Comment So chug a pint (Score 1) 119
with every j.
Sometimes the term "illegal" is used to mean "inadmissible as evidence in court." I thought one can record any audio anywhere, they just might not be able to use it in court.
Can someone with legal knowledge of this clarify?
There is a link in the story to a useful site that will tell you about the local laws: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid....
For California at least, and no doubt the rest, the issue is that they are "Two party consent" states. That means everybody in the recording must give consent to being recorded prior to being recorded. In California, that applies to audio only. Video recordings are always legal. This is criminal as well as civil (again, in California; I didn't look up the other states). Meaning you will go to jail and be sued into oblivion.
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law
If you need to read in Braille, what the fuck are you doing at the wheel of a goddamm car???
Why would they put Braille on the drive-up ATMs if they didn't expect me to drive there?
You are off the rails. The FCC does not have the power to nullify the anti-wiretapping laws of states.
Fuck the state. Seriously. They work for the tax payer and should be representing the interests of tax payer rather than criminals be they individuals or corporations.
They do. That is why it is illegal to record you without your permission; such as when your friend loans you their car... When thinking about a law, try to imagine yourself in both positions.
The Gallery belonging to that Forbes article starts with "Bakers Women earn 104% more than men in this job." I'd think someone would have noticed if women rally earned more than twice as much as men.
There is a rally for women that earn more than twice as much as men?
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
The FCC is requiring anybody (specifically, state/local law enforcement) to sign an NDA with the FBI to purchase and/or use "Stingray"s (A proprietary name that is now being used as a catchall for the technology, like "Kleenex" for tissue). The NDA itself is classified & exempt from FOIA requests. The existence of the NDA is not, and was disclosed.
My analysis:
The FCC's NDA requirement, and the hiding of the details of that NDA, is possibly allowed by the FOIA's list of exemptions. I'm not sure which exemption they're claiming (perhaps I missed it in the article's documents), but personally I think it could be reasonable under:
Exemption 4: Information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information.
or
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual's personal privacy.
But #6 is only because this involves technology created by a private corporation that has the ability to invade a person's privacy... But that logic would include pretty much any technology, like hearing aids. So I'd go with #4.
Government is fascinating. It is like they're playing "Cards Against Humanity", but instead of shits & giggles they're trying to skirt laws & stay in power.
"A ______ stopped the commie's FOIA request from freeing criminals."
What your employer is telling you is that they don't want to know all that. Or more likely if they imagine themselves quality business professionals, they do want to know that, but they don't want to pay for it. So there will come a time when they expect "their guy" to know what is going on, but you won't, because you didn't go, so they will lay you off and hire somebody that knows it already, because that somebody previously worked for a company that paid for him/her to go.
You are an asset to the company because of your skills and knowledge. Like any other asset that has some limit to its usefulness, the company has the option to upgrade or replace it. If they refuse to upgrade the CPU or RAM in their server, what is going to happen eventually? If they refuse to upgrade your knowledge, what are they going to do eventually? Eventually in both cases they'll be forced to replace or upgrade. However, if they don't upgrade preemptively, they will no doubt be faced with a failure situation: server crashed = lost customers; bad technology decision = lost customers.
But since servers today are not (yet) able to upgrade themselves the question is (that you're facing it seems): who's responsibility is it to upgrade you?
That is just an ROI analysis.
So, sell the conference as no different than a hardware or software upgrade for which they no doubt already acknowledge the value of over purchasing new systems. Of course they can go out and hire a replacement for you, and then pay to train them and bring them up to speed and hope they're as good as you; but that is a monumental waste of money. So make sure they understand that if they don't send you, they will have to replace you, at great expense to themselves. And in the meanwhile, you are not behaving optimally. Just because the server hasn't crashed yet, doesn't mean some disgruntled customers aren't leaving due to some spotty performance. Likewise if you're not fully informed, you may be making non-obvious decisions that are not the best for the company.
If they still refuse, then do your own ROI analysis. Is it going to help your career to go? Is that $2500 (or whatever amount) you're begging for going to help you that much, or more (not just cash, maybe your whole life is happier if you're on top of the technology; take your goals into account)? Can you instead just wait until your time at this company is done, and then go take some crash courses to catch up before job hunting some more?
Personally, I expect an employer to pay for a relevant conference not out of any sense of right or wrong or deserved or not deserved, but because of greed and competence. It is cheaper to upgrade than to replace. So either your employer plans ahead appropriately, or doesn't. There are obvious exceptions, especially for startups, but for any established business a refusal to train is a symptom of poor management.
This is the evil that Emanuel is describing from Bernard Shaw, a Fabian Socialist who defended the actions of the Nazi's. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did you not read, or not understand Shaw's writings on Eugenics? Do you even understand the context of that clip? Since neither clip you posted mentions it (and in fact the first seems to distort it), and neither do you, one can best assume that either you don't understand the context, or are purposefully omitting the context because you know it hurts your comparison "argument".
Shit, did you even bother to read Emanuel's article? He very specifically states
Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
and
I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75.
[emphasis his]. He even specifically states that he will not try to end his life. Not suicide, not euthanasia, not doctor assisted suicide. Nothing. He will simply not attempt to prolong it any longer.
He's probably also of the opinion that if you get Muscular Dystrophy in your 30's you should just check out.
This is the gem of your failure. Emanuel specifically OPPOSES exactly that. See the quote above.
Even with your distorted view of Shaw, Emanuel's piece is nothing like Shaw's writings on eugenics. It is merely a statement of how he is choosing to face his own end of life, and an explanation of the logic he used to reach that decision. I consider your analysis & comparison a complete failure.
That's an interesting hypothesis, but.....
Terrorists that aren't engineers don't last.
I don't think there's much support in the evidence for this idea.
Engineers build the bombs
The plebs wear them.
The next generation will be too dumb to fight anybody.
As long as the UN uses the same tactics to stop this research as they're using to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, nobody cares what they say.
Neither am I. I'll just uninstall Minecraft now...
It finally pays off.
You just ruined 3 jokes that popped in my head about this. Thanks for the lols.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
