wouldn't it be cool to come hone, slam your phone into a dock and have a mouse, a keyboard and a couple monitors linked to that dock, complete with Internet access, LAN access, etc.
The Mobile Desktop Dock gives ROG Phone unprecedented expansion capabilities. Connect to an external 4K UHD monitor, mouse and keyboard while using ROG Phone as an auxiliary display, hook up to a wired gigabit LAN and use the S/PDIF output to drive your 5.1-channel surround-sound system.
A work ethic doesn't mean unbridled attention for eight hours during traditional office hours.
It means getting things done, delivering strong outcomes for the company.
That could be done in office hours. It could be done at home. Most programmers are fucking awesome at fixing bugs while having a shit; they don't claim overtime for this, but in return they don't expect their manager to get upset when they check their email.
I'll work from 7.30am to 2pm, go home, cuddle the cats, call a colleague in another timezone, maybe do some more work, eat dinner, maybe do some more work, play computer games, go to bed. The next day I may get up, play computer games, have lunch, consider doing some work.
I get commended on my work ethic. I lead, facilitate, personally deliver and don't let idiotic things like working hours get in the way. Sometimes that means I do nothing for 2-3 days (and then enjoy the weekend). Sometimes it means I work 70 hours without a break, because I'm in the flow, I have a deadline to hit, I just feel like getting something done.
So no, there is nothing wrong with expecting your employees to have a work ethic. It just has fuck all to do with the hours they work, and whether they use social media or not.
I don't know of any road that moves more cars per day than about 1/3rd of its maximum daily capacity
What a weird and pointless metric to use. Sure, lets fill all roads all the time.
"You want to go there? You'll need to travel at 4am, we're busy until then. Don't delay until 5.30am or you'll be caught in tomorrow's work traffic and all the schedules will break."
Shit, one flat tyre and the whole country would grind to a halt.
I also think that anybody too fucking stupid to understand, "Select one of the candidates below" is also too fucking stupid to know the difference between them, and if they fuck up their ballot paper then democracy hasn't really suffered.
Car ownership is fucking expensive because of taxes, duties and other government related costs. The roads are more than adequately funded by the people using them.
Meanwhile, subsidies for public transport in the UK are substantial. They just happened to be heavily focussed on London, because the Government don't give a fuck about people living in the rest of England.
My precinct takes a slightly more efficient approach. Rather than using a machine to capture the vote and print it out, the voter marks their vote directly on the paper.
This provides the voter with certainty on the candidate(s) their vote will support, is its own inherent paper trail and also removes any digital vulnerabilities from the process.
I'm surprised your precinct hasn't considered this proven and effective option.
The road usage charges take the form of fuel duties and taxes, which also mean that people with more expensive cars (which tend to be the ones with the bigger engines) tend to pay the most.
Unless they own an electric car, in which case the Government takes pity on them.
There are economic benefits to the public having mobility. People can find work further away, they can travel for entertainment, there are greater shopping options.
The demand for easy affordable transport exists but its provision is extremely difficult. The free market is excellent at catering to the high revenue demand but fucking terrible at providing for a common good.
I'll follow the other person's excellent advice and stop now before I get too frustrated with your idiotic argument.
Some fuckwit being too much of a cunt to stay out of the driving seat when drunk is the fault of the fuckwit.
There are always options. Like not getting drunk. Like not driving. Like walking home, getting a taxi, staying in a hotel or finding a police officer and telling them you want to drive home. They'll look after you.
Drunk driving is not a consequence of constraining ride sharing businesses.
I don't know how to even find people using my photographs. I mean, I can use Google Image Search but doing that for each of the several thousand I have on my photo site would cost me more than the $500 I might earn as a result.
How much do companies spend securing their systems, protecting confidential information, complying with various contracts around disclosure and data protection and obeying the law?
Yet you think they should allow all of that expense and investment to go to waste by ignoring a threat vector that bypasses the lot of it? I don't.
if I'm walking past a concert and overhear a song can the venue demand payment from me? This isn't a 1-1 comparison, but it's also not that far off.
Yes, yes it is far off a 1-1 comparison. It's so fucking far removed I'm genuinely amazed you even think it belongs on the same website, let alone under this article.
if I wanted to do something nasty and make sure you couldn't film it I could play some incidental music that's copyrighted
UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.
show a few copyrighted images
UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.
then sue you for including them in your documentary on the nasty thing I did
You'd lose, even without a public interest type defence. Avoid doing nasty things on camera.
How many photos on the web, billions, check the copyright on them all, yeah fuck off
It's ok. Just check the copyright on the ones you want to use.
You want copyright, you can fucking pay a fee for it, each and every year.
I don't want copyright, but if we're going to have it, I want it to apply equally to everybody. That includes the people with thousands of photos from which they generate no income, as well as the exploitative media industries that generate too much income.
A fee would disenfranchise one of those groups while negligibly helping general public access to cultural artefacts.
That fee pays for a government web site to store a copy, so people can check against it
As it happens there are already fee based image repositories that can be used to validate copyright on photographs. But as they're fee based the law rightly doesn't mandate their use.
I'm not sure if I would sell or hold at $420. It really isn't a high enough price to meet my growth expectations
So you think the shares are worth more than $420? That puts you at odds with the rest of the market, and indeed, Musk himself.
I mean, the share price includes projected future value already. Just clearly not enough for you. At least you've backed your judgement and bought the shares.
The money I have in bank accounts is protected under the law. If the banks go under, I get my money back anyway.
The money I have in small startups is entirely worthless right now. Technically it could become a tax write-off in the future, or may be something I can turn into a liquid asset. Right now, it's a balance sheet entry that I treat as worthless because I can't access it, can't spend it, don't get income from it.
Tesla shares are more liquid than that, and do have value. People that hold them haven't made any money on them yet. They're hoping to, and likely will, and you're welcome to include them when assessing your wealth, but please, don't fucking pretend you've made any money on them until you sell them.
So basically the shareholders would have to vote to eliminate their shareholdings, unless they're a large institutional investor in which case they'll be fucking delighted to screw over the small shareholders.
Whether they want to hold shares it's difficult to trade is a more interesting question.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't it be cool to come hone, slam your phone into a dock and have a mouse, a keyboard and a couple monitors linked to that dock, complete with Internet access, LAN access, etc.
Asus have a couple of different options in that space. E.g.
https://www.asus.com/uk/Phone/...
The Mobile Desktop Dock gives ROG Phone unprecedented expansion capabilities. Connect to an external 4K UHD monitor, mouse and keyboard while using ROG Phone as an auxiliary display, hook up to a wired gigabit LAN and use the S/PDIF output to drive your 5.1-channel surround-sound system.
If they're white and male they have reasonable grounds for choosing a different employer.
It doesn't hurt to let the recruiter know that - whether they're an agent or work for Google.
Ship is a subset of boat.
A work ethic doesn't mean unbridled attention for eight hours during traditional office hours.
It means getting things done, delivering strong outcomes for the company.
That could be done in office hours. It could be done at home. Most programmers are fucking awesome at fixing bugs while having a shit; they don't claim overtime for this, but in return they don't expect their manager to get upset when they check their email.
I'll work from 7.30am to 2pm, go home, cuddle the cats, call a colleague in another timezone, maybe do some more work, eat dinner, maybe do some more work, play computer games, go to bed. The next day I may get up, play computer games, have lunch, consider doing some work.
I get commended on my work ethic. I lead, facilitate, personally deliver and don't let idiotic things like working hours get in the way. Sometimes that means I do nothing for 2-3 days (and then enjoy the weekend). Sometimes it means I work 70 hours without a break, because I'm in the flow, I have a deadline to hit, I just feel like getting something done.
So no, there is nothing wrong with expecting your employees to have a work ethic. It just has fuck all to do with the hours they work, and whether they use social media or not.
I don't know of any road that moves more cars per day than about 1/3rd of its maximum daily capacity
What a weird and pointless metric to use. Sure, lets fill all roads all the time.
"You want to go there? You'll need to travel at 4am, we're busy until then. Don't delay until 5.30am or you'll be caught in tomorrow's work traffic and all the schedules will break."
Shit, one flat tyre and the whole country would grind to a halt.
In the UK vehicle excise duty and fuel duties raise around £38bn. Annual expenditure on the road network is under £10bn.
Maybe we're both right.
I think everybody should be allowed a vote.
I also think that anybody too fucking stupid to understand, "Select one of the candidates below" is also too fucking stupid to know the difference between them, and if they fuck up their ballot paper then democracy hasn't really suffered.
Car ownership is fucking expensive because of taxes, duties and other government related costs. The roads are more than adequately funded by the people using them.
Meanwhile, subsidies for public transport in the UK are substantial. They just happened to be heavily focussed on London, because the Government don't give a fuck about people living in the rest of England.
My precinct takes a slightly more efficient approach. Rather than using a machine to capture the vote and print it out, the voter marks their vote directly on the paper.
This provides the voter with certainty on the candidate(s) their vote will support, is its own inherent paper trail and also removes any digital vulnerabilities from the process.
I'm surprised your precinct hasn't considered this proven and effective option.
Technically that's already happened in the UK.
The road usage charges take the form of fuel duties and taxes, which also mean that people with more expensive cars (which tend to be the ones with the bigger engines) tend to pay the most.
Unless they own an electric car, in which case the Government takes pity on them.
If you can't find a minimum wage job within 40 minutes walk of Penn Station you've got serious problems.
So that's a third of the travel cost saved already.
What, walk? In America? Yes.
There are economic benefits to the public having mobility. People can find work further away, they can travel for entertainment, there are greater shopping options.
The demand for easy affordable transport exists but its provision is extremely difficult. The free market is excellent at catering to the high revenue demand but fucking terrible at providing for a common good.
I'll follow the other person's excellent advice and stop now before I get too frustrated with your idiotic argument.
Some fuckwit being too much of a cunt to stay out of the driving seat when drunk is the fault of the fuckwit.
There are always options. Like not getting drunk. Like not driving. Like walking home, getting a taxi, staying in a hotel or finding a police officer and telling them you want to drive home. They'll look after you.
Drunk driving is not a consequence of constraining ride sharing businesses.
Ah, but he didn't mention New York. Rural locations might have more wildlife.
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...
Allowing desperate people to hurt themselves is poor governance.
I'm not a fan of the nanny state but I do recognise that many people have poor judgement and need some protection from those that would exploit them.
Uber exploit people.
The challenge is that Amazon will say, "We negotiated, we agreed, and this is the deal. Take it or we go over there"
The issue here is the lack of accountability in the negotiation.
I don't know how to even find people using my photographs. I mean, I can use Google Image Search but doing that for each of the several thousand I have on my photo site would cost me more than the $500 I might earn as a result.
Probably not even $500.
How much do companies spend securing their systems, protecting confidential information, complying with various contracts around disclosure and data protection and obeying the law?
Yet you think they should allow all of that expense and investment to go to waste by ignoring a threat vector that bypasses the lot of it? I don't.
What if I link to the image instead of copying it to my site?
Then you're not making a copy. Which is why this is bollocks:
As it stands this gets close to making hyperlinks a copyright violation.
No. It states that creating a copy is creating a copy. It doesn't say a fucking thing about hyperlinks.
You'd need the US for that fucking insanity:
https://www.lexology.com/libra...
if I'm walking past a concert and overhear a song can the venue demand payment from me? This isn't a 1-1 comparison, but it's also not that far off.
Yes, yes it is far off a 1-1 comparison. It's so fucking far removed I'm genuinely amazed you even think it belongs on the same website, let alone under this article.
if I wanted to do something nasty and make sure you couldn't film it I could play some incidental music that's copyrighted
UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.
show a few copyrighted images
UK law has an exception for incidental works. Their inclusion does not infringe copyright.
then sue you for including them in your documentary on the nasty thing I did
You'd lose, even without a public interest type defence. Avoid doing nasty things on camera.
How many photos on the web, billions, check the copyright on them all, yeah fuck off
It's ok. Just check the copyright on the ones you want to use.
You want copyright, you can fucking pay a fee for it, each and every year.
I don't want copyright, but if we're going to have it, I want it to apply equally to everybody. That includes the people with thousands of photos from which they generate no income, as well as the exploitative media industries that generate too much income.
A fee would disenfranchise one of those groups while negligibly helping general public access to cultural artefacts.
That fee pays for a government web site to store a copy, so people can check against it
As it happens there are already fee based image repositories that can be used to validate copyright on photographs. But as they're fee based the law rightly doesn't mandate their use.
You forgot the IANAL. My guess (IAANAL)
You are a not a lawyer?
I'm not sure if I would sell or hold at $420. It really isn't a high enough price to meet my growth expectations
So you think the shares are worth more than $420? That puts you at odds with the rest of the market, and indeed, Musk himself.
I mean, the share price includes projected future value already. Just clearly not enough for you. At least you've backed your judgement and bought the shares.
The money I have in bank accounts is protected under the law. If the banks go under, I get my money back anyway.
The money I have in small startups is entirely worthless right now. Technically it could become a tax write-off in the future, or may be something I can turn into a liquid asset. Right now, it's a balance sheet entry that I treat as worthless because I can't access it, can't spend it, don't get income from it.
Tesla shares are more liquid than that, and do have value. People that hold them haven't made any money on them yet. They're hoping to, and likely will, and you're welcome to include them when assessing your wealth, but please, don't fucking pretend you've made any money on them until you sell them.
Could be 300 : https://www.sec.gov/fast-answe...
So basically the shareholders would have to vote to eliminate their shareholdings, unless they're a large institutional investor in which case they'll be fucking delighted to screw over the small shareholders.
Whether they want to hold shares it's difficult to trade is a more interesting question.
They have huge oil reserves because the sun pours down on their country like anything.
wtf?