Of course I know my rights - you're completely missing the point. This is for voluntary bumps - Delta was only offering "Delta dollars." People seem to continue to mix these up in this discussion. IMO, involuntary bumps should be illegal - the airlines should have to keep offering incentives until there are enough volunteers. This solves a LOT of problems: no involuntary bumps, the airlines learn to not overbook as much, and no passengers are unhappy as a result because volunteers got an amount that was worth it to them to give up their seats.
I don't want the FAA or DOT involved in the negotiation - I don't want any minimum or maximums set, I just want a law that says they are NOT allowed to involuntarily bump someone who bought a ticket. Then what happens is the airline needs to keep offering more until enough people voluntarily give up their seats. Nobody gets screwed, and nobody gets bumped that didn't think the deal was worth it.
What baffles me is that United didn't even do that. Passengers said the largest offer they heard was in the hundreds.
I travel for business a lot and often run into the overbooking situation - my company uses Delta, and the most I've seen offered was 1000 "delta" dollars. So, not even cash, but only good for future flights with tons of restrictions. As I've said in other posts, there should be no such thing as involuntary bumping - the airlines should have to keep upping the offer until they have enough volunteers.
Good post - I largely feel the same way. When I worked like that, it was mostly years when I was single and without kids. Now I still have crazy weeks sometimes (I work in live entertainment, so I have always accepted the crazy schedule), but then I have down weeks, and because of my schedule I can take care of the family (driving to school, events, whatever) and have created a fairly unique position at my company (I'm not saying I can't be replaced, but it would be difficult) that affords me certain perks that I might not have otherwise. After a week away from home, I came back and took my kids on vacation last week for spring break - and I did not answer calls or email from work. Period. When I put in for the time off, I explicitly stated I would be unavailable.
Ultimately, though, I look at it like this - I got into programming because I enjoyed it, not because someone pushed me into it. I narrowed my focus to graphics, and have always liked the kind of work I've been involved in. Sometimes I work late on something because I'm enjoying it. I may take an easier day the next day to compensate for it, but when I'm focused on something, enjoying the challenge, I'm not going to stop because of a clock.
I thought I replied to this, but now don't see it - that link describes involuntary bumping; I was talking about voluntary bumping. There should be no such thing as involuntary bumping - the airlines should keep upping the incentives for people to volunteer until they have enough.
While it is a game of money, every time I've missed a flight (either through delays of connecting flights or other reasons), the airlines have always been accommodating about re-booking me without penalty. I think it's more about making sure they are not losing potential income than it is about gaining extra... very few people willingly miss a flight they've paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for.
Yes - I mentioned this, too. The tickets may be non-refundable, but when I've missed flights the airlines have been very accommodating about getting me on a later flight with no penalties. The only time I've had to pay a fee was when I was intentionally extending my stay by a week and called the airline - even the though the ticket was non-refundable, I paid a relatively minor penalty to have the flight shifted by a week. I have a lot of complaints about airlines, and I do think there should never be any involuntary bumps (they should keep offering more until they get enough volunteers), but I don't begrudge them the overbook policy on the whole at all.
I have volunteered my seat on a many occasions when I was single with no kids. Now, often enough, when I'm travelling to somewhere, it's for work - and I cannot be late. The return flight may be different, but then I have a wife and kids waiting for me to come home, so the reward for volunteering my seat needs to be a lot higher than it used to be. I advocate a zero involuntary bump policy, requiring airlines to keep upping the incentive to volunteer your seat until it's high enough to make enough people to volunteer.
Is there a limit? As far as I know, the only limits airlines have are self imposed ones. I agree there should be NO involuntary bumps, that the company should be required to continue raising the offer until enough people take it so that there are never any involuntary bumps.
Well, we can hate against airlines all day (and I've got plenty of complaints), but I've missed flights (mostly through no fault of my own) , particularly connecting flights (often not even with the same airline), and the airlines have always been decent about re-booking on a later flight (and I've never had to pay extra). They've actually always tried to be accommodating (although I have no experience with United).
I just had a raving review - the best one I've had in 22 years at the same employer. I had my most productive year ever. At my company, they claim nobody got more than a 3% raise. I'm at the top of my grade.... so after my most productive year ever, I got ZERO. My manager apologized emphatically, and we got to work on rewriting my job description in an effort to step up the grade. He absolutely doesn't set the compensation, he just puts a word in for it (and was at least able to get me a much larger bonus, but there are maximums he's limited to there, too).
That's what it seems like to me, too. I think it's more around 5% or less. It's still wrong, but it's not the apples-to-oranges 20% that SJWs throw around. And I'm not saying it's right, but if we just let things ride the way they are going now, it will solve itself, at least in the U.S.. The last I read (On campus, women outnumber men more than ever), there are more women than men in college, so what does that mean for the future? People also need to put things in historical perspective - without the whining of the last decade, think about what the real (apples to apples) pay gap was 50 years ago... 40 years ago.... now look at the last decade and the "real" pay gap is only around 4%. It was improving all on it's own without new laws or requirements. Society evolved, and it's still evolving. Just let it happen.
I don't know if they "count," but it's not good enough to solve traffic problems unless 100% of the cars are completely self driving, taking the "driver" out of the equation. All it takes is one idiot to screw up traffic for tens of thousands of people on a busy freeway. You will never get human beings to all "be on the same page" when it comes to driving, so only 100% self driving vehicles will actually solve any traffic problems.
Walking is definitely preferable to public transportation. The problem I have is that it's roughly a 9 hour walk to work for me. Yes, that's by choice - but the alternative is to house my family of four in a substandard apartment in the city with rent twice as high as my mortgage payment and crap schools for the kids.
If the city is actually built nicely (and some newer developments around the world are doing this), you can have a decent amount of room while living in the city, requiring fewer vehicles on the road overall. Living in the suburbs, my wife and my son and I all have cars - we could get away with having one for the whole family if we lived in a decent part of the city where walking would take us where we needed to go in reasonable amounts of time, public transportation otherwise, and a vehicle for longer trips outside the city.
There's no good solution to get to that state for most existing cities. Instead, we have urban crawl as more lanes are added to freeways and more people escape the city and it's super high prices for tiny apartments or condos that are difficult for families (4 or more) to live in. The problem is they add more lanes to the freeway and all it does is cause more development OUTSIDE the city, causing the freeways to fill to capacity again and you're right back at square one. Public transportation out to the suburbs is lacking; the idiots in my county keep voting down proposed rail out here. I really just want to move to another area entirely, but I'm overpaid and won't be able to get the kind of money I'm making elsewhere (hey, at least I admit it).
But even if they built mass transit out to the suburbs, you have the same problem - more people will move there instead of living in the city, and it, too, would fill to capacity. Where I grew up it was awesome as a kid/teen - walking distance to several movie theaters, moderate restaurants that I could afford to take a date to, record stores (and a toys-r-us when I was younger), I could walk to most of my friends houses (and ride my bike to the others). But that kind of environment is enticing to people - so property values skyrocketed and my parents eventually sold and retired to Florida - no one in my family could afford to live there anymore.
Back to the topic at hand, it only takes one in a thousand drivers to be the kind of idiot that screws traffic for everyone. Unless we're ALL in self driving cars, you will always have the idiot trying to beat the pace of traffic and just screw it for everyone else.
Agreed.... did not sound like she was justifying it, just making a (sadly) honest statement. What she was saying was that there are good people at Uber, which I'm sure is also true. It's a big company, there will be #@holes and there will be good people.
I don't understand what you're saying... is it that your company likes the calls because, as a user, you pay $2 extra if you're up near the border? Maybe it was just Toronto, but one of the reasons I like T-Mobile was my international service was no additional charge in just about everywhere I would likely travel. Back on subject, I use a brain enabled white list.... if I don't recognize the number, I don't answer it. If they leave a message, and it was something I wanted, I add them to my contacts so I know who it is.
Yes, there are a number of you masochists out there. Back when I programmed on SGI, Motif was awesome (compared to others at the time).... so about 20 years ago. Now? Not so much.
In fact patents are public records, so he's basically handing over the technology to anybody that cares to verify it, they just can't sell products based on his idea without licensing it.
That's completely wrong - most people need to use MS Office and outlook - and while there are alternatives (and you can use OWA for Outlook), alternatives aren't good enough for large organizations. We're not talking about programmers, we're talking about assistants and accountants and managers who are told from the top down what software they are using. YMMV, but MOST people need to use MS at work. A lot of places offer Mac as an alternative, but in no place I've ever worked have assistants and accountants and managers been given the choice to use Linux. This has ZERO to do with games.
One of the most moronic things I've read in a long time.
Try not being an idiot and change it. The reality of your situation is that you can act. You're just lazy or ignorant or prefer to just complain.
Sure, I can take the moral high ground and live on unemployment.
Tell your vendor that if they don't get off Windows onto Linux then you will leave as a customer. If there is no alternative AT ALL, then take another job.
Except the reality of the situation is Windows is not that bad to lose your job over. Moreover, I'm one user of one of our dozens of systems that run this software, and we're one company of hundreds that use it. The company is very good, but I'm doubting they'll throw away their cash cow because I'm complaining. Again, you really don't get the reality of most people's situation. Let's say you're an X-Ray technician, and the software you use, which is the industry standard used at 95% of the hospitals, runs on Windows. Do you take the moral high ground and throw away your career just because the excellent software you're using runs on Windows? Good luck with that.
This isn't A Knight's Tale and you can't change your stars. Get over yourself. If I was writing website back ends (and sometimes that's the work I do), I insist on Linux because I can. If you're running Adobe AfterEffects, you have no such luxury, and Adobe doesn't give a f#@ what you think, and your company just wants you to get it done with the tool all the other artists are using that they've already paid for.
All this grandstanding the Linux zealots are throwing out there doesn't take into consideration that, in reality, Windows isn't THAT bad to lose your job over. Most of us are grown up enough to deal with it. I have a preference - I prefer Linux when possible, but I'm flexible enough to use whatever they give me.
Agreed - everything you install thinks it's the most important thing you use, as if it's the only thing you use , even just simply drivers. My video drivers nag me to update, my printer drivers nag me to update, anything from Adobe, Apple - they all run these f#@king background processes checking for updates. Like much of Windows 10 telemetry and spying, you need to jump through hoops to turn it all off.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I know my rights - you're completely missing the point. This is for voluntary bumps - Delta was only offering "Delta dollars." People seem to continue to mix these up in this discussion. IMO, involuntary bumps should be illegal - the airlines should have to keep offering incentives until there are enough volunteers. This solves a LOT of problems: no involuntary bumps, the airlines learn to not overbook as much, and no passengers are unhappy as a result because volunteers got an amount that was worth it to them to give up their seats.
I'm sorry, I feel like I'm missing something.... you're not implying that's what I said, are you?
Just because our taxes aren't the highest doesn't mean they aren't too high.
I don't want the FAA or DOT involved in the negotiation - I don't want any minimum or maximums set, I just want a law that says they are NOT allowed to involuntarily bump someone who bought a ticket. Then what happens is the airline needs to keep offering more until enough people voluntarily give up their seats. Nobody gets screwed, and nobody gets bumped that didn't think the deal was worth it.
What baffles me is that United didn't even do that. Passengers said the largest offer they heard was in the hundreds.
I travel for business a lot and often run into the overbooking situation - my company uses Delta, and the most I've seen offered was 1000 "delta" dollars. So, not even cash, but only good for future flights with tons of restrictions. As I've said in other posts, there should be no such thing as involuntary bumping - the airlines should have to keep upping the offer until they have enough volunteers.
Yes. It's already after a week of travel. I happen to love my wife and kids and miss them when I'm traveling for work. I may be in the minority.
Good post - I largely feel the same way. When I worked like that, it was mostly years when I was single and without kids. Now I still have crazy weeks sometimes (I work in live entertainment, so I have always accepted the crazy schedule), but then I have down weeks, and because of my schedule I can take care of the family (driving to school, events, whatever) and have created a fairly unique position at my company (I'm not saying I can't be replaced, but it would be difficult) that affords me certain perks that I might not have otherwise. After a week away from home, I came back and took my kids on vacation last week for spring break - and I did not answer calls or email from work. Period. When I put in for the time off, I explicitly stated I would be unavailable.
Ultimately, though, I look at it like this - I got into programming because I enjoyed it, not because someone pushed me into it. I narrowed my focus to graphics, and have always liked the kind of work I've been involved in. Sometimes I work late on something because I'm enjoying it. I may take an easier day the next day to compensate for it, but when I'm focused on something, enjoying the challenge, I'm not going to stop because of a clock.
I thought I replied to this, but now don't see it - that link describes involuntary bumping; I was talking about voluntary bumping. There should be no such thing as involuntary bumping - the airlines should keep upping the incentives for people to volunteer until they have enough.
While it is a game of money, every time I've missed a flight (either through delays of connecting flights or other reasons), the airlines have always been accommodating about re-booking me without penalty. I think it's more about making sure they are not losing potential income than it is about gaining extra... very few people willingly miss a flight they've paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for.
Yes - I mentioned this, too. The tickets may be non-refundable, but when I've missed flights the airlines have been very accommodating about getting me on a later flight with no penalties. The only time I've had to pay a fee was when I was intentionally extending my stay by a week and called the airline - even the though the ticket was non-refundable, I paid a relatively minor penalty to have the flight shifted by a week. I have a lot of complaints about airlines, and I do think there should never be any involuntary bumps (they should keep offering more until they get enough volunteers), but I don't begrudge them the overbook policy on the whole at all.
I have volunteered my seat on a many occasions when I was single with no kids. Now, often enough, when I'm travelling to somewhere, it's for work - and I cannot be late. The return flight may be different, but then I have a wife and kids waiting for me to come home, so the reward for volunteering my seat needs to be a lot higher than it used to be. I advocate a zero involuntary bump policy, requiring airlines to keep upping the incentive to volunteer your seat until it's high enough to make enough people to volunteer.
Is there a limit? As far as I know, the only limits airlines have are self imposed ones. I agree there should be NO involuntary bumps, that the company should be required to continue raising the offer until enough people take it so that there are never any involuntary bumps.
Well, we can hate against airlines all day (and I've got plenty of complaints), but I've missed flights (mostly through no fault of my own) , particularly connecting flights (often not even with the same airline), and the airlines have always been decent about re-booking on a later flight (and I've never had to pay extra). They've actually always tried to be accommodating (although I have no experience with United).
I just had a raving review - the best one I've had in 22 years at the same employer. I had my most productive year ever. At my company, they claim nobody got more than a 3% raise. I'm at the top of my grade.... so after my most productive year ever, I got ZERO. My manager apologized emphatically, and we got to work on rewriting my job description in an effort to step up the grade. He absolutely doesn't set the compensation, he just puts a word in for it (and was at least able to get me a much larger bonus, but there are maximums he's limited to there, too).
That's what it seems like to me, too. I think it's more around 5% or less. It's still wrong, but it's not the apples-to-oranges 20% that SJWs throw around. And I'm not saying it's right, but if we just let things ride the way they are going now, it will solve itself, at least in the U.S.. The last I read (On campus, women outnumber men more than ever), there are more women than men in college, so what does that mean for the future? People also need to put things in historical perspective - without the whining of the last decade, think about what the real (apples to apples) pay gap was 50 years ago... 40 years ago.... now look at the last decade and the "real" pay gap is only around 4%. It was improving all on it's own without new laws or requirements. Society evolved, and it's still evolving. Just let it happen.
I don't know if they "count," but it's not good enough to solve traffic problems unless 100% of the cars are completely self driving, taking the "driver" out of the equation. All it takes is one idiot to screw up traffic for tens of thousands of people on a busy freeway. You will never get human beings to all "be on the same page" when it comes to driving, so only 100% self driving vehicles will actually solve any traffic problems.
Walking is definitely preferable to public transportation. The problem I have is that it's roughly a 9 hour walk to work for me. Yes, that's by choice - but the alternative is to house my family of four in a substandard apartment in the city with rent twice as high as my mortgage payment and crap schools for the kids.
If the city is actually built nicely (and some newer developments around the world are doing this), you can have a decent amount of room while living in the city, requiring fewer vehicles on the road overall. Living in the suburbs, my wife and my son and I all have cars - we could get away with having one for the whole family if we lived in a decent part of the city where walking would take us where we needed to go in reasonable amounts of time, public transportation otherwise, and a vehicle for longer trips outside the city.
There's no good solution to get to that state for most existing cities. Instead, we have urban crawl as more lanes are added to freeways and more people escape the city and it's super high prices for tiny apartments or condos that are difficult for families (4 or more) to live in. The problem is they add more lanes to the freeway and all it does is cause more development OUTSIDE the city, causing the freeways to fill to capacity again and you're right back at square one. Public transportation out to the suburbs is lacking; the idiots in my county keep voting down proposed rail out here. I really just want to move to another area entirely, but I'm overpaid and won't be able to get the kind of money I'm making elsewhere (hey, at least I admit it).
But even if they built mass transit out to the suburbs, you have the same problem - more people will move there instead of living in the city, and it, too, would fill to capacity. Where I grew up it was awesome as a kid/teen - walking distance to several movie theaters, moderate restaurants that I could afford to take a date to, record stores (and a toys-r-us when I was younger), I could walk to most of my friends houses (and ride my bike to the others). But that kind of environment is enticing to people - so property values skyrocketed and my parents eventually sold and retired to Florida - no one in my family could afford to live there anymore.
Back to the topic at hand, it only takes one in a thousand drivers to be the kind of idiot that screws traffic for everyone. Unless we're ALL in self driving cars, you will always have the idiot trying to beat the pace of traffic and just screw it for everyone else.
Agreed.... did not sound like she was justifying it, just making a (sadly) honest statement. What she was saying was that there are good people at Uber, which I'm sure is also true. It's a big company, there will be #@holes and there will be good people.
I don't understand what you're saying... is it that your company likes the calls because, as a user, you pay $2 extra if you're up near the border? Maybe it was just Toronto, but one of the reasons I like T-Mobile was my international service was no additional charge in just about everywhere I would likely travel. Back on subject, I use a brain enabled white list.... if I don't recognize the number, I don't answer it. If they leave a message, and it was something I wanted, I add them to my contacts so I know who it is.
Yes, there are a number of you masochists out there. Back when I programmed on SGI, Motif was awesome (compared to others at the time).... so about 20 years ago. Now? Not so much.
So you are suggesting people not patent their ideas? Then what? Then you have no protections anywhere.
In fact patents are public records, so he's basically handing over the technology to anybody that cares to verify it, they just can't sell products based on his idea without licensing it.
That's completely wrong - most people need to use MS Office and outlook - and while there are alternatives (and you can use OWA for Outlook), alternatives aren't good enough for large organizations. We're not talking about programmers, we're talking about assistants and accountants and managers who are told from the top down what software they are using. YMMV, but MOST people need to use MS at work. A lot of places offer Mac as an alternative, but in no place I've ever worked have assistants and accountants and managers been given the choice to use Linux. This has ZERO to do with games.
One of the most moronic things I've read in a long time.
Try not being an idiot and change it. The reality of your situation is that you can act. You're just lazy or ignorant or prefer to just complain.
Sure, I can take the moral high ground and live on unemployment.
Tell your vendor that if they don't get off Windows onto Linux then you will leave as a customer. If there is no alternative AT ALL, then take another job.
Except the reality of the situation is Windows is not that bad to lose your job over. Moreover, I'm one user of one of our dozens of systems that run this software, and we're one company of hundreds that use it. The company is very good, but I'm doubting they'll throw away their cash cow because I'm complaining. Again, you really don't get the reality of most people's situation. Let's say you're an X-Ray technician, and the software you use, which is the industry standard used at 95% of the hospitals, runs on Windows. Do you take the moral high ground and throw away your career just because the excellent software you're using runs on Windows? Good luck with that.
This isn't A Knight's Tale and you can't change your stars. Get over yourself. If I was writing website back ends (and sometimes that's the work I do), I insist on Linux because I can. If you're running Adobe AfterEffects, you have no such luxury, and Adobe doesn't give a f#@ what you think, and your company just wants you to get it done with the tool all the other artists are using that they've already paid for.
All this grandstanding the Linux zealots are throwing out there doesn't take into consideration that, in reality, Windows isn't THAT bad to lose your job over. Most of us are grown up enough to deal with it. I have a preference - I prefer Linux when possible, but I'm flexible enough to use whatever they give me.
Agreed - everything you install thinks it's the most important thing you use, as if it's the only thing you use , even just simply drivers. My video drivers nag me to update, my printer drivers nag me to update, anything from Adobe, Apple - they all run these f#@king background processes checking for updates. Like much of Windows 10 telemetry and spying, you need to jump through hoops to turn it all off.