The required documentation is the pink slip that you get at the exit interview when they tell you you're fired. It is not a difficult or complicated detail.
You should try looking up that employment law, because you won't find anything that matches what you describe. Counseling requirements, what are you, Canadian? That's just insane. If somebody gets counseling it is either because the employer wants to not fire them, and they're obligated to provide a non-hostile workplace, so in order to forgive certain types of misbehavior they have to offer counseling to avoid being sued by the victim of the hostile behavior. The only other reason that would be offered in the US, other than to avoid firing them, is when there is a union and it is part of the contract.
You have much of it exactly upside down, that's why you need to go and look up whatever law you think you're talking about and find out what it really says.
Maybe they don't care so much about some sort of chest-thumping independence, but just that they want local control of local issues and think Spain doesn't respect that enough? Perhaps Brussels executes its authority differently than Madrid?
That's exactly it; how can it be illegal to hold an advisory referendum with no legal powers? How is that any different from banning opposition speech?
Are all forms of A/B testing banned in Spain, or only Catalonian ones?
IMO it comes down to, did the people in question participate directly in deciding their fate already? Why are they part of what they want to separate from? If the political unit you're a part of was created without the consent of the community, then IMO they forever have the moral right of self-determination.
But if your ancestors made that choice and the political unit you're a part of was joined willingly by the community, and is largely intact, then your community has the right of self-determination because you already made that determination. Changing it is to strip away the prior legit determination from others.
Catalonia has never had freedom in the modern world, they're not a part of a place called "Spain" because they chose to be. So I think they should be allowed their choice. I feel the same way about Kurdistan; they never had their choice, so it is still out there waiting to be claimed.
Scotland should be allowed to choose again and again, because the system that they chose to be a part of allows them to review their decision. Americans can make this decision again too, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment. If you have the votes, you can secede legally, but without the votes you can't claim to have a stronger determination of the will of the People than was exercised in forming the Union in the first place.
If you look up those "laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South" you'll find out that that is just a rephrasing of issues regarding slavery; for example, the South was really mad that the Northern States didn't let them send cops up north to capture any black people they had papers claiming ownership of.
"States' Rights" actually meant the right to travel to other States and impose your own State laws on people physically in those other States if you claimed they were from your State. They wanted, for example, to take a bunch of slaves with them to a State where slavery was illegal, and to be able to force the locals to enforce not the local laws, but the laws of the State that the visitor was from. It is just a crazy idea that doesn't work if you think about it, but they demanded it all the same and went to war over it.
Don't hide behind a well-known veneer that doesn't even cover the shit.
there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew.
Portugal exists, which destroys your argument. Another option would be to have a war first, and then for Spain to stay in the EU, and also agree to welcome Catalonia.
Well, Catalonia is very pro-EU, and as long as Spain still has a claim the EU has to defend the status quo. But if at some point Spain and Catalonia make a deal, then the EU would instantly welcome Catalonia.
They're not asking for anything that is opposed to EU values.
In Oregon we avoid this fight by just not promising to have totals quickly. We vote by mail, and when we're done counting that's how long it took. It is up to each person to wait up all night hoping for results, or go to sleep early and check it in the morning. Or sometimes, wait patiently until next week. Count all the votes, because people whose candidate lost still have a desire for their vote to be tallied!
The savings from not counting all the ballots is money poorly spent because it decreases public trust needlessly.
Why would you be surprised "how far" things go in fiction? They can literally make it go however far they want. You're surprised fiction isn't more boring? Funny, I'm surprised so much of is shallow vapid bullshit! Talk about "darker forces!"
If you had bothered to read that article after it came up in your search results, instead of just scanning a few paragraphs and linking to it, you'd realize that it doesn't purport to offer any details, just bare assertions from an individual at the FBI, and the DNC responding by linking back to their prior statement and standing by their account.
The link proves that what you "believe" is based on an account that you know, or should know, has been disputed by people with direct knowledge of the events.
You most likely only get contempt if it is late enough in the process for the judge to have ordered you to preserve it. If you destroy it right after you're notified of the lawsuit, as here, then normally you don't get in that kind of trouble you just lose the case because the destroyed evidence is presumed to have shown whatever the worst stuff was it might have shown.
As someone who works with computer security, I beg to differ: There are no known way of doing electronic voting with security level above "idiots", compared to paper-based voting.
As somebody who lives in a State with human-readable paper ballots that are normally counted by computer, I totally agree. Having the paper ballot and lots of humans from both parties watching all the steps of counting is what makes the computer a trustworthy tool.
"but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government."
Why?
Look up "spoliation of evidence." It does in fact imply guilt, and generally even if you can't prove who did it it will prove that the entity who was responsible for the data is guilty of something. Guilty of what? What the evidence was purported to prove before they destroyed it, of course.
Otherwise, why would all that juicy evidence ever make it into any lawsuit? Everything would be accidentally destroyed.
I don't regret buying an LG, but I'm sure glad I bought the "dumb" model, even if I had to open it up and install my own headphone jack. (The dumb models are sold mostly for business use as wall displays, so they have a 3.5mm jack but hook it up to serial wired remote control interface)
Thanks to HDMI, anything internet connected I can run on a computer and still display on the TV. Thanks to PulseAudio it is super easy to switch a running audio source to the HDMI too, so I don't even have to restart anything... just move it to a virtual desktop on the TV screen, and change the audio output in the mixer. Thanks, future!
So sad to see all those appers apping maliciously against their will.
You have unrealistic expectations of what a business will do to protect free speech.
Lets not be quite this confused; when a business chooses what you can say on their website, that is literally them defending their free speech. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
No, maybe in Europe you have to counsel an employee, or if you're in an industry with a lot of unions it might be offered. Certainly not a requirement in the US, even with all the variations from State to State.
You're also not required to document problems. It comes down to proof; companies document problems because it means they automatically win the case when the employee didn't. There is documentation required, but it isn't the type you make it sound like; you document your conclusion at the end. The required documentation is literally the "pink slip" that tells you "why," but it only documents the category and the general reason. For example, "performance issue" or "insubordination." They certainly don't have any requirement to document individual infractions.
Any HR department or lawyer is going to tell you to do way, way more documentation than the law requires, because it benefits the employer. The idea that that sort of documentation, taken by the employer, is somehow part of employment rights or protections is hilarious. The silly crap people pull out their asses LMFAO
Slashdot Mirror
The required documentation is the pink slip that you get at the exit interview when they tell you you're fired. It is not a difficult or complicated detail.
You should try looking up that employment law, because you won't find anything that matches what you describe. Counseling requirements, what are you, Canadian? That's just insane. If somebody gets counseling it is either because the employer wants to not fire them, and they're obligated to provide a non-hostile workplace, so in order to forgive certain types of misbehavior they have to offer counseling to avoid being sued by the victim of the hostile behavior. The only other reason that would be offered in the US, other than to avoid firing them, is when there is a union and it is part of the contract.
You have much of it exactly upside down, that's why you need to go and look up whatever law you think you're talking about and find out what it really says.
That dripping juice is not evidence, it is just what happens to rotten old ideas after you've been repeating them for a couple years.
Hearing the same crap over and over on your favorite source of newsvertainment is not the same thing as seeing a pile of evidence increase.
the Catalan leaders must be changed criminally
Why am I not surprised that Spain doesn't understand that A Clockwork Orange was a dystopia?
Maybe they don't care so much about some sort of chest-thumping independence, but just that they want local control of local issues and think Spain doesn't respect that enough? Perhaps Brussels executes its authority differently than Madrid?
That's exactly it; how can it be illegal to hold an advisory referendum with no legal powers? How is that any different from banning opposition speech?
Are all forms of A/B testing banned in Spain, or only Catalonian ones?
IMO it comes down to, did the people in question participate directly in deciding their fate already? Why are they part of what they want to separate from? If the political unit you're a part of was created without the consent of the community, then IMO they forever have the moral right of self-determination.
But if your ancestors made that choice and the political unit you're a part of was joined willingly by the community, and is largely intact, then your community has the right of self-determination because you already made that determination. Changing it is to strip away the prior legit determination from others.
Catalonia has never had freedom in the modern world, they're not a part of a place called "Spain" because they chose to be. So I think they should be allowed their choice. I feel the same way about Kurdistan; they never had their choice, so it is still out there waiting to be claimed.
Scotland should be allowed to choose again and again, because the system that they chose to be a part of allows them to review their decision. Americans can make this decision again too, but it requires a Constitutional Amendment. If you have the votes, you can secede legally, but without the votes you can't claim to have a stronger determination of the will of the People than was exercised in forming the Union in the first place.
It always requires a contextual analysis.
If you look up those "laws that hurt the mainly agricultural South" you'll find out that that is just a rephrasing of issues regarding slavery; for example, the South was really mad that the Northern States didn't let them send cops up north to capture any black people they had papers claiming ownership of.
"States' Rights" actually meant the right to travel to other States and impose your own State laws on people physically in those other States if you claimed they were from your State. They wanted, for example, to take a bunch of slaves with them to a State where slavery was illegal, and to be able to force the locals to enforce not the local laws, but the laws of the State that the visitor was from. It is just a crazy idea that doesn't work if you think about it, but they demanded it all the same and went to war over it.
Don't hide behind a well-known veneer that doesn't even cover the shit.
there's no chance Catalonia would get in unless Spain withdrew.
Portugal exists, which destroys your argument. Another option would be to have a war first, and then for Spain to stay in the EU, and also agree to welcome Catalonia.
Well, Catalonia is very pro-EU, and as long as Spain still has a claim the EU has to defend the status quo. But if at some point Spain and Catalonia make a deal, then the EU would instantly welcome Catalonia.
They're not asking for anything that is opposed to EU values.
How can that make sense to you?
I'm assuming it results from years of exposure to newsvertainment.
In Oregon we avoid this fight by just not promising to have totals quickly. We vote by mail, and when we're done counting that's how long it took. It is up to each person to wait up all night hoping for results, or go to sleep early and check it in the morning. Or sometimes, wait patiently until next week. Count all the votes, because people whose candidate lost still have a desire for their vote to be tallied!
The savings from not counting all the ballots is money poorly spent because it decreases public trust needlessly.
Why would you be surprised "how far" things go in fiction? They can literally make it go however far they want. You're surprised fiction isn't more boring? Funny, I'm surprised so much of is shallow vapid bullshit! Talk about "darker forces!"
Why is this the first time I am hearing about this?
I'm guessing partisanship, echo chambers, and credulousness of newsvertainment.
If you had bothered to read that article after it came up in your search results, instead of just scanning a few paragraphs and linking to it, you'd realize that it doesn't purport to offer any details, just bare assertions from an individual at the FBI, and the DNC responding by linking back to their prior statement and standing by their account.
The link proves that what you "believe" is based on an account that you know, or should know, has been disputed by people with direct knowledge of the events.
You most likely only get contempt if it is late enough in the process for the judge to have ordered you to preserve it. If you destroy it right after you're notified of the lawsuit, as here, then normally you don't get in that kind of trouble you just lose the case because the destroyed evidence is presumed to have shown whatever the worst stuff was it might have shown.
We are not idiots
As someone who works with computer security, I beg to differ: There are no known way of doing electronic voting with security level above "idiots", compared to paper-based voting.
As somebody who lives in a State with human-readable paper ballots that are normally counted by computer, I totally agree. Having the paper ballot and lots of humans from both parties watching all the steps of counting is what makes the computer a trustworthy tool.
I'm gonna try that one out and see how it goes, just for laughs.
"Good morning"
"Good morning, you look pretty or handsome today!"
"but they have raised yet more suspicions of collusion between the Trump campaign team, the Republican Party, and the Russian government."
Why?
Look up "spoliation of evidence." It does in fact imply guilt, and generally even if you can't prove who did it it will prove that the entity who was responsible for the data is guilty of something. Guilty of what? What the evidence was purported to prove before they destroyed it, of course.
Otherwise, why would all that juicy evidence ever make it into any lawsuit? Everything would be accidentally destroyed.
I would be surprised if they issued updates 2 years after the product first came out.
Like Saint Ignucius said, if a device can't be updated you don't have to worry about software freedom.
I don't regret buying an LG, but I'm sure glad I bought the "dumb" model, even if I had to open it up and install my own headphone jack. (The dumb models are sold mostly for business use as wall displays, so they have a 3.5mm jack but hook it up to serial wired remote control interface)
Thanks to HDMI, anything internet connected I can run on a computer and still display on the TV. Thanks to PulseAudio it is super easy to switch a running audio source to the HDMI too, so I don't even have to restart anything... just move it to a virtual desktop on the TV screen, and change the audio output in the mixer. Thanks, future!
So sad to see all those appers apping maliciously against their will.
You have unrealistic expectations of what a business will do to protect free speech.
Lets not be quite this confused; when a business chooses what you can say on their website, that is literally them defending their free speech. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
No, maybe in Europe you have to counsel an employee, or if you're in an industry with a lot of unions it might be offered. Certainly not a requirement in the US, even with all the variations from State to State.
You're also not required to document problems. It comes down to proof; companies document problems because it means they automatically win the case when the employee didn't. There is documentation required, but it isn't the type you make it sound like; you document your conclusion at the end. The required documentation is literally the "pink slip" that tells you "why," but it only documents the category and the general reason. For example, "performance issue" or "insubordination." They certainly don't have any requirement to document individual infractions.
Any HR department or lawyer is going to tell you to do way, way more documentation than the law requires, because it benefits the employer. The idea that that sort of documentation, taken by the employer, is somehow part of employment rights or protections is hilarious. The silly crap people pull out their asses LMFAO
If you don't understand the difference between a salesperson and a sales engineer, why bother commenting?
No, that is a geometric line, an abstract mathematical concept. A drawn line is never perfectly straight, and contains multiple dimensions.
And a metaphorical line takes the metaphor from the drawn line, and is therefore only as narrow or straight as it is well drawn.
Reddit was supposed to be the new slashdot, or so anonymous cowherd said.