fix it yourself.
How the hell is someone supposed to DOCUMENT something that they're trying to figure out how to make work?
Are you a black hole of utter cluelessness?
No clue will ever escape your infinite singularity of utter incomprehension?
Once a clue passes your event horizon it's never seen again?
Do you emit Hawking Clue Radiation?
Keep going....
Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.
They most definitely should be in a free market as much as possible as that has proven time and again to be the only way to make it as cheap as possible. What you're looking for is "nonprofit".
Microsoft has sold more than one Surface tablet! This will show up in the annual report next year: "Somebody bought Surface tablets!"
1. The President doesn't support this. He's the executive and is over the NSA. If he really wanted to stop bulk data collection he would simply call the NSA and say "hey, quit doing bulk collection". The law is needed specifically because he doesn't support it.
2. Unless the law will include criminal penalties it's of no value. A cursory glance shows that it simply says "hey, don't do that" instead of "hey, don't do that, and if you do it'll be a class _ felony with a minimum penalty of ___". It's interesting how laws made to limit non-government workers *always* have the criminal penalties, and laws that are made to limit government workers always conveniently forget that part. When we start jailing people who break laws like this we'll start making headway.
I know what a tort is - thanks for playing.
No, it's not fraud. Unless otherwise dictated by statute, they reserve the right to terminate their contract (service) with you at any time.
No they don't. You might not realize this but a contract places obligations on both parties. I know you've probably been brought up with the one-sided "terms of service" style contracts that have "we can get out of this any time but you can't" clauses, but you might want to see how many times that "we can get out of this any time but you can't" clauses have held up in court. They can't just say "we don't like you" and kick him off the plane.
The only thing that would warrant a paying customer being denied service would be some sort of serious disruption to the other passengers or the plane itself. Speaking ill of a gate attendant doesn't affect the plane in any way, therefore they have no right to remove him from the plane.
You seem to forget about them having his money and all that.
I think you should stop conflating "shit that i think is mean and bad for businesses to do" with "illegal". It makes you look stupid.
The guy can most definitely file a tort suit against the airline. But are you actually proposing that a carrier of human cargo not be allowed to refuse service?
After he's already paid and on the plane?
Not providing a service for which you've accepted payment is fraud - illegal. Also a tort, which is a civil action.
No rights were violated unless Southwest Airlines recently became government owned.
Also observe that nobody stopped the man in question from tweeting anything, it's just that the airline after reading the tweet decided it didn't want to transport this person. And that is fully legal.
Um, no it's not. He had a ticket and there's a contract in place to transport him, and I highly doubt it has any provisions regarding "no negative tweets". Threatening to have him arrested is also really dangerous. Since he did nothing illegal the gate agent could have faced charges for harassment or filing a false report.
The proper thing to do in a case like that is demand to speak to a supervisor. If she wants to call the police, encourage it. It'll make her look like more of a dumbass when they show up and tell her to never call them again. Deleting the tweet was the wrong way to go.
One more thing - Herb Kelleher would have probably personally fired Kimberley S. I would recommend the current president take the same course of action.
I was already determined not to do business with them. Now I'm really glad I've had that policy. They're scum.
Hey, no offense intended but did you just figure that out now?
Yes, if there were a fast lane, one could theoretically put special-deaf-packets in it (or just as easily shove them into the slow lane, if they can't afford to pay); but this ignores the more pressing question of "What, pray tell, is currently suffering for want of special bandwidth and how demanding must it be if your existing service can't cope?".
When people can't hear well youtube, netflix, etc. have to send more data for the sound to make it louder. Similarly, people with vision problems get a really really huge movie to watch, meaning they need even more data (measured in bites) than the deaf folks. Someone like Helen Keller would need a dedicated OC-48 - possibly even an OC-49 or something like that - to handle her needs.
I tell you, Verizon's great concern for the handicapped folks just brings a tear to my eye and makes me want to use their services all the more, especially with that fast lane for handicapped people. They probably even get their own parking spot at Verizon headquarters, one for deaf drivers and one for blind drivers.
There are reasons we regulate businesses.
Of course there are reasons - they just aren't what naive folks like yourself fancy them to be....
If that's true then why do they care whether the usage is commercial or not? Have you read their little chart? Taking a picture of your house is fine, but a real estate agent doing the same thing is illegal. There's no difference between the actions and the aircraft - it's just the fact that money will change hands.
If this had anything to do with "safety" and all that then it wouldn't matter whether money was changing hands.
I've been thinking along these lines for a few years now. Make the drugs legal, regulate them, and possibly even have the government sell them. Use taxes on drugs to fund rehab programs. Give sex workers a way to get out from drug induced slavery. Cut the head off the cocaine cartel by growing it here or importing it from someone else. Take a blow to the coffers of street gangs as well as more organized criminals.
The obvious number one downside is the potential for an increase in number of addicts. I never really had the answer for how to counter that.
The number of addicts decreases when you legalize drugs. No need to speculate, look at places that have actually legalized drugs. It seems counterintuitive, but the reason is pretty simple. Right now if you're addicted to something and you seek help you have to basically admit to being a criminal in order to get help. If drugs are legal - no problem. So people are more likely to ask for help when they don't have to risk jail by asking for help. Makes sense when you think about it.
If tech companies weren't shit at training they would be somewhat more fungible, though not perfectly so. Engineering companies are somewhat better at this: if a company is looking for chemical engineers and can't find someone with experience in exactly the process they're hiring for, they'll hire a chemical engineer with experience in a different process and get them up to speed. Tech companies seem incapable of doing that, and instead they have a big list of really specific background they want, "must have 7 years of experience in J2EE and 3 years experience using Joe Bob's Serialization Framework", then complain they can't find anyone so it must be a "programmer shortage".
At which point they bring a foreign worker over and train them in J2EE and Joe Bob's Serialization Framework.
I've written about this at length in the past. My own wife came over on an H1A as a nurse. The reason that they got her had nothing to do with a "shortage of nurses". Instead, it had to do with a "shortage of nurses that would work for the shit wages that the nursing homes wanted to pay". Big difference - and frankly that's the same thing I see in the tech industry.
If the Department of Labor simply forced these companies to follow the law and compensate the foreign workers on par with American workers it would somewhat alleviate the problem. But they don't, and the law's a joke.
The other issue is that these workers are essentially indentured servants until they get a green card and the power disparity also plays heavily into this. Looking at my wife's situation again I know of nurses who pissed off the wrong people in their job and ended up on a plane back home. If you hate your job you don't have the ability to simply get another. I'd like to say that everybody acts like an adult and that doesn't matter but the reality is that it matters a lot. When you don't really have the option to quit there's little pressure on management to make sure you like your job.
In the nursing industry it's even worse because of regulation. I don't mean the regulation makes it worse - hiring foreigners is a great way to get around regulation and not worry about your employees turning you in. After all, if your understaffed shit hole gets shut down by the state you get a plane ride back home.
In my wife's generation this was even worse because they had to come up with US$5000 to pay the staffing agency to bring them over. That's about a year and a half of wages for your typical middle class Filipino - it would be analogous to an American coming up with $75,000. Not easy. And if you lose your job in America you'll spend 10 years working in the Philippines to pay that off.
Ugh.
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne
