No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.
I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.
You, and many others here, sound like you've never worked for a small business. I assure you that for small businesses having an employee quit is often a big difficulty. It often means that others have to step in and do the work of the person who quit until that person can be replaced and the replacement is trained. Small business isn't a football team with a backup quarterback waiting on the sidelines warmed up and ready to play. The margins are tight and there isn't money for extra employees. When someone gives 2 weeks that gives a tiny bit of breathing room for the employer to begin finding someone new, and is the minimum courtesy for a professional leaving a job. Quitting and walking out without notice is appalling rude. I can't blame people for leaving if they found something better, but the way they leave is often more revealing of character than anything else.
Luckily this is something that decent people just know, and just do. If you have to ask then I hope it is because you work for a terrible employer, if not, I hope you aren't applying for a job at my office.
Think about the legal texts of old -- the Magna Carta. The Constitution. Hell, why not even throw in a few holy texts -- the Bible, Koran, etc. My point is a basic code of conduct took one book or less to draw the boundaries for most situations.
What nonsense. The US Constitution and the Magna Carta were documents that limited the authority of government and existed in the context of British Common Law which is a very complex web of precedent that few could ever hope to master.
Your earlier call for a system based on about 10 simple serious laws and leaving the rest to the civil courts would effectively prevent access to the law to all who can't afford a lawyer and an investigator.
Here's a really crazy thought. A thought based on something that really pissed me off all through my schooling. At the end of the day, kids (which may or may not themselves be stupid) that took stupid, easy courses would earn better grades than those that busted their butt taking challenging courses. An "A" grade in physical education, or introductory algebra should most certainly NOT mean the same thing as an "A" in biology, or Calculus. It's unfair, and discouraging to those students that are truly accomplishing something. Why try so hard when you're surrounded by dumba**es taking slacker classes and pulling off better grades than you.
Grades hardly matter at all after you graduate unless you got really terrible grades. When I am hiring I don't care about grades, I care if you have a BS. I really don't care which BS it is. A BA is much less impressive, closer to an AA degree. So once you've been in the real world for a little while the grades won't count for anything. What will matter is how well you learned the material, and more importantly how well you learned to learn. So don't feel jealous of those kids getting A's in their easy classes, they'll be flipping burgers if they are lucky.
Waze figured out a way to make their users want to share their location data. Waze also leveraged that information to build a sort of self-healing map. If you are in a place like the Bay Area where there are enough users, the Waze traffic routing is vastly superior to anything any competitor has. A few months ago there was a dumb error in a google map that tried to send me on the freeway sought to the next exit get, off, turn around, get back on north and get back off, when I just wanted to drive over the open overpass. On Waze I could have fixed it that evening. With google I put the same effort into alerting google of the problem and two months later I got a thank you email telling me they had fixed it. This was a major overpass in San Jose!
So I see two very clear reasons for Google or another mapper to want Waze, user location/travel data, and self drawing / self fixing maps.
. If they wanted to legalize marijuana, Obama/Holder could do so tomorrow. But instead they've stepped up anti-marijuana enforcement at the federal level.
Funny that you mention marijuana, because he has done exactly that:
CNN: President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. (late 2012)
One of the key aspects of the Obama administration is they say one thing and do another. Prosecution, and even persecution of medical marijuana has stepped up significantly since Obama took office. In California they have taken the tactic of threatening landlords of med-marijuana clubs with asset seizure (evict the mj club or we will take your building from you) to shut down the biggest and most established medical marijuana clubs. I don't blame you if you were unaware of this, it tends only to get coverage in local weekly news tabloids. The big newspapers and tv news won't touch it.
The tea party was almost immediately hijacked by the usual hot-button social issues. Initially it may have been about liberty and big government. Remember that since the late 1970s the Republican party has had a bifurcated base. The real base is the richest 10%-20% of the population. The rest of their base is people who have been convinced to vote against their own economic interests by the moral majority/social conservative/tea party issues of abortion, the "war on christmas," gay rights, guns, etc.
A very nearly identical thing has happened on the left. Women and others with left leaning social beliefs have been repeatedly terrified of the anti-abortion, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-science stances of the republicans so feel they have to vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent the crazies from taking over the supreme court. Now democratic policies have usually been ever so slightly less damaging to the economic interests of most Americans. So pretty much all voting Americans have been manipulated into voting against our real interests because of a nasty streak of religious fundamentalism held by about 35% of the population.
These things are not accidents, they are the result of a century of persistent propoganda efforts by the people who really control our government. The rich and the the big corporations.
Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics.
Actually the IRS conducted a multi-year investigation of the NAACP during Bush2. The PATRIOT Act and Bush2 invented the use of National Security Letters and they most certainly were used against dissidents. Bush2 began the use of blacklists for travelers and dissidents, particularly peace activists were put on those lists. You're right he didn't go after opponents with the EPA or OSHA. He put lackeys in charge of those agencies to make sure his corporate buddies were hassled by common sense safety or environmental regulations.
Much, but not all, of the rest of your post (after scanning it) seems similarly factually challenged, but who has the time to do a point by point rebuttal of every whacky Fox talking point from the last 5 years.
I don't see how having access to your apps list matters much when the FB app already has access to:
Your personal info (read and write contact data)
Your location (fine)
Network communication
Your accounts
Storage (modify/delete usb contents)
Hardware controls
Phone calls (state and identity)
System tools
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change?
Really? Seriously? How about... hmmm... Tahrir Square, and the rest of the Arab Spring. Remember when people poured into the streets to stop the coup against Hugo Chavez? How about the protests in Iceland that lead to the government collapsing and the new government telling the debt holders to suck and egg while prosecuting evil bankers. That was a good one. There were massive protests in Bolivia against Bechtel's privatizing of the water supply. They chased Bechtel right out of there. There were the ongoing protests at the Nevada nuclear test site that were instrumental in ending US nuclear testing. The list is longer, but I think the point is made.
I don't see any actual facts in your post either. And having checked a wide range of predictions and statements by AGW activists, I can say that a large fraction of them are scientifically either unsupported or plain wrong.
He didn't post any facts or references to the peer-reviewed main-line climate research because doing so would be a huge task. You see the evidence is overwhelming both in quantity and quality. But I see your problem. You say that you've checked the predictions of activists. Activists are not scientists. Activists are typically more adept at getting press attention that scientists but at best they may have a passing understanding of science. Under the heading of activist you could include an unwashed hippy, a doom and gloom end of the world author, TV bloviators, big-oil PR hacks, the Koch brothers, and this Donor's Trust.
The predictions of the peer-reviewed main line climate scientists over the last 30 years have been quite good, and in fact as time has gone by the data suggests that the predictions are typically on the cautious side. Please review the conclusions of the Hansen Paper from 1981. There is a link to the actual paper on this page:
Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit groups funded by liberal billionaires and this is news?
Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit science and this is news?
The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government, but the government is in our pockets, taking about 1/3 of our wages every week. All the entitlements go over me, past me, or under me. We, the working people, don't benefit from food stamps, free housing, free utilities, and sure don't benefit from an inverted tax schedule scheme, and we DAMNED SURE don't benefit from wars being fought halfway around the world to enrich the oil industries.
Sorry but this is simply incorrect. The social safety net helps the people in the middle. The safety net gives the safety needed to have reasonable wages. Without unemployment insurance, social security, unions, and the many regulations that protect workers we would be in a free for all labor market where the most desperate get the jobs.
In addition we all benefit from having basic laws enforced (police), having the environment protected (epa), worker rights (osha), infrastructure, public investment in science and so many other things the government does. I do agree that our foreign adventures do not benefit real people. I also believe that we are in grave danger on many fronts from the growing power of corporations and the decreasing democracy in most all nations, but to argue that you get no benefit from taxes is either ignorant or dishonest.
So long as we have an income tax (that's another conversation...) I say with a resounding YES: the ultra-rich (>10 million "net worth") should pay much more (as a percentage) of their income in taxes than do the working poor ($0 "net worth"). It's called progressive taxation, and it's ABSOLUTELY necessary so long as there is such a HUGE chasm between the top 0.1% and the bottom 50%, financially speaking. Granted, the culture of greed that dug that chasm is a social issue, and cannot be solved politically. Progressive taxation is treating the symptom.
Actually this is the solution. A steep progressive tax rate and effective social support programs counter the imbalance of wealth and make the whole nation better off. During the post WW2 period the US had very high marginal taxes on the richest and the money was spent on great things like infrastructure and the space program, and the middle class grew like at no other period in history.
The charts show show an increase in THC content from 1-2% to 5-6% in marijuana sold with seeds (low quality) and an increase from around 6% to around 11% for marijuana seized without seeds (higher quality). At the same time the percentage of the higher quality seedless mj seized increased from almost a negligible amount to about half. So if in the past you smoked the typically available low quality weed from the 1970s and now you smoke the typically available higher quality available today you have gone from 1-2% to about 11% THC content. That's like going from lite beer that's been watered down by half to wine. That's a big jump. The charts show hashish as going from around 2-3% to the high 20s. That's an order of magnitude.
Know how I can tell you know next to nothing about the history of science?
I mean, come on, how many atomic models have we already been through since the mid-1800s?
Many, and each has been progressively better at predicting results. Each has been progressively better at fitting the available data. None have been spectacularly wrong. They were each the best approximation of reality that science was able to make at the time. Even the pre-quantum mechanical models weren't spectacularly wrong. Atomic nuclei are made of of protons and neutrons, this is where most of the mass is, and electrons orbit at varying distances. The number of electrons in the "outer orbit" is a big determiner of the chemistry of an atom. This is all still correct, we just have a much better understanding of what "orbit" means and what protons etc. are. You test a scientific theory by how well it helps us predict things. Even the very early atomic models were very good at helping us further our understanding of chemistry.
I'm open to the idea of both sides of the AGW argument. [...] I don't know if AGW is real or not. I don't really care that much anymore to find out.
Hmm. It sounds to me like you really aren't that open. In fact you sound like you've made up your mind based on a bunch of propaganda. If you really were open to the science then you would be willing to do the minimal effort needed to realize that climate change is happening and we are causing it. I'm assuming, because you are on/. that you have a technical degree of some sort and you have a basic understanding of the scientific method and how science works. Spend and afternoon and actually look at the science.
Funny, the article states how important forests are to absorbing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and then goes on to suggest that the deforestation we are causing is responsible for adding to the atmosphere 12 to 20% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide per year. So instead of using forests as carbon sinks and perhaps planting many more, instead we are slashing and burning them and dumping those carbon sinks into our atmosphere. Then the article describes how a very bad drought in the South American rainforest caused a significant reduction of the tropics to absorb carbon, and how an even worse drought happened in 2010.
Did you actually read the article? I do not think it means what you think it means.
Slashdot Mirror
No notice is probably the biggest middle finger you can give a company and still remain within the bounds of the law.
I assure you it is not. There are much worse things you can do without breaking a single law. Doesn't make doing them a good idea but no notice is really barely better than 2 weeks notice. Businesses should assume people won't necessarily show up the next day because sometimes accidents happen. I've had employees suddenly get very ill and from the perspective of the operations of business that is really no different. If a company is really screwed by one person not showing up then management did a terrible job of organizing the workload and sharing important information and that is the fault of the company.
You, and many others here, sound like you've never worked for a small business. I assure you that for small businesses having an employee quit is often a big difficulty. It often means that others have to step in and do the work of the person who quit until that person can be replaced and the replacement is trained. Small business isn't a football team with a backup quarterback waiting on the sidelines warmed up and ready to play. The margins are tight and there isn't money for extra employees. When someone gives 2 weeks that gives a tiny bit of breathing room for the employer to begin finding someone new, and is the minimum courtesy for a professional leaving a job. Quitting and walking out without notice is appalling rude. I can't blame people for leaving if they found something better, but the way they leave is often more revealing of character than anything else.
Luckily this is something that decent people just know, and just do. If you have to ask then I hope it is because you work for a terrible employer, if not, I hope you aren't applying for a job at my office.
mod eenaarbrak up for proper use and understanding of "begging the question."
Think about the legal texts of old -- the Magna Carta. The Constitution. Hell, why not even throw in a few holy texts -- the Bible, Koran, etc. My point is a basic code of conduct took one book or less to draw the boundaries for most situations.
What nonsense. The US Constitution and the Magna Carta were documents that limited the authority of government and existed in the context of British Common Law which is a very complex web of precedent that few could ever hope to master.
Your earlier call for a system based on about 10 simple serious laws and leaving the rest to the civil courts would effectively prevent access to the law to all who can't afford a lawyer and an investigator.
Mos Espa? That must be from episode 1. God wants to forget the prequels too!
Here's a really crazy thought. A thought based on something that really pissed me off all through my schooling. At the end of the day, kids (which may or may not themselves be stupid) that took stupid, easy courses would earn better grades than those that busted their butt taking challenging courses. An "A" grade in physical education, or introductory algebra should most certainly NOT mean the same thing as an "A" in biology, or Calculus. It's unfair, and discouraging to those students that are truly accomplishing something. Why try so hard when you're surrounded by dumba**es taking slacker classes and pulling off better grades than you.
Grades hardly matter at all after you graduate unless you got really terrible grades. When I am hiring I don't care about grades, I care if you have a BS. I really don't care which BS it is. A BA is much less impressive, closer to an AA degree. So once you've been in the real world for a little while the grades won't count for anything. What will matter is how well you learned the material, and more importantly how well you learned to learn. So don't feel jealous of those kids getting A's in their easy classes, they'll be flipping burgers if they are lucky.
Waze figured out a way to make their users want to share their location data. Waze also leveraged that information to build a sort of self-healing map. If you are in a place like the Bay Area where there are enough users, the Waze traffic routing is vastly superior to anything any competitor has. A few months ago there was a dumb error in a google map that tried to send me on the freeway sought to the next exit get, off, turn around, get back on north and get back off, when I just wanted to drive over the open overpass. On Waze I could have fixed it that evening. With google I put the same effort into alerting google of the problem and two months later I got a thank you email telling me they had fixed it. This was a major overpass in San Jose!
So I see two very clear reasons for Google or another mapper to want Waze, user location/travel data, and self drawing / self fixing maps.
. If they wanted to legalize marijuana, Obama/Holder could do so tomorrow. But instead they've stepped up anti-marijuana enforcement at the federal level.
Funny that you mention marijuana, because he has done exactly that:
CNN: President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. (late 2012)
One of the key aspects of the Obama administration is they say one thing and do another. Prosecution, and even persecution of medical marijuana has stepped up significantly since Obama took office. In California they have taken the tactic of threatening landlords of med-marijuana clubs with asset seizure (evict the mj club or we will take your building from you) to shut down the biggest and most established medical marijuana clubs. I don't blame you if you were unaware of this, it tends only to get coverage in local weekly news tabloids. The big newspapers and tv news won't touch it.
The tea party was almost immediately hijacked by the usual hot-button social issues. Initially it may have been about liberty and big government. Remember that since the late 1970s the Republican party has had a bifurcated base. The real base is the richest 10%-20% of the population. The rest of their base is people who have been convinced to vote against their own economic interests by the moral majority/social conservative/tea party issues of abortion, the "war on christmas," gay rights, guns, etc. A very nearly identical thing has happened on the left. Women and others with left leaning social beliefs have been repeatedly terrified of the anti-abortion, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environmental, anti-science stances of the republicans so feel they have to vote for the lesser of two evils to prevent the crazies from taking over the supreme court. Now democratic policies have usually been ever so slightly less damaging to the economic interests of most Americans. So pretty much all voting Americans have been manipulated into voting against our real interests because of a nasty streak of religious fundamentalism held by about 35% of the population. These things are not accidents, they are the result of a century of persistent propoganda efforts by the people who really control our government. The rich and the the big corporations.
Oh, and say what you will about Bush, his administration never used the power of the IRS, the EPA, OSHA and the FBI to attack political opponents for no other reason than their politics.
Actually the IRS conducted a multi-year investigation of the NAACP during Bush2. The PATRIOT Act and Bush2 invented the use of National Security Letters and they most certainly were used against dissidents. Bush2 began the use of blacklists for travelers and dissidents, particularly peace activists were put on those lists. You're right he didn't go after opponents with the EPA or OSHA. He put lackeys in charge of those agencies to make sure his corporate buddies were hassled by common sense safety or environmental regulations.
Much, but not all, of the rest of your post (after scanning it) seems similarly factually challenged, but who has the time to do a point by point rebuttal of every whacky Fox talking point from the last 5 years.
There are adults on /. ??!??
Baby poop from healthy babies that are feeding exclusively on breast milk doesn't smell very much at all.
I don't see how having access to your apps list matters much when the FB app already has access to:
Your personal info (read and write contact data) Your location (fine)
Network communication
Your accounts
Storage (modify/delete usb contents)
Hardware controls
Phone calls (state and identity)
System tools
I'm thrilled at the idea of real-time "closed captioning" placed under each speaker.
Translated closed captions for foreign vacations!
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a dude with a belly full of micro sd cards?
Download. hehe hehe.
Can anyone name a single protest in the past 20 years that has actually caused a change?
Really? Seriously? How about... hmmm... Tahrir Square, and the rest of the Arab Spring. Remember when people poured into the streets to stop the coup against Hugo Chavez? How about the protests in Iceland that lead to the government collapsing and the new government telling the debt holders to suck and egg while prosecuting evil bankers. That was a good one. There were massive protests in Bolivia against Bechtel's privatizing of the water supply. They chased Bechtel right out of there. There were the ongoing protests at the Nevada nuclear test site that were instrumental in ending US nuclear testing. The list is longer, but I think the point is made.
I don't see any actual facts in your post either. And having checked a wide range of predictions and statements by AGW activists, I can say that a large fraction of them are scientifically either unsupported or plain wrong.
He didn't post any facts or references to the peer-reviewed main-line climate research because doing so would be a huge task. You see the evidence is overwhelming both in quantity and quality. But I see your problem. You say that you've checked the predictions of activists. Activists are not scientists. Activists are typically more adept at getting press attention that scientists but at best they may have a passing understanding of science. Under the heading of activist you could include an unwashed hippy, a doom and gloom end of the world author, TV bloviators, big-oil PR hacks, the Koch brothers, and this Donor's Trust.
The predictions of the peer-reviewed main line climate scientists over the last 30 years have been quite good, and in fact as time has gone by the data suggests that the predictions are typically on the cautious side. Please review the conclusions of the Hansen Paper from 1981. There is a link to the actual paper on this page:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/
if you are too lazy to read the paper you can just skim the story linked above.
Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit groups funded by liberal billionaires and this is news?
Let me get this strait, conservative billionaires are funding groups that are trying to discredit science and this is news?
There I fixed that for you.
A better question might be, "How many people aren't interested in using any e-reader?"
The people in the middle (like me, and mine) get just about nothing from the government, but the government is in our pockets, taking about 1/3 of our wages every week. All the entitlements go over me, past me, or under me. We, the working people, don't benefit from food stamps, free housing, free utilities, and sure don't benefit from an inverted tax schedule scheme, and we DAMNED SURE don't benefit from wars being fought halfway around the world to enrich the oil industries.
Sorry but this is simply incorrect. The social safety net helps the people in the middle. The safety net gives the safety needed to have reasonable wages. Without unemployment insurance, social security, unions, and the many regulations that protect workers we would be in a free for all labor market where the most desperate get the jobs.
In addition we all benefit from having basic laws enforced (police), having the environment protected (epa), worker rights (osha), infrastructure, public investment in science and so many other things the government does. I do agree that our foreign adventures do not benefit real people. I also believe that we are in grave danger on many fronts from the growing power of corporations and the decreasing democracy in most all nations, but to argue that you get no benefit from taxes is either ignorant or dishonest.
So long as we have an income tax (that's another conversation...) I say with a resounding YES: the ultra-rich (>10 million "net worth") should pay much more (as a percentage) of their income in taxes than do the working poor ($0 "net worth"). It's called progressive taxation, and it's ABSOLUTELY necessary so long as there is such a HUGE chasm between the top 0.1% and the bottom 50%, financially speaking. Granted, the culture of greed that dug that chasm is a social issue, and cannot be solved politically. Progressive taxation is treating the symptom.
Actually this is the solution. A steep progressive tax rate and effective social support programs counter the imbalance of wealth and make the whole nation better off. During the post WW2 period the US had very high marginal taxes on the richest and the money was spent on great things like infrastructure and the space program, and the middle class grew like at no other period in history.
Not myth. In fact proven by your link. http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/stronger-weed.htm
The charts show show an increase in THC content from 1-2% to 5-6% in marijuana sold with seeds (low quality) and an increase from around 6% to around 11% for marijuana seized without seeds (higher quality). At the same time the percentage of the higher quality seedless mj seized increased from almost a negligible amount to about half. So if in the past you smoked the typically available low quality weed from the 1970s and now you smoke the typically available higher quality available today you have gone from 1-2% to about 11% THC content. That's like going from lite beer that's been watered down by half to wine. That's a big jump. The charts show hashish as going from around 2-3% to the high 20s. That's an order of magnitude.
Know how I can tell you know next to nothing about the history of science? I mean, come on, how many atomic models have we already been through since the mid-1800s?
Many, and each has been progressively better at predicting results. Each has been progressively better at fitting the available data. None have been spectacularly wrong. They were each the best approximation of reality that science was able to make at the time. Even the pre-quantum mechanical models weren't spectacularly wrong. Atomic nuclei are made of of protons and neutrons, this is where most of the mass is, and electrons orbit at varying distances. The number of electrons in the "outer orbit" is a big determiner of the chemistry of an atom. This is all still correct, we just have a much better understanding of what "orbit" means and what protons etc. are. You test a scientific theory by how well it helps us predict things. Even the very early atomic models were very good at helping us further our understanding of chemistry.
Right, because I don't believe as you do I must have obviously been fed propaganda.
No I am under the impression that you are swayed by propaganda because you are spouting big oil's propaganda talking points.
I'm open to the idea of both sides of the AGW argument. [...] I don't know if AGW is real or not. I don't really care that much anymore to find out.
Hmm. It sounds to me like you really aren't that open. In fact you sound like you've made up your mind based on a bunch of propaganda. If you really were open to the science then you would be willing to do the minimal effort needed to realize that climate change is happening and we are causing it. I'm assuming, because you are on /. that you have a technical degree of some sort and you have a basic understanding of the scientific method and how science works. Spend and afternoon and actually look at the science.
Really? Show me the warming:
Okay look at some of these.
google images of global temperature charts
Why do experts on Co2 not know trees eat the stuff? From last year: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
Funny, the article states how important forests are to absorbing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and then goes on to suggest that the deforestation we are causing is responsible for adding to the atmosphere 12 to 20% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide per year. So instead of using forests as carbon sinks and perhaps planting many more, instead we are slashing and burning them and dumping those carbon sinks into our atmosphere. Then the article describes how a very bad drought in the South American rainforest caused a significant reduction of the tropics to absorb carbon, and how an even worse drought happened in 2010.
Did you actually read the article? I do not think it means what you think it means.