain folk weren't considered good enough even if they could do the job.
And I'm not really exaggerating that much, in order to get work experience you have to have a job, but in order to get a job they're expecting to have several years of experience for even a basic job. Maybe they don't really mean it, but they could still end up in court explaining why it is that they're not advertising the positions accurately.
Indeed, but it's a problem because everybody thinks that they're entitled to that sort of requirement and it's been going on for years. If it weren't all the companies deliberately misadvertising the positions it wouldn't be a problem, but how exactly is somebody supposed to know that 4 years on paper means 1 year or so?
I think the problem is that the company property isn't restricted to access by approved utilities. As much as I hate the TPM chip it does have it's place and in situations like this it's a reasonable way of handling it.
However, the general picture of it is that companies shouldn't allow employees to use their own devices on the company network, it really muddies the line as to what the employer does and does not own in a way can lead to problems for everybody involved.
No its not. Even in the civilian world it takes an extensive background check before anybody is allowed to work in a nuclear power plant. Imagine that having to be done on anybody that wanted to work on or near the shipping vessels. On top of which you'd be risking nuclear accidents as the ships travelled the seas.
It's not that big of a risk when the Navy does it because they've got an extensive history of how to do it safely, but I don't think on the civilian side you could get away with a lot of the rigor that it takes.
The main problem with it is that it would cripple global trade. If it took as long to ship thing between the US and China as it would have during the era of the sailing ships both countries would look much different.
While it's not a particularly democratic move, it's a long ways from genuine tyrannical dictatorship. It is a definite step in that direction, but a lot more would have to happen before that became the case.
You do have to keep in mind where Kuwait is located and take a look at the other nations in the region to understand why we buddy up with them. It's not just a matter of oil, it's that we need a few allies in the region for times when we need a favor. Although Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much tapped out all the favors we hadn't already used.
There isn't a term for that. Even SLR cameras with a permanently attached lens don't really have a proper name, folks generally just refer to them as Zoom Lens Reflex, and that's more of a nickname, they didn't really catch on particularly well.
But with modern camera phones it's actually easier to copy and distribute those than it is from a dSLR. I'm guessing that's not it, or at least not all of it. No ISP or cell provider out there has the storage capacity to know every file that's ever been sent through it, even if restricted to a file type. Plus, it's relatively easy with a lot of them to take photos while you look like you're talking on the phone.
Sure the photos are all tilty and mostly of the wrong subjects, but if you're really needing to spy on somebody it's likely to be acceptable.
If they're threatened by larger cameras, perhaps they should ban medium and large format as well. I mean if the Kuwaiti security forces have such a time finding large objects, perhaps folks looking to break the law will start carrying aroung a Hasselblad large format camera.
The GP was referring to the GGP talking about his SLR which implies film, and he's right you can't easily delete a picture. You can however take the back off and completely obliterate it in a way which is a challenge for digital images.
On a side note, despite what some security officers or law enforcement might say, they can't force you to delete the photos under any circumstance. Either it is not illegal for you to take the photo or it is and you'd be destroying evidence. Which they can't order you to do.
I used to work in security at a terrorist target, and I have to say that this is completely counterproductive. Sure theoretically somebody might be up to no good with a dSLR or SLR for that matter, but it's less likely. The main reason being that every security camera you go by is going to catch you on film. And the people there are unlikely to miss you.
OTOH, those small P&S cameras like the digital Elph line that Canon sells is small enough that it can be used discretely, you can slip it into just about any pocket and easily hand it off to somebody else.
Consequently this is almost certainly going to have the opposite effect of what they would like.
No it's not. If I were to train really hard and finish the Boston marathon, that would be my first completion. It would not however be the first time that anybody completed it, and probably not even the first time that day. Plus the person who finishes first on that day, isn't really the first person to complete it as many people completed it in previous years.
Not quite, nobody owns space, but the US does own and control the airspace direction over head. Which is why it's a reentry license and not a space license. There is no legal requirement that the US or any other nation allow access to its airspace. And the funny thing about space travel is that unless you start and stop in space or another planet you're eventually going to need permission to enter somebody's airspace. Although, Suppose you could build an offshore derrick like Boeing was trying where that doesn't apply.
Having the FAA regulate it is really the only sane way. Somebody has to do it, NASA hasn't the funding, expertise or equipment to manage projects they aren't themselves accomplishing. A new international body would have to be set up, and we don't really want to start that at this point, we could easily kill the industry before it exists. And at this point, it's American businesses or the Russian government. The Russians are handling their own, and we're handling the commercial bit at this time.
As an aside, I'd personally, prefer to have a license rather than get shot down by the US military.
This is sort of like how in the US we now have drivers licenses and a body to coordinate air traffic. We didn't need either one when the technology popped on the scene because the likelihood of other people being hurt was pretty much non-existent.
Space travel though is different. A trajectory that's off by only a little bit can easily result in the spacecraft breaking up over a major city. Sure it's a long shot, granted, that's not much of an issue with the technology in play, but somebody does have to monitor and coordinate this and it's probably better to start now rather than freak out when things go wrong later.
And the only reason that it's the FAA rather than NASA is one of funding and equipment. NASA doesn't have the equipment or the expertise in airtraffic control beyond just their equipment. The FAA OTOH does this every day, granted, not typically with space craft, but since they will eventually have to weave spacecraft in with aircraft, they're the logical choice.
Assuming that you're on a blessed platform. I remember waiting for nVidia to release their drivers for 64-bit Linux. It took a really long time from when I started waiting, and I waited a few years before getting an AMD64 system.
But now there is support for Windows, OSX and Linux. If your OS isn't on that list then they aren't providing you with anything, or even the ability to do it yourself without doing some real funky stuff with wrappers.
nVidia is the last man standing in a sense. Both Intel and ATI (Obviously now owned by AMD) have released or are releasing pretty much everything necessary to have native drivers for whatever OS one wants to use. At some point they'll likely give up on that as more and more geeks decide that they don't want to recommend something that's limited like that.
Not so much with cutting edge gaming rigs, but with older computers especially it's fairly common for video cards to outlive their manufacturer support and still contain a few bugs or optimization problems.
Intel doesn't have a 3D chipset they can integrate onto the processor die largely because they'd need to have a competent 3D chipset to start with. They haven't gotten that right up until now, so it's not a shocker that they haven't managed to get a competent one on die.
One of the complaints I've had about Apple was that they don't have any products at all that use AMD chips. Not really a deal breaker, but I prefer AMD because for as long as I can recall they've had the best performance for the price. Sure Intel is almost always faster, but just about anybody can if their not worried about price.
I think there was some speculation that it could be used alongside the main GPU as in some of the newer multicard ones. Basically to do things like calculating what things are visible so that the processor doesn't have to send those over the bus. Normally the GPU itself does that after the data goes over the wire, doing it on chip would be a lot cheaper, and probably quite doable if you've got another chip that ends up doing most of the rest of the work. I suspect that they'll find a way of adding that sort of flexibility.
I'm not sure if that's something which AMD has any designs on, though I'd be shocked if they weren't.
Actually, mass transit is mostly done on a local basis. If your local area isn't doing it, it's up to the voters to make it happen. Or you're living in a rural area with low population density. As it is Amtrak handles all the passenger service between major cities with a few minor exceptions. The cost is roughly what it would cost you to fly, the main advantage right now is that it doesn't come with a mandatory groping.
And the reason why the feds took over Amtrak was because the train companies were going out of business. It wasn't something they had to force their way into, the train companies couldn't operate profitably. As in they couldn't pay their debts or break even on a regular basis.
I'd be surprised if it would be profitable at this point to run train service of that sort except in small pockets. Like from the airport into town or between cities that are relatively close together. The price of such things goes way up in the US because we don't have a lot of mostly empty space between the cities. Either it belongs to somebody or it's a part of a national forest or national park.
And as they start to do that, the costs of labor are going to start to seem exorbitant. Between the US and China the cost of labor is shockingly close in price to the point that we're starting to see companies pulling out of China because the savings they were promised aren't there. The firms they're doing business with decide they want to renegotiate the terms of the contract as soon as you've set up shop and the quality and productivity of the labor is crap.
If they then have to deal with a substantial loss in IP that would be a very, very serious blow to the Chinese government's efforts to draw in foreign investment as they're cheap, but they're not that cheap.
Slashdot Mirror
Unlikely. Any employer that's that concerned with getting sued doesn't do the background or credit check themselves. Normally they hire out a third party to do it for them. On the off chance that they get sued for discrimination they can say legitimately that they didn't know anything that the applicant didn't provide on the application.
$1.9m? It's not like they did something serious like share MP3s online.
It's something the employers do and they have to be really careful about it. I remember accepting a job offer which required me to drop a quarter at college. I went to the job training that I'd agreed to and found myself interviewing for the job I'd already offered. Apparently the general manager at that location wasn't authorized to hire me but one of his subordinates was.
It wasn't really worth my time to actually sue over it, but it was a serious pain in the ass. And definitely illegal, you can't rescind a job offer you've given and you definitely can't hire somebody for a job which doesn't exist and expect to get away with it.
In my view they need to also be careful that it doesn't have the effect of discriminating. The last thing that the HR department ought to be doing is going back to the days when certain folk weren't considered good enough even if they could do the job.
And I'm not really exaggerating that much, in order to get work experience you have to have a job, but in order to get a job they're expecting to have several years of experience for even a basic job. Maybe they don't really mean it, but they could still end up in court explaining why it is that they're not advertising the positions accurately.
Indeed, but it's a problem because everybody thinks that they're entitled to that sort of requirement and it's been going on for years. If it weren't all the companies deliberately misadvertising the positions it wouldn't be a problem, but how exactly is somebody supposed to know that 4 years on paper means 1 year or so?
I think the problem is that the company property isn't restricted to access by approved utilities. As much as I hate the TPM chip it does have it's place and in situations like this it's a reasonable way of handling it.
However, the general picture of it is that companies shouldn't allow employees to use their own devices on the company network, it really muddies the line as to what the employer does and does not own in a way can lead to problems for everybody involved.
No its not. Even in the civilian world it takes an extensive background check before anybody is allowed to work in a nuclear power plant. Imagine that having to be done on anybody that wanted to work on or near the shipping vessels. On top of which you'd be risking nuclear accidents as the ships travelled the seas.
It's not that big of a risk when the Navy does it because they've got an extensive history of how to do it safely, but I don't think on the civilian side you could get away with a lot of the rigor that it takes.
The main problem with it is that it would cripple global trade. If it took as long to ship thing between the US and China as it would have during the era of the sailing ships both countries would look much different.
While it's not a particularly democratic move, it's a long ways from genuine tyrannical dictatorship. It is a definite step in that direction, but a lot more would have to happen before that became the case.
You do have to keep in mind where Kuwait is located and take a look at the other nations in the region to understand why we buddy up with them. It's not just a matter of oil, it's that we need a few allies in the region for times when we need a favor. Although Iraq and Afghanistan have pretty much tapped out all the favors we hadn't already used.
There isn't a term for that. Even SLR cameras with a permanently attached lens don't really have a proper name, folks generally just refer to them as Zoom Lens Reflex, and that's more of a nickname, they didn't really catch on particularly well.
But with modern camera phones it's actually easier to copy and distribute those than it is from a dSLR. I'm guessing that's not it, or at least not all of it. No ISP or cell provider out there has the storage capacity to know every file that's ever been sent through it, even if restricted to a file type. Plus, it's relatively easy with a lot of them to take photos while you look like you're talking on the phone.
Sure the photos are all tilty and mostly of the wrong subjects, but if you're really needing to spy on somebody it's likely to be acceptable.
If they're threatened by larger cameras, perhaps they should ban medium and large format as well. I mean if the Kuwaiti security forces have such a time finding large objects, perhaps folks looking to break the law will start carrying aroung a Hasselblad large format camera.
The GP was referring to the GGP talking about his SLR which implies film, and he's right you can't easily delete a picture. You can however take the back off and completely obliterate it in a way which is a challenge for digital images.
On a side note, despite what some security officers or law enforcement might say, they can't force you to delete the photos under any circumstance. Either it is not illegal for you to take the photo or it is and you'd be destroying evidence. Which they can't order you to do.
I used to work in security at a terrorist target, and I have to say that this is completely counterproductive. Sure theoretically somebody might be up to no good with a dSLR or SLR for that matter, but it's less likely. The main reason being that every security camera you go by is going to catch you on film. And the people there are unlikely to miss you.
OTOH, those small P&S cameras like the digital Elph line that Canon sells is small enough that it can be used discretely, you can slip it into just about any pocket and easily hand it off to somebody else.
Consequently this is almost certainly going to have the opposite effect of what they would like.
No it's not. If I were to train really hard and finish the Boston marathon, that would be my first completion. It would not however be the first time that anybody completed it, and probably not even the first time that day. Plus the person who finishes first on that day, isn't really the first person to complete it as many people completed it in previous years.
I'm more concerned with them coming here and applying for work with the TSA.
Not quite, nobody owns space, but the US does own and control the airspace direction over head. Which is why it's a reentry license and not a space license. There is no legal requirement that the US or any other nation allow access to its airspace. And the funny thing about space travel is that unless you start and stop in space or another planet you're eventually going to need permission to enter somebody's airspace. Although, Suppose you could build an offshore derrick like Boeing was trying where that doesn't apply.
Having the FAA regulate it is really the only sane way. Somebody has to do it, NASA hasn't the funding, expertise or equipment to manage projects they aren't themselves accomplishing. A new international body would have to be set up, and we don't really want to start that at this point, we could easily kill the industry before it exists. And at this point, it's American businesses or the Russian government. The Russians are handling their own, and we're handling the commercial bit at this time.
As an aside, I'd personally, prefer to have a license rather than get shot down by the US military.
This is sort of like how in the US we now have drivers licenses and a body to coordinate air traffic. We didn't need either one when the technology popped on the scene because the likelihood of other people being hurt was pretty much non-existent.
Space travel though is different. A trajectory that's off by only a little bit can easily result in the spacecraft breaking up over a major city. Sure it's a long shot, granted, that's not much of an issue with the technology in play, but somebody does have to monitor and coordinate this and it's probably better to start now rather than freak out when things go wrong later.
And the only reason that it's the FAA rather than NASA is one of funding and equipment. NASA doesn't have the equipment or the expertise in airtraffic control beyond just their equipment. The FAA OTOH does this every day, granted, not typically with space craft, but since they will eventually have to weave spacecraft in with aircraft, they're the logical choice.
Assuming that you're on a blessed platform. I remember waiting for nVidia to release their drivers for 64-bit Linux. It took a really long time from when I started waiting, and I waited a few years before getting an AMD64 system.
But now there is support for Windows, OSX and Linux. If your OS isn't on that list then they aren't providing you with anything, or even the ability to do it yourself without doing some real funky stuff with wrappers.
nVidia is the last man standing in a sense. Both Intel and ATI (Obviously now owned by AMD) have released or are releasing pretty much everything necessary to have native drivers for whatever OS one wants to use. At some point they'll likely give up on that as more and more geeks decide that they don't want to recommend something that's limited like that.
Not so much with cutting edge gaming rigs, but with older computers especially it's fairly common for video cards to outlive their manufacturer support and still contain a few bugs or optimization problems.
Intel doesn't have a 3D chipset they can integrate onto the processor die largely because they'd need to have a competent 3D chipset to start with. They haven't gotten that right up until now, so it's not a shocker that they haven't managed to get a competent one on die.
One of the complaints I've had about Apple was that they don't have any products at all that use AMD chips. Not really a deal breaker, but I prefer AMD because for as long as I can recall they've had the best performance for the price. Sure Intel is almost always faster, but just about anybody can if their not worried about price.
I think there was some speculation that it could be used alongside the main GPU as in some of the newer multicard ones. Basically to do things like calculating what things are visible so that the processor doesn't have to send those over the bus. Normally the GPU itself does that after the data goes over the wire, doing it on chip would be a lot cheaper, and probably quite doable if you've got another chip that ends up doing most of the rest of the work. I suspect that they'll find a way of adding that sort of flexibility.
I'm not sure if that's something which AMD has any designs on, though I'd be shocked if they weren't.
Actually, mass transit is mostly done on a local basis. If your local area isn't doing it, it's up to the voters to make it happen. Or you're living in a rural area with low population density. As it is Amtrak handles all the passenger service between major cities with a few minor exceptions. The cost is roughly what it would cost you to fly, the main advantage right now is that it doesn't come with a mandatory groping.
And the reason why the feds took over Amtrak was because the train companies were going out of business. It wasn't something they had to force their way into, the train companies couldn't operate profitably. As in they couldn't pay their debts or break even on a regular basis.
I'd be surprised if it would be profitable at this point to run train service of that sort except in small pockets. Like from the airport into town or between cities that are relatively close together. The price of such things goes way up in the US because we don't have a lot of mostly empty space between the cities. Either it belongs to somebody or it's a part of a national forest or national park.
And as they start to do that, the costs of labor are going to start to seem exorbitant. Between the US and China the cost of labor is shockingly close in price to the point that we're starting to see companies pulling out of China because the savings they were promised aren't there. The firms they're doing business with decide they want to renegotiate the terms of the contract as soon as you've set up shop and the quality and productivity of the labor is crap.
If they then have to deal with a substantial loss in IP that would be a very, very serious blow to the Chinese government's efforts to draw in foreign investment as they're cheap, but they're not that cheap.