So the federal government should only buy American where comparable American products exist?

But you start playing the protectionist game and other countries' governments may return the favor you've shown to their economies by ordering non American whenever a comparable product exists.

How well do you think Lockheed and Boeing will do when they're shut out of all European defense contracts because EADS, British Aerospace and SAAB all make comparable products?

How much do you think the already massively cost overrunning F-35 will cost when you can only spread the development cost over US only sales? It's a project that only got off the ground because they figured in export sales to people like the U.K.

It seems ironic that one faction within the US believes that a free market with minimal government involvement to skew that market is the key to success... except when it's politically expedient to add extra federal process to avoid a free market.

I can't wait for the TSA to start scrawling on my face that I'm singled out for extra molestation.

We can't exactly explain how the human brain works, how it makes decisions, when humans drive or make medical decisions.

So I guess we're banning all the things until we can explain them fully?

If you're going to kick people out for elaborate fantasies, are they going to ban anyone that calls that admin interface user friendly? ;)

It's not like America's Commander In Chief would be stupid enough to refuse a secure cell phone just so he can continue his 3am Twitter on the shitter regimen.

Oh god. We're all doomed.

Why are parents insecure asshats? The answer lies in the title.

If people were secure in themselves, they wouldn't need to bring a life into this world to give their own lives meaning.

To be fair, some don't bring children into the world just to validate their existence. We call this second set "poor planners." Though, arguably, that doesn't help the demographic much.

I started this reply joking. Having thought it through, I'm not so sure I am anymore.

Proudly hiding goatse in links, blaming Cowboy Neal, stating 640kb Will Be Enough For Anyone and wondering about Beowulf Clusters Of... on Slashdot since 1998.

The internet was always an unregulated Wild West. We were just so happy for the good it brought that the bad was worth it. Then we got used to its ubiquity, took the good for granted and the bad started getting under our skin.

At least the title isn't:

"US President uses Mexicans to distract populace during $hit$how."

I think you're confusing those nations for Saudi Arabia who, despite supplying most of the 9/11 terrorists, would be politically inconvenient to treat as harshly. Same goes for Pakistan.

Once you exclude nations that actually produce the majority of attackers of the US as the criteria for the ban, what are you left with?

Hmm. Looks mostly like nations that are sending huddled masses the US doesn't want got targeted plus a couple of others for political vendettas.

Classy.

When you have a display that can handle the frame rate necessary to alternate the picture anyway... what's the cost?

By all means, stop packing 3D glasses in. Make them a separate purchase for those who want them.

But why not offer the feature for those who want it when the hardware already does everything you need and it costs essentially nothing more?

If anything, the moment for glasses is finally here. Yeah, they still suck to wear. But the next major complaint was that they darkened the picture. Yet Samsung's doubled picture brightness this year. You can have each eye blacked out half of the time and still have as bright a picture as last year's glassesless version.

So, sure, most people don't use it much. But when it's essentially free, why not check that box for the 1% who do want it?

The question lists What they're doing but barely speculates as to Why, beyond "to look good."

Most people I've seen treated this way get it because they've either badly or repeatedly screwed over colleagues.

From the description, it's an environment where people don't have much trust in management/HR helping. In such a situation, where the gaslighter may well have a legitimate issue with the victim but, in the absence of legitimate channels, taking away their ability to succeed until they go away remains an apparent only choice.

So first step is to consider if you've screwed then over. Not by your definition but by theirs. If so, start by mending bridges.

Maybe it is nothing to do with the victim. Still ask why.

Maybe they're a very insecure person, despite the rockstar talents the victim perceives.

Maybe they're scared of someone less talented but younger and hotter.

Or maybe they're hurting from other bad workplace drama, a bad manager, another bullying colleague, and lashing out where they can.

Get to know them, understand them, empathize, build their trust, make yourself an ally they want to build up not tear down.

Is that fair? Should you have to work with an unfair bully?

No. Back when mommy could talk to the teacher, it wasn't fair.

But this is the real world. In a good company, management and HR will help but this apparently isn't one. That leaves leaving (hurts you), fighting (often hurts you more) or being the bigger person to ensure you succeed.

You're going to hit lots of unfair in your career. Working out how to win anyway is at least as important a skill as any technical one.

A CEO's job is...

A) Run the company in the most successful way that returns the greatest value over the long run.
B) Run the company in the way that most benefits society and the employees.
C) Create the greatest short term growth in stock prices so the current investors, who control their hiring, can sell and realize a profit.

Given it's the involved, activist shareholders that determine most CEO's hiring and firing - and they're looking for a dramatic change in company value over the short term...

Any CEO who chases A or B is an idiot who's going to ultimately get replaced by shareholders who want a sudden bump in value and then to get the hell out. They don't give a damn about whether the company will be worth more money in ten years because they intend to have sold, bought again when value tanks, sold after a short term solve, bought again when the value tanks... and repeated many times.

How a company does over ten years as a metric of CEO efficiency is just a demonstration of completely missing what CEOs are rewarded for.

The CEO who created a massive short term growth, then left and left the company to tank for a while, is worth that large bill to the shareholders who are trying to get just that.

Also, we don't get ponies just because we really, really want one and it's only fair!

If I'm doing my job properly as a manager, no one should ever be indispensable.

Highly valued? Sure. I want to build a team where everyone is exceptionally valued.

But if anyone ever becomes indispensable, I've failed in my job as a manager.

Why? The hit by a bus factor. That wonderful employee who loves me, who I love... can still get hit by a bus. Can still get sick. Can still have a loved one die. Can still have a relative offer to pay all expenses for a once in a lifetime six week world trip.

If I have any employee that I can't keep my team running without, even at zero notice, I'm not running my team well.

It may suck. It may be sad. It may require some juggling I'd much rather not do. But any indispensability means I've done my job badly.

This means, if someone quits with zero notice, I can handle it.

At that point, it's actually a good thing anyway. If they're so pissed off that they'd statement quit, I don't need them in the office, poisoning others, dragging their heels through their short timer's disease. Let's get them somewhere where they're happy and get my team of great people back doing great things. We'll live.

Strange thing? When you have a well run team that you can already be confident in, people rarely statement quit anyway. For some reason, they don't seem to feel the need. Imagine that. And when they do? You've got it handled anyway.

Does the company give at least two weeks paid notice to everyone it terminates?
Then my minimum will also be two weeks notice.

Does the company usually just tell people to gather their things and pay out the minimum it's legally required to?
Then my minimum will be the same.

Does the company generally give a couple of weeks severance unless for cause?
Then my minimum is also two weeks unless I'm quitting due to their cause.

Does the company have a good standard severance package?
Then I will also give them the option to have my work out longer.

Note: I say minimums. I'm also aware that, as poor as their behavior may be, I've also got my own reputation to watch out for. They may be a bunch of asshats. But my next employer is likely looking for reassurance that they'll get a respectful notice period and my quitting without notice, unless it's really easy to justify, just makes me look bad to future employers who background check.

"As if this isn't abusive enough, the candidates are not allowed to see nor challenge their report"

The data protection act, 1988, says they are.

You can naively write whatever you feel like into a ToS. But it won't hold us to the first even cursory legal challenge.

The ToS can say, "You grant the landlord the right to enter your apartment and invoke droit de signeur whenever you are passed out drunk." It doesn't make it true or remotely enforceable.