It isn't even grammatically incorrect; it is just a different word form.
A lot of people don't understand where English words come from; they come from being used.
A lot of people get confused about dictionaries and mistake them for authorities; they are instead only a list of known words, known word spellings.
If a spelling different than the one you prefer is repeatedly used by other people over a lengthy period of time, you may have started out with "mistakes" but in the end it is just two competing spellings. There is no Word Authority.
In the French language, they had a big convention with all the top experts from around the world, and they agreed to standardize their language. And that consensus has held over time. So you can spell a French word "wrong."
In English they tried the same thing; they gathered all the top experts from around the world, and most of them were attending with the idea that they were going to standardize the language; but after listening to each others ideas of what they would choose, they ended up agreeing not to standardize the language. And that consensus has also held. So it is only spelled wrong if you intended to spell it another way!
The standard idiot who wants to be a pedant typically gets confused by all this; I even see people confusing etymology with meaning! LMFAO!!
OTOH, in Firefox if I have over about 1000 tabs open and never restart the browser, it crashes about every 2 weeks. Of course, it successfully recovers all the tabs 100% of the time, and then works again for a couple weeks without issue.
Doesn't asking this question worry you? Don't you wonder why you changed your way of thinking? Whose idea was it?
Me, I'm darn proud of the fact that I'm trying to keep my mind as close to what it was in the 90s as is practicable given the onslaught of garbage data.
we have the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which is in many respects a much stronger document than your bill of rights.... in its 35 years of existence.
That's what is implied by the ruling, actually; if it is secret, then the charges get thrown out. For the reasons you gave.
The problem people have in understanding is that the summary only gives basic facts without context, and commenters just make wild extrapolations based on their own political biases, instead of asking what the implications are based on Canadian civics.
The court has to first agree that it is secret before they can weigh the need of the defense to have the information. It is a fight that has to happen in stages. This is just an early stage. Now they have to fight over appeals of this ruling, then after that they can start the fight over the next stage, the implications for the rights of the defendant.
Canada allows secret technology to be redacted, but there are also other rights that have to be balanced. The rulings on that balancing are yet to come. That's later.
But keep in mind, spoofing is not the only concern; anything that would allow a criminal to avoid detection is a legit police concern in Canada. So not only spoofing, but if knowledge of how the device worked allowed you to create a detector then that would be enough for the police to ask to have it redacted.
I couldn't figure out how to send just the video the TV and just the audio to the receiver
You don't, you send the same signal to both and the audio receiver ignores the video stream, and you turn off the audio on the TV.
TOSLINK doesn't support any routing or anything, so if that made the setup work then ARC wouldn't have really mattered anyways. Your problem was probably that you only had one HDMI out on the source and just needed a splitter.
You could simply look in an audio catalog (or on that interweb thing) and see what the difference in price is between an HDMI cable and a TOSLINK cable.
Spoiler: Generic 6' HDMI cable is <$2, Generic 6' TOSLINK >$5. And if you step on that TOSLINK cable one time, it might not work anymore.
Name brands, and all the supporting parts on devices, have similar price differences; and the AES input will be mandatory, so you're simply adding the TOSLINK price to the base price!
The "audio processing" circuitry is exactly the same price, because it doesn't use different audio circuitry. It is just the physical layer that is different. Also remember, the HDMI circuitry is still going to be there on a TV for video; TOSLINK is only for audio. But even in an audio-only device, the encoder chips used are exactly the same. If you offered only TOSLINK it would cost more than offering only HDMI, or only AES. Actually you could offer HDMI and AES for less than offering only TOSLINK; but that doesn't actually work. The customers who use TOSLINK tend to actually be using AES with more of their equipment; you can't include only TOSLINK, that is a high end feature and it is expected you'd also have AES and probably also HDMI. So the costs only ever add up. If there was even one advantage of TOSLINK over AES or HDMI, then it would have some chance of surviving.
Toslink has tremendous potential, especially with better codecs.
It doesn't need better CODECs, the software layer is literally S/PDIF. The alternative to it is just S/PDIF with copper wiring.
The reason that "light pipes" (what the pro-audio customers consistently insist on calling them) are on the out is that they're expensive and have no advantages. Audio isn't run directly over wires for long distances; they already tunnel it on ethernet for that. That's what those "directional" ethernet cables are for; the shielding is lifted from the plug at one end, make the ground path on the shielding directional. That way when the endpoints have different ground potentials you don't end up with a ground loop. (combined with Power Over Ethernet and Phantom Power over coax, the musician can end up getting cooked if there is a ground loop, or one of the roadies)
So there is no reason for fiber. It is just not a useful technology; the wire lengths aren't long enough to create noticeable noise from resistive heating, and the external noise sources are easily filtered with even pseudo-differential transmission.
The audio CODEC is exactly the same because the "light pipe" only transmits digital data. The CODEC is the part that coverts between analog and digital, and is the same. That's another reason copper is preferred; they can use the same standard AES cables for both analog differential and digital data. With the "light pipe" you still need the AES cables for the analog inputs. It is just an extra set of cables that are more expensive, more fragile, have the same (lack of) noise.
You seem a bit confused. It isn't a private document; the sharing mode simply has the word "private" in it.
For example, there is a device called a "safe," but if your documents are in it that doesn't mean they are literally safe; maybe they are, maybe they're not!
When you check a box and tell google, "Please keep this document private" that doesn't mean it is a "private" document; it doesn't mean you're asking google not to read it. It means you're asking google not to show it to other people without your permission. That is all it means.
I use a custom IMAP script to interface with my mail, but keeping a local backup is not a universal need.
If my mail service went down, I'd care more about restoring access and moving my hosting so that I can send and receive mail again, much much more than having access to historical emails. Even the historical emails, there is very little data that cannot simply be re-requested!
What continues to astound me is how many people there are who seem at first glance to understand technology, but on deeper examination have no concept at all of the use cases and so don't actually understand how to apply the technology. They're like a person who is an expert at math, but can't read words at all and so can't apply the math to anything other than a math test.
You might be interested to know that people whose contact database is "only in their cell phone" probably have that contact list backed up by their vendor. A new phone would get that same contact list installed automatically when they activated it, they wouldn't need to enter the information in by hand from a paper backup. Also, even if they use a prepaid dumb phone, they can usually log into a website and access their call history and recover the important/common numbers.
In the old days, we didn't have cell phones, but we had little address books we would carry around with all our numbers. Sometimes it would get lost. And there was no automatic backup. When you lost it, you'd ask your friends to copy numbers from their book, so minimize the number of people you had to share the mistake with. People who compulsively made a second copy of their addressbook also had 100s of other things to back up too, because everything was on paper and nothing had automatic backups. Keeping backups as a default behavior was something that people with certain types of OCD did, and it consumed hours out of every day. The same people often take notes of all conversations; "said good morning to bagofbeans at 8:23am" and things like that. Endless notebooks, boxes and boxes full of filled notebooks. It is not an absolute requirement for life, but sadly for some people that point seems confused.
Here all land is owned. Even land you have a right to access is owned, probably by a government entity, and that entity is charged with regulating access. For example, in the traditional example of common land used for grazing, in the United States grazing on government-owned land is regulated and requires permits. There is no Commons.
Youtube may or may not be a "defacto" monopoly as that is a loose and subjective phrase that can mean anything. Here in the US we only care if a monopoly results in the two banned things; harming consumers, and harming competition.
To claim harm to competition you'd have to be able to show losses or lack of access because of youtube's monopoly; but nobody else (other than pornographers) have even been able to make a profit on user-contributed internet video. They would have to be able to show that youtube is somehow preventing competition. But the nature of the internet makes that unlikely unless they were using some sort of active strategy that keeps people out; yet, their market dominance is based solely on customer preference! Customers aren't even locked in in any way. (As for the pornographers, youtube doesn't allow porn and so don't compete directly, and therefore doesn't harm them at all)
To claim harm to consumers you'd have to be able to show that prices were higher because of youtube. That's not going to happen, it is a free service!
If something is bad for the "vloggers" it doesn't matter; they're only protected as a consumer, and they're being paid so they're not even a consumer they're a business partner. It is only customers and competitors, rather than business partners, that are protected.
Anyone who follows any sort of weapons or gaming or political channel on YouTube knows
... or should know, that they're really out in the fringe, outside of commentary careful enough to commit to words, but well within the range suitable for blathering on anyways.
The situation in the story is a lot more sympathetic; media outlet has their words flagged, while on a service that offers private sharing, even though those words are suitable for public display and even though those words were not yet shared with the public.
Much more sympathetic than, "Illiterate nutters have their videos flagged on a public distribution platform and can't understand the terms of service well enough to figure out why."
Why buy just a video game from Atari or Intellivision? Invest in the wonder-computer of the 1980s for under $300! The Commodore Vic-20! Unlike games it has a real computer keyboard. With the Commodore Vic-20 the whole family can learn computing at home! Plays great games too. Under $300! The Wonder-Computer of the 1980s, Commodore Vic-20.
I love the way he stands there disinterested, hands in pockets, reading the script off the floor and glancing casually at the camera. Classic Shatner Method.
They're not engaged in combat in North Korea right now, but they're operating in a war zone with a dubious armistice in place and the very real threat of combat breaking out on daily basis.
If you don't know even about the F-35 missions that were prominently in the news, including what bases they departed from, then why keep talking?
That is not how I understand unemployment compensation in the US. The basic assumption is that the employee is being let go and deserves unemployment compensation.
You can just stop there and instead of saying that, you can say, "Hey I have no idea how you guys do this." That would be the honest statement nearest to what you blathered on about.
But this part at the start is wrong, and it shows why you're having trouble comprehending the situation. Unemployment benefits in the United States are simply insurance payouts. We actually call it "unemployment insurance." And that is how insurance works in the USA; you have to not only have had a loss, you also have to meet specific technical requirements of a payout. It is not a type of wellfare, nor is it a public safety net; instead, it is just government-required insurance that employers with more than a certain number of employees have to pay for.
All your blathering is just that; blathering. US courts do not care about your wild theories. Your insistence that a "legally defined reason" be given is simply ignorant; I already explained what that means. It doesn't mean what you think it means, "a reason that would satisfy mommy that a good reason was given." Instead, the "reason" is contained in short phrases, such as, "insubordination," "insufficient performance," or "failure to follow company policies." It is determined by the employer and the documentation is not to prove what happened. The documentation that is required is the documentation given to the employee to notify them what the employer's determination was. The employee is also required to sign the document to verify that they received the notice. If the employee refuses, then the employer fills it out and checks a box that makes it same as having quit; you walked out without finishing the paperwork.
I didn't mention "what the case is," because you should already know if you're going to blather about it. You should have a detailed understanding of the process, or else refrain from making claims about how it works. The process is this; you file an appeal with the State's labor board, and that person conducts a telephone hearing where you have to claim proof of facts that would mean you were supposed to get benefits; for example, if you quit your job and you claim it was because your employer cut your pay more than a certain percentage, then you win the appeal because you're allowed to quit and receive benefits for certain reasons. There are other reasons that can make quitting acceptable, and many of those are things that the employer can't disprove; you can't prove negatives, and many of the accusations are unproveable by either side. So the side that documented something wins. But in the case of being fired for cause, the employer merely has to have documentation that says the same thing; they're in control of what they wrote down, as long as they wrote down a valid reason that is what the hearings officer is looking for. They're not weighing the evidence in detail; they're not trying to check if it is true, or if the documentation proves anything. That's not the point. In this country the employer, and not the government, set the performance standard for employees. Employees do not have any right to have a performance standard they can meet.(*) So the blathering is just silly. The employer chooses what your performance requirements are, the employer determines if you met them, and the employer then documents their decision. If they documented it correctly, they win. End of story.
The types of scenario where you could appeal would be, for example, where you made a complaint to HR about your boss, and then right after that they fired you for some sort of performance reason. In that case, you're accusing them of retaliation and the hearings officer is presented with competing documentation that balances each other out, and in that case your insurance claim is upheld; because you pres
No, as long as there is a blank for you to enter your own choice and you're not required to fill it all in, you're only required to submit a ballot, then there is no issue in regards to "compulsory" speech.
The first amendment is not one of the ones that is phrased in an unclear way.
Just like, they can require you to file tax paperwork even if you're not required to pay taxes. All they have to do to satisfy the first amendment is to be content-neutral and let you vote for nobody or Mickey Mouse. If you could only vote for approved candidates, then yeah, that sort of law wouldn't make it out of a preliminary hearing.
And it only gets worse for Hispanics, because they have a strong cultural preference for biblical first names and so those are more commonly repeated too! Non-Hispanic white Americans are not only less likely to have biblical names, but when they do they use a wide variety of name forms taken from all the European languages, and Hispanics are usually only using the Spanish version.
Do you have any idea how much of a racist asshole you look like when you trot out these sorts of refuted-many-times-over tropes, in exactly the dog-whistle part of the conversation?
It is really pathetic. You should attempt some "theory of mind" and ask yourself if you're really being as clever as you think, or if you just look like a low-IQ racist who is too much of a chickenshit to admit their motivations and communicate honestly?
You clearly encountered a typo or mistaken word, but the fact that you respond by ignoring the obvious thrust of the claim shows that you're just a racist asshole looking for an excuse to argue about something that is obvious, and easily verified.
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't even grammatically incorrect; it is just a different word form.
A lot of people don't understand where English words come from; they come from being used.
A lot of people get confused about dictionaries and mistake them for authorities; they are instead only a list of known words, known word spellings.
If a spelling different than the one you prefer is repeatedly used by other people over a lengthy period of time, you may have started out with "mistakes" but in the end it is just two competing spellings. There is no Word Authority.
In the French language, they had a big convention with all the top experts from around the world, and they agreed to standardize their language. And that consensus has held over time. So you can spell a French word "wrong."
In English they tried the same thing; they gathered all the top experts from around the world, and most of them were attending with the idea that they were going to standardize the language; but after listening to each others ideas of what they would choose, they ended up agreeing not to standardize the language. And that consensus has also held. So it is only spelled wrong if you intended to spell it another way!
The standard idiot who wants to be a pedant typically gets confused by all this; I even see people confusing etymology with meaning! LMFAO!!
He should also stop using [sic] unless he actually verified it, because it doesn't mean "it sounded like to me."
OTOH, in Firefox if I have over about 1000 tabs open and never restart the browser, it crashes about every 2 weeks. Of course, it successfully recovers all the tabs 100% of the time, and then works again for a couple weeks without issue.
While this device seems like a horrible idea, for your concerns I would say it is probably very similar to fingerprint scanning.
Is your mind still in the 90s?
Doesn't asking this question worry you? Don't you wonder why you changed your way of thinking? Whose idea was it?
Me, I'm darn proud of the fact that I'm trying to keep my mind as close to what it was in the 90s as is practicable given the onslaught of garbage data.
I'm more concerned about the complete lack of use case considerations in your "analysis."
we have the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" which is in many respects a much stronger document than your bill of rights. ... in its 35 years of existence.
ROFLCOPTER
That's what is implied by the ruling, actually; if it is secret, then the charges get thrown out. For the reasons you gave.
The problem people have in understanding is that the summary only gives basic facts without context, and commenters just make wild extrapolations based on their own political biases, instead of asking what the implications are based on Canadian civics.
The court has to first agree that it is secret before they can weigh the need of the defense to have the information. It is a fight that has to happen in stages. This is just an early stage. Now they have to fight over appeals of this ruling, then after that they can start the fight over the next stage, the implications for the rights of the defendant.
Canada allows secret technology to be redacted, but there are also other rights that have to be balanced. The rulings on that balancing are yet to come. That's later.
But keep in mind, spoofing is not the only concern; anything that would allow a criminal to avoid detection is a legit police concern in Canada. So not only spoofing, but if knowledge of how the device worked allowed you to create a detector then that would be enough for the police to ask to have it redacted.
So your point is only that not all the police services in Canada use the device? That doesn't even try to refute the claim. Weak.
I couldn't figure out how to send just the video the TV and just the audio to the receiver
You don't, you send the same signal to both and the audio receiver ignores the video stream, and you turn off the audio on the TV.
TOSLINK doesn't support any routing or anything, so if that made the setup work then ARC wouldn't have really mattered anyways. Your problem was probably that you only had one HDMI out on the source and just needed a splitter.
I don't think it would be extra cost.
You could simply look in an audio catalog (or on that interweb thing) and see what the difference in price is between an HDMI cable and a TOSLINK cable.
Spoiler: Generic 6' HDMI cable is <$2, Generic 6' TOSLINK >$5. And if you step on that TOSLINK cable one time, it might not work anymore.
Name brands, and all the supporting parts on devices, have similar price differences; and the AES input will be mandatory, so you're simply adding the TOSLINK price to the base price!
The "audio processing" circuitry is exactly the same price, because it doesn't use different audio circuitry. It is just the physical layer that is different. Also remember, the HDMI circuitry is still going to be there on a TV for video; TOSLINK is only for audio. But even in an audio-only device, the encoder chips used are exactly the same. If you offered only TOSLINK it would cost more than offering only HDMI, or only AES. Actually you could offer HDMI and AES for less than offering only TOSLINK; but that doesn't actually work. The customers who use TOSLINK tend to actually be using AES with more of their equipment; you can't include only TOSLINK, that is a high end feature and it is expected you'd also have AES and probably also HDMI. So the costs only ever add up. If there was even one advantage of TOSLINK over AES or HDMI, then it would have some chance of surviving.
Toslink has tremendous potential, especially with better codecs.
It doesn't need better CODECs, the software layer is literally S/PDIF. The alternative to it is just S/PDIF with copper wiring.
The reason that "light pipes" (what the pro-audio customers consistently insist on calling them) are on the out is that they're expensive and have no advantages. Audio isn't run directly over wires for long distances; they already tunnel it on ethernet for that. That's what those "directional" ethernet cables are for; the shielding is lifted from the plug at one end, make the ground path on the shielding directional. That way when the endpoints have different ground potentials you don't end up with a ground loop. (combined with Power Over Ethernet and Phantom Power over coax, the musician can end up getting cooked if there is a ground loop, or one of the roadies)
So there is no reason for fiber. It is just not a useful technology; the wire lengths aren't long enough to create noticeable noise from resistive heating, and the external noise sources are easily filtered with even pseudo-differential transmission.
The audio CODEC is exactly the same because the "light pipe" only transmits digital data. The CODEC is the part that coverts between analog and digital, and is the same. That's another reason copper is preferred; they can use the same standard AES cables for both analog differential and digital data. With the "light pipe" you still need the AES cables for the analog inputs. It is just an extra set of cables that are more expensive, more fragile, have the same (lack of) noise.
You seem a bit confused. It isn't a private document; the sharing mode simply has the word "private" in it.
For example, there is a device called a "safe," but if your documents are in it that doesn't mean they are literally safe; maybe they are, maybe they're not!
When you check a box and tell google, "Please keep this document private" that doesn't mean it is a "private" document; it doesn't mean you're asking google not to read it. It means you're asking google not to show it to other people without your permission. That is all it means.
IMAP is better...
Until you use Outlook ...
Yeah, but you can fill in any words and it is still true.
"Life is better than death, until you're stuck using Outlook"
I use a custom IMAP script to interface with my mail, but keeping a local backup is not a universal need.
If my mail service went down, I'd care more about restoring access and moving my hosting so that I can send and receive mail again, much much more than having access to historical emails. Even the historical emails, there is very little data that cannot simply be re-requested!
What continues to astound me is how many people there are who seem at first glance to understand technology, but on deeper examination have no concept at all of the use cases and so don't actually understand how to apply the technology. They're like a person who is an expert at math, but can't read words at all and so can't apply the math to anything other than a math test.
You might be interested to know that people whose contact database is "only in their cell phone" probably have that contact list backed up by their vendor. A new phone would get that same contact list installed automatically when they activated it, they wouldn't need to enter the information in by hand from a paper backup. Also, even if they use a prepaid dumb phone, they can usually log into a website and access their call history and recover the important/common numbers.
In the old days, we didn't have cell phones, but we had little address books we would carry around with all our numbers. Sometimes it would get lost. And there was no automatic backup. When you lost it, you'd ask your friends to copy numbers from their book, so minimize the number of people you had to share the mistake with. People who compulsively made a second copy of their addressbook also had 100s of other things to back up too, because everything was on paper and nothing had automatic backups. Keeping backups as a default behavior was something that people with certain types of OCD did, and it consumed hours out of every day. The same people often take notes of all conversations; "said good morning to bagofbeans at 8:23am" and things like that. Endless notebooks, boxes and boxes full of filled notebooks. It is not an absolute requirement for life, but sadly for some people that point seems confused.
YouTube is a defacto monopoly at this point. It was set up to be a Commons where everybody could participate. It has no competitor of a similar scale.
So perhaps it should be broken away from Google and made a separate entity again. Google can still contract with them to sell ads on it.
Or maybe it should be made into a true Commons without a corporate overlord running it.
A "true commons" is not something that can exist under US law, thankfully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here all land is owned. Even land you have a right to access is owned, probably by a government entity, and that entity is charged with regulating access. For example, in the traditional example of common land used for grazing, in the United States grazing on government-owned land is regulated and requires permits. There is no Commons.
Youtube may or may not be a "defacto" monopoly as that is a loose and subjective phrase that can mean anything. Here in the US we only care if a monopoly results in the two banned things; harming consumers, and harming competition.
To claim harm to competition you'd have to be able to show losses or lack of access because of youtube's monopoly; but nobody else (other than pornographers) have even been able to make a profit on user-contributed internet video. They would have to be able to show that youtube is somehow preventing competition. But the nature of the internet makes that unlikely unless they were using some sort of active strategy that keeps people out; yet, their market dominance is based solely on customer preference! Customers aren't even locked in in any way. (As for the pornographers, youtube doesn't allow porn and so don't compete directly, and therefore doesn't harm them at all)
To claim harm to consumers you'd have to be able to show that prices were higher because of youtube. That's not going to happen, it is a free service!
If something is bad for the "vloggers" it doesn't matter; they're only protected as a consumer, and they're being paid so they're not even a consumer they're a business partner. It is only customers and competitors, rather than business partners, that are protected.
Anyone who follows any sort of weapons or gaming or political channel on YouTube knows
... or should know, that they're really out in the fringe, outside of commentary careful enough to commit to words, but well within the range suitable for blathering on anyways.
The situation in the story is a lot more sympathetic; media outlet has their words flagged, while on a service that offers private sharing, even though those words are suitable for public display and even though those words were not yet shared with the public.
Much more sympathetic than, "Illiterate nutters have their videos flagged on a public distribution platform and can't understand the terms of service well enough to figure out why."
... this word from our sponsors.
Why buy just a video game from Atari or Intellivision? Invest in the wonder-computer of the 1980s for under $300! The Commodore Vic-20! Unlike games it has a real computer keyboard. With the Commodore Vic-20 the whole family can learn computing at home! Plays great games too. Under $300! The Wonder-Computer of the 1980s, Commodore Vic-20.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I love the way he stands there disinterested, hands in pockets, reading the script off the floor and glancing casually at the camera. Classic Shatner Method.
They're not engaged in combat in North Korea right now, but they're operating in a war zone with a dubious armistice in place and the very real threat of combat breaking out on daily basis.
If you don't know even about the F-35 missions that were prominently in the news, including what bases they departed from, then why keep talking?
That is not how I understand unemployment compensation in the US. The basic assumption is that the employee is being let go and deserves unemployment compensation.
You can just stop there and instead of saying that, you can say, "Hey I have no idea how you guys do this." That would be the honest statement nearest to what you blathered on about.
But this part at the start is wrong, and it shows why you're having trouble comprehending the situation. Unemployment benefits in the United States are simply insurance payouts. We actually call it "unemployment insurance." And that is how insurance works in the USA; you have to not only have had a loss, you also have to meet specific technical requirements of a payout. It is not a type of wellfare, nor is it a public safety net; instead, it is just government-required insurance that employers with more than a certain number of employees have to pay for.
All your blathering is just that; blathering. US courts do not care about your wild theories. Your insistence that a "legally defined reason" be given is simply ignorant; I already explained what that means. It doesn't mean what you think it means, "a reason that would satisfy mommy that a good reason was given." Instead, the "reason" is contained in short phrases, such as, "insubordination," "insufficient performance," or "failure to follow company policies." It is determined by the employer and the documentation is not to prove what happened. The documentation that is required is the documentation given to the employee to notify them what the employer's determination was. The employee is also required to sign the document to verify that they received the notice. If the employee refuses, then the employer fills it out and checks a box that makes it same as having quit; you walked out without finishing the paperwork.
I didn't mention "what the case is," because you should already know if you're going to blather about it. You should have a detailed understanding of the process, or else refrain from making claims about how it works. The process is this; you file an appeal with the State's labor board, and that person conducts a telephone hearing where you have to claim proof of facts that would mean you were supposed to get benefits; for example, if you quit your job and you claim it was because your employer cut your pay more than a certain percentage, then you win the appeal because you're allowed to quit and receive benefits for certain reasons. There are other reasons that can make quitting acceptable, and many of those are things that the employer can't disprove; you can't prove negatives, and many of the accusations are unproveable by either side. So the side that documented something wins. But in the case of being fired for cause, the employer merely has to have documentation that says the same thing; they're in control of what they wrote down, as long as they wrote down a valid reason that is what the hearings officer is looking for. They're not weighing the evidence in detail; they're not trying to check if it is true, or if the documentation proves anything. That's not the point. In this country the employer, and not the government, set the performance standard for employees. Employees do not have any right to have a performance standard they can meet. (*) So the blathering is just silly. The employer chooses what your performance requirements are, the employer determines if you met them, and the employer then documents their decision. If they documented it correctly, they win. End of story.
The types of scenario where you could appeal would be, for example, where you made a complaint to HR about your boss, and then right after that they fired you for some sort of performance reason. In that case, you're accusing them of retaliation and the hearings officer is presented with competing documentation that balances each other out, and in that case your insurance claim is upheld; because you pres
No, as long as there is a blank for you to enter your own choice and you're not required to fill it all in, you're only required to submit a ballot, then there is no issue in regards to "compulsory" speech.
The first amendment is not one of the ones that is phrased in an unclear way.
Just like, they can require you to file tax paperwork even if you're not required to pay taxes. All they have to do to satisfy the first amendment is to be content-neutral and let you vote for nobody or Mickey Mouse. If you could only vote for approved candidates, then yeah, that sort of law wouldn't make it out of a preliminary hearing.
And it only gets worse for Hispanics, because they have a strong cultural preference for biblical first names and so those are more commonly repeated too! Non-Hispanic white Americans are not only less likely to have biblical names, but when they do they use a wide variety of name forms taken from all the European languages, and Hispanics are usually only using the Spanish version.
Do you have any idea how much of a racist asshole you look like when you trot out these sorts of refuted-many-times-over tropes, in exactly the dog-whistle part of the conversation?
It is really pathetic. You should attempt some "theory of mind" and ask yourself if you're really being as clever as you think, or if you just look like a low-IQ racist who is too much of a chickenshit to admit their motivations and communicate honestly?
there's a "correct" way to spell names! Who decides that, pray tell?
Easy, you just ask WombatHumper. But make sure to include a photograph of the person, it helps him to measure if their spelling is allowed.
I'll bet monopoly$20 that he can't correctly define the word "dictionary," either.
You clearly encountered a typo or mistaken word, but the fact that you respond by ignoring the obvious thrust of the claim shows that you're just a racist asshole looking for an excuse to argue about something that is obvious, and easily verified.
Fuck off nazi.