A major airliner in the worst case sucks in a drone, loses an engine, and lands safely at the nearest airport.
The real airplane danger would be a military fighter jet hitting one and taking some damage, and the pilot ejecting leaving the plane to crash in a neighborhood.
Unlikely, but possible.
But the big threat to the public isn't airplanes, it is helicopters. They crash easy, and they suck things in easy.
That isn't why the government wants to regulate. The government wants to regulate because private drones make VIP protection at events really, really difficult. They can't, because Congress said no in the past. Expect Congress to pass narrow exceptions allowing the temporary regulation of "model aircraft" near public events.
Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?
Because "model aircraft" is already well defined in those other laws, and it only covers hobbyist use. "Model" being an important word there. When used commercially it is no longer a mere "model" of an aircraft, but rather is a fully functional flying tool.
It makes perfect sense using plain English. But only if you assume that words have specific, known meanings.
I don't know where that "without having to pay severance" thing comes from.
It comes from Europeans who want to lecture everybody about how little they know about the American workplace.
Europeans presume that because in most of Europe it is mandatory unless you have an excuse. Severance in the US is usually an optional thing that an employer does in rare cases to keep former employees happy/quiet. Sometimes it is part of a contract, in which case it just gets paid. It isn't a thing to include it in the contract and then try to use gimmicks to avoid paying it. Companies that include it in the contract just pay it out. So there is motivation to try to use a gimmick. In the US those companies just wouldn't offer it in the first place. Most American workers do not have any guaranteed severance at all, none, zero, zilch.
The similar gimmicks in the US come in the form of trying to avoid having to pay for employees who are claiming "unemployment insurance" after getting laid off. But that is for low-paid jobs; for high paid jobs like most of the ones at IBM the unemployment insurance would be at the cap, and it would be far less than the employee was making from their job. Not only that, but higher paid workers are more sensitive to worker rights issues; they can and do demand better treatment. There is no benefit there. Whereas when it is a unskilled wage earner, there is always another one to take their place and so if a business tries to nickel and dime those people it might not even hurt their hiring.
If you feel your cheeks burning it must mean you finally clicked over on that "max" tab and looked at their current value compared to during the.com boom or any other age.
If you're settled down and not near the office, you're also not a longterm employee.
It is funny watching people write crazy things to satisfy their bias. I think remote workers are good too, but it doesn't mean it is advantageous to every company in every way, or that companies who don't like it are somehow discriminating. Sheesh.
That was a short term peak, they're still above their long-term average, they're still above where they were during the ".com boom" or any other period. They had a peak in the `10-15 years because tech generally was experiencing a lot of uncertainty and IBM was a safe haven.
A company that is in decline should have some sort of real shrinkage, not just have consistent growth combined with a short-term market capitalization increase and correction.
Top R&D engineers -> trust -> professional services -> profit
Already using IBM professional services -> easy to integrate IBM software -> licensing -> profit
They used to make a lot of computer hardware as a fourth leg, but when most of it became commoditized they sold most of it off and rolled the rest into services and licensing; you can't buy a laptop from them, but they'll happily design you a custom supercomputer.
Constructive dismissal requires either a breach of contract, or else a hostile work environment.
It is safe to say that IBM's contract covers this already. They do have HR staff, and lawyers, so this is obvious.
If you manage to convince the Court that your being required to show up at the office creates a hostile work environment, that might not really play out the way you intend! You'd only be proving that their misconduct was in not firing you.
Their products aren't what they used to be, what products they even have left, but their professional services are still the best in the industry.
When people talk about IBM and services, that means professional services. When you're talking about IBM Passport Advantage that is end-user support for their enterprise software. That's the hand-holding that is included with the software product. That isn't what they're famous for. What they're famous for is their Professional Services; when you don't just license their software, you also hire their engineers to install it and help your engineers get everything perfect. When you're using Passport Advantage it means you don't even have engineers running it, you've got IT guys who can't read manuals very well. They were never known for providing that!
No, actually, when I disagree with you it does not imply I misunderstood you.
You repeat various things you read on the internet. You claim they are all facts. I (re)propose that the details in the reporting already told you that those were rumors rather than facts. Actually, they're absurdities that prove by their phrasing that they're based on political writing not facts. For example, why would Lynch destroy a laptop? They have people for that. And when you're dealing with real facts, they're more facty; a person orders a thing done, then there is an order. That's a different set of facts than if they did it themselves, without there being any order. Different paper trails, different people who would know about it, etc. When the phrasing is absurd it is obviously lies, because with real facts they lead to other facts. Changing the details changes where it sounds like the facts lead, and that's what happened; somebody on the internet convinced you of things that aren't true by feeding you fake facts that can't be followed, knowing you won't try to follow them.
You even speculate on "could have" nonsense, well you're admitting it isn't true but you're trying to play the same game and suggest maybe it is.
Quit repeating right wing propaganda, it makes you look ignorant and naive.
Saying "it's a fact" after a lie doesn't make it a fact. The public facts nearest to those don't even involve all the same people; or even the same three-letter agency as the person you named. And there is an obvious, normal explanation already widely reported that you just left out, presumably because real facts are biased in this case, right?;)
If you had the internet you could fact-check yourself and you'd find out that everything you said was either phrased as a lie, or else the information is secret and you don't fucking know.
Explains the timing of the story, especially considering that the number of ambulance transports is less than half the rate from the general population. Factory workers are healthier than the average person, but the job is also more dangerous than average. It would take a lot of additional numbers to show it being high. But it sounds like it must be high if they bothered to quote it in a story!
In my workplace experiences, the places with good worker treatment had more people advocating to join a union than the ones that treated their workers shitty. For various reasons, many of which are obvious, like that people who value being respected by their employers already quit the shitty jobs at a higher rate.
If you can find numbers that specific please do provide them. In my experience it is hard to get public numbers that specific; managers that need those numbers pay consultants for them!
I couldn't get numbers just on workers, but I did find that in 2009 there were 28,004,624 medical transports resulting from 911 calls. Population that year was 306,800,000. That's one medical transport per year per 11 people.
120 transports in 3.5 years for 10,000 people is one transport per 23 people.
While workers are more healthy than the average person, they're also a lot more likely to accept a medical transport for things like dizziness where a person at home would likely just stop painting for the day and get some fresh air.
In the 90s I worked at a plywood mill, and we did have a lot less transports than that, but we also didn't call medics for things like dizziness. I had a head injury with lots of blood, enough blood that some of co-workers were freaked out, and I didn't get transported. I stopped the bleeding with a paper towel, and they checked my eyes for signs of concussion, and let me go back to work with the instructions to call if I started acting "weird." From the sounds of it they bought fancy insurance that includes medical transport and they just transport anybody with a problem.
Instead of sleeping on the factory floor to show solidarity, perhaps he should have spent his time better analyzing production lines for improvement. A good manager doesn't work harder, a good manager works smarter.
Add a person here, add a person there, lighten the individual load. Cross train and move multidiscipline employees to various stations based on demand, then move elsewhere when demand lowers.
A good manager is seen by employees working harder than those employees. If you question that, you're probably aliterate.
Are there other things that are also important? Of course. It has been widely reported that improvements in the production line are one of the things that Tesla is doing that differently than other automakers, because a lot more engineering work has gone into the cars themselves than the factories. Duh. Read moar peas.
On top of all that, his vehicles are shit, but that's another story altogether.
The vehicles get high ratings from people who actually own them.
Well then open access points are the least of our problems.
LOL probably true, probably true... but lets wait and see if they secure the network, or what gets cracked in the end, before we decide how bad it was.
There is basically unlimited potential for harm if they make other mistakes at the same time as these ones.
Why is the President of the United States conducting business at a public resort?
For PR, because he owns it.
Also, most of the foreign workers that accompany delegations are used to corruption and they know to be seen spending lots of money at the President's business. Nobody has to ask for anything, or ask to get anything. It isn't a bribe, it is just curry.
Because information that would not be sensitive if it relates to an average person or business is sensitive when it relates to the office of the President of the United States.
Things like location and movements of regular people are merely a privacy concern, not a security concern, but movements of people who work for or are meeting with the President of the United States are important secrets. Whatever backend services are connected to the hotspots, they contain sensitive information relating to national security! That's true even if it is just for off-hours internet access. Just having people connected in some way to the office of the President walking in range of a hotspot with electronics in their pocket could be a risk, even if they aren't "connecting" intentionally to any network.
I'm not sure which part of "getaway" you're so confused about that it sends you into an argumentative hipster rage, but "get away" doesn't say anything about blowing a bunch of money trying to look like you're spending lots of money on a vacation. All you have to do is get, and keep getting until you're away!
Slashdot Mirror
A major airliner in the worst case sucks in a drone, loses an engine, and lands safely at the nearest airport.
The real airplane danger would be a military fighter jet hitting one and taking some damage, and the pilot ejecting leaving the plane to crash in a neighborhood.
Unlikely, but possible.
But the big threat to the public isn't airplanes, it is helicopters. They crash easy, and they suck things in easy.
That isn't why the government wants to regulate. The government wants to regulate because private drones make VIP protection at events really, really difficult. They can't, because Congress said no in the past. Expect Congress to pass narrow exceptions allowing the temporary regulation of "model aircraft" near public events.
Then why is registration still in place for "commercial use"?
Because "model aircraft" is already well defined in those other laws, and it only covers hobbyist use. "Model" being an important word there. When used commercially it is no longer a mere "model" of an aircraft, but rather is a fully functional flying tool.
It makes perfect sense using plain English. But only if you assume that words have specific, known meanings.
I don't know where that "without having to pay severance" thing comes from.
It comes from Europeans who want to lecture everybody about how little they know about the American workplace.
Europeans presume that because in most of Europe it is mandatory unless you have an excuse. Severance in the US is usually an optional thing that an employer does in rare cases to keep former employees happy/quiet. Sometimes it is part of a contract, in which case it just gets paid. It isn't a thing to include it in the contract and then try to use gimmicks to avoid paying it. Companies that include it in the contract just pay it out. So there is motivation to try to use a gimmick. In the US those companies just wouldn't offer it in the first place. Most American workers do not have any guaranteed severance at all, none, zero, zilch.
The similar gimmicks in the US come in the form of trying to avoid having to pay for employees who are claiming "unemployment insurance" after getting laid off. But that is for low-paid jobs; for high paid jobs like most of the ones at IBM the unemployment insurance would be at the cap, and it would be far less than the employee was making from their job. Not only that, but higher paid workers are more sensitive to worker rights issues; they can and do demand better treatment. There is no benefit there. Whereas when it is a unskilled wage earner, there is always another one to take their place and so if a business tries to nickel and dime those people it might not even hurt their hiring.
If you feel your cheeks burning it must mean you finally clicked over on that "max" tab and looked at their current value compared to during the .com boom or any other age.
If you're settled down and not near the office, you're also not a longterm employee.
It is funny watching people write crazy things to satisfy their bias. I think remote workers are good too, but it doesn't mean it is advantageous to every company in every way, or that companies who don't like it are somehow discriminating. Sheesh.
That's misleading and you know it.
That was a short term peak, they're still above their long-term average, they're still above where they were during the ".com boom" or any other period. They had a peak in the `10-15 years because tech generally was experiencing a lot of uncertainty and IBM was a safe haven.
A company that is in decline should have some sort of real shrinkage, not just have consistent growth combined with a short-term market capitalization increase and correction.
R&D -> licensing -> profit
Top R&D engineers -> trust -> professional services -> profit
Already using IBM professional services -> easy to integrate IBM software -> licensing -> profit
They used to make a lot of computer hardware as a fourth leg, but when most of it became commoditized they sold most of it off and rolled the rest into services and licensing; you can't buy a laptop from them, but they'll happily design you a custom supercomputer.
Constructive dismissal requires either a breach of contract, or else a hostile work environment.
It is safe to say that IBM's contract covers this already. They do have HR staff, and lawyers, so this is obvious.
If you manage to convince the Court that your being required to show up at the office creates a hostile work environment, that might not really play out the way you intend! You'd only be proving that their misconduct was in not firing you.
Since when did IBM hire "regular employees?"
If you're regular, don't even bother applying.
You have to be exceptional, and also have pressed shirts.
Real IBMers were still wearing their pressed shirts when working from home, and it isn't really that big a change for them to come back to the office.
Their products aren't what they used to be, what products they even have left, but their professional services are still the best in the industry.
When people talk about IBM and services, that means professional services. When you're talking about IBM Passport Advantage that is end-user support for their enterprise software. That's the hand-holding that is included with the software product. That isn't what they're famous for. What they're famous for is their Professional Services; when you don't just license their software, you also hire their engineers to install it and help your engineers get everything perfect. When you're using Passport Advantage it means you don't even have engineers running it, you've got IT guys who can't read manuals very well. They were never known for providing that!
No, actually, when I disagree with you it does not imply I misunderstood you.
You repeat various things you read on the internet. You claim they are all facts. I (re)propose that the details in the reporting already told you that those were rumors rather than facts. Actually, they're absurdities that prove by their phrasing that they're based on political writing not facts. For example, why would Lynch destroy a laptop? They have people for that. And when you're dealing with real facts, they're more facty; a person orders a thing done, then there is an order. That's a different set of facts than if they did it themselves, without there being any order. Different paper trails, different people who would know about it, etc. When the phrasing is absurd it is obviously lies, because with real facts they lead to other facts. Changing the details changes where it sounds like the facts lead, and that's what happened; somebody on the internet convinced you of things that aren't true by feeding you fake facts that can't be followed, knowing you won't try to follow them.
You even speculate on "could have" nonsense, well you're admitting it isn't true but you're trying to play the same game and suggest maybe it is.
Quit repeating right wing propaganda, it makes you look ignorant and naive.
Saying "it's a fact" after a lie doesn't make it a fact. The public facts nearest to those don't even involve all the same people; or even the same three-letter agency as the person you named. And there is an obvious, normal explanation already widely reported that you just left out, presumably because real facts are biased in this case, right? ;)
If you had the internet you could fact-check yourself and you'd find out that everything you said was either phrased as a lie, or else the information is secret and you don't fucking know.
Being aliterate is bad enough, but confusing it with alliteration is illiterate.
Explains the timing of the story, especially considering that the number of ambulance transports is less than half the rate from the general population. Factory workers are healthier than the average person, but the job is also more dangerous than average. It would take a lot of additional numbers to show it being high. But it sounds like it must be high if they bothered to quote it in a story!
In my workplace experiences, the places with good worker treatment had more people advocating to join a union than the ones that treated their workers shitty. For various reasons, many of which are obvious, like that people who value being respected by their employers already quit the shitty jobs at a higher rate.
If you can find numbers that specific please do provide them. In my experience it is hard to get public numbers that specific; managers that need those numbers pay consultants for them!
I couldn't get numbers just on workers, but I did find that in 2009 there were 28,004,624 medical transports resulting from 911 calls. Population that year was 306,800,000. That's one medical transport per year per 11 people.
120 transports in 3.5 years for 10,000 people is one transport per 23 people.
While workers are more healthy than the average person, they're also a lot more likely to accept a medical transport for things like dizziness where a person at home would likely just stop painting for the day and get some fresh air.
In the 90s I worked at a plywood mill, and we did have a lot less transports than that, but we also didn't call medics for things like dizziness. I had a head injury with lots of blood, enough blood that some of co-workers were freaked out, and I didn't get transported. I stopped the bleeding with a paper towel, and they checked my eyes for signs of concussion, and let me go back to work with the instructions to call if I started acting "weird." From the sounds of it they bought fancy insurance that includes medical transport and they just transport anybody with a problem.
Instead of sleeping on the factory floor to show solidarity, perhaps he should have spent his time better analyzing production lines for improvement. A good manager doesn't work harder, a good manager works smarter.
Add a person here, add a person there, lighten the individual load. Cross train and move multidiscipline employees to various stations based on demand, then move elsewhere when demand lowers.
A good manager is seen by employees working harder than those employees. If you question that, you're probably aliterate.
Are there other things that are also important? Of course. It has been widely reported that improvements in the production line are one of the things that Tesla is doing that differently than other automakers, because a lot more engineering work has gone into the cars themselves than the factories. Duh. Read moar peas.
On top of all that, his vehicles are shit, but that's another story altogether.
The vehicles get high ratings from people who actually own them.
While you are dickwaving your gigantic numeracy you might want to consider upgrading your literacy, because your statement was not self-consistent.
No, actually, the person you replied to didn't say anything about family getaways. Maybe you stepped in a pile of clickbait?
Well then open access points are the least of our problems.
LOL probably true, probably true... but lets wait and see if they secure the network, or what gets cracked in the end, before we decide how bad it was.
There is basically unlimited potential for harm if they make other mistakes at the same time as these ones.
Why is the President of the United States conducting business at a public resort?
For PR, because he owns it.
Also, most of the foreign workers that accompany delegations are used to corruption and they know to be seen spending lots of money at the President's business. Nobody has to ask for anything, or ask to get anything. It isn't a bribe, it is just curry.
Because information that would not be sensitive if it relates to an average person or business is sensitive when it relates to the office of the President of the United States.
Things like location and movements of regular people are merely a privacy concern, not a security concern, but movements of people who work for or are meeting with the President of the United States are important secrets. Whatever backend services are connected to the hotspots, they contain sensitive information relating to national security! That's true even if it is just for off-hours internet access. Just having people connected in some way to the office of the President walking in range of a hotspot with electronics in their pocket could be a risk, even if they aren't "connecting" intentionally to any network.
Yeah, when I was a kid a campground cost $6, now it costs $14!
Unbelievable. Who could afford to camp anymore?!
I'm not sure which part of "getaway" you're so confused about that it sends you into an argumentative hipster rage, but "get away" doesn't say anything about blowing a bunch of money trying to look like you're spending lots of money on a vacation. All you have to do is get, and keep getting until you're away!
Timothy Leary said in the 1980s that many people already are vegetoid octopus slugs with their noses pressed to an aquarium glass called a television.
Times were very different back then. Crime was a lot higher, including kidnapping. It wasn't safe like it is now!