Disney is not the only employer in the world.
Stop using logic. Spew some diatribe about rights instead. That is how is done in
Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
Disney is not the only employer in the world.
Stop using logic. Spew some diatribe about rights instead. That is how is done in
So pretty much every retail job in the country should be required to be vaccinated?
As it should be.
I'm just trying to clarify what level of "general public" interaction requires this vaccination oversight?
You just answer it.
Who's going to pay for it?
Companies themselves, as it is already done by industries that require vaccination (health industry comes to mind.)
The government or the employer?
If mandated by government, then government (and transitively us, taxpayers).
If mandated by employer, then employer (and transitively us, consumers). It should never be employees.
Only in 'MURIKA this is be rocket science.
If people shouldn't be forced then how do they work, given that 44% of the jobs in the US are in some form of retail, transportation, education, or healthcare and another ~10-15% are "professional and business services" or "government" that include some sort of regular customer interaction, how are they to have jobs and also choose not to be vaccinated?
Bingo. They shouldn't have a choice. If you have a job that potentially exposes you to hundreds of thousands of people a year (Disney qualifies, trinket store at strip mall does not), or a variety of pathogens (hospitals, clinics, food/animal processing plants) then that should not be a choice. Vaccination requirements should be a requirement as a function of exposition to traffic.
Anything else added to the argument is just ideology and "feelings".
Employers should not be put in a position where they are giving medical advice or direction. If there is a reason that large, public centered facilities or parks should have required vaccinations, then that needs to be public policy, not corporate policy.
Disney is not a public facility, but private property. Moreover, it is one where millions and millions of people from many different locations, all potential carriers of whatever, converge on a regular basis. So your analogy doesn't apply.
Furthermore, I would be very pissed if Disney workers are not vaccinated against, say mumps, or they are constantly exposed to flu and cold (as they would be) without protection, thus exposing my family to that on what is typically not a cheap trip.
Disney would be on the right to require some baseline vaccination (on its dime, not the employees' of course.)
I agree. IMO the complaints about the prequels were fueled primarily by nostalgia about the original movies, remembering the delight of seeing them as a child.
Bro. Phantom Menace. Jar Jar Binks. Droids controlled from a single point of failure (even my non-technically inclined friends were like "wtf is that?"). You can't explain the hate of that away just by mere childhood nostalgia. That crap was awful in an absolute sense.
I rewatched the original trilogy as an adult and wasn't nearly so enchanted.
And neither was I (sans RoTJ).
That shouldn't be surprising. These are all children's movies; we grew up. Lucas' movies didn't change so much as we did.
Sorry, no. Phantom Menace can't be explained away. The Clone Wars and Revenge of the Sith were watchable as they portrayed Anakin's fall (sans the lingering doopey-doopey romance between emo-Anakin and hot-Amigdala and a whole bunch of other crap.)
But Phanton Menace was some utter crap that stained the other two, and Jar Jar Binks is like the dog turd that stains the sole of your shoe that doesn't come out no matter how much you scrape it on the grass.
You can't explain the utter fail of that to mere childhood nostalgia. You are crazy.
Yes, blame the voters for refusing to vote for the dogshit-in-a-flaming-bag that has been served up by Democratic leadership since 2008. You think Obots could have started to get a clue after minimum wage increases and marijuana legalization passed in deep red states that sent Republicans to Washington.
Get some candidates that are to the left of Reagan's corpse and we'll talk, mmmkay?
It is called making choices, and sometimes people chose the lesser of two evils. Last voting turnout was not the result of *choosing not to vote* from some intelligent decision making. It is more apathy driven by economics and the typical trends where people tend to vote more in presidential elections than in elections occurring in between.
This is a pattern that has occurred, quite consistently, through the years, independently of what party is controlling the white house or congress. There are quite a few reasons, many economic, for this.
To pretend that this was primarily or solely a vote-of-no-confidence-by-abstinence, that is just simplistic and disingenuous. It does make for an excellent bullshit talking point, though.
"Please do not keep documents about Concentration-Camp details more than 3 Months."
Wow! Godwin law acomplished in the very first comment. That's a feat!
But then, I think you have a point: It seems to me that Sony's problems don't come from retaining old emails but from these emails being embarrasing to start with.
Schneier's position seems to be "don't worry about your poor ethics, just cover your tracks".
That'd be his job as a security professional. Corporate ethics is another role that is obviously necessary, but that is not the subject of IT/enterprise security. It would be a stretch (and a very disingenuous one) to make inferences about Schneie's ethics from his professional position in the matter (in the context of security) alone.
What about all the good bacteria in our body? Quite a lot of our bodily functions need bacteria to work properly.
You will feel like shit when your good bacteria get nuked... but you do not die. You do die, however, with an untreated infection of MRSA, Bacillus anthracis, TMycobacterium tuberculosis, or even plain old Treponema pallidum (Syphilis) or Rickettsia (Typhus)
What was your point again?
>From a medical perspective we are still in the process of assessing just how harmful existing antibiotics are on the body for example.
A non-issue. Or are you against, say, high-dosage chemotherapy too?
I don't think it is an issue of the OP being against it as much as an issue of not knowing what the blubbery fuck the OP is talking about
Donald Knuth Worried About the "Dumbing Down" of Computer Science History
Whether CS education is appropriate to all people who do computed-assisted technical work is very irrelevant to me since practical forces in real life simply solve that issue.
The problem I care about is a problem I seen in CS for real. I've met quite a few CS grads who don't know who Knuth, Lamport, Liskov, Hoare Tarjan, o Dijkstra are.
If you (the generic CS grad) do not know who they are, how the hell do you know about basic CS things like routing algorithms, pre and post conditions, data structures, you know, the very basic shit that is supposed to be the bread and butter of CS????
It is ok not to know these things and these people if you are a Computer Engineer, MIS or Network/Telecomm engineer (to a degree dependent on what your job expects from you.)
But if you are Computer Scientist, my God, this is like hiring an Electrical Engineer who doesn't know who Maxwell was. It does not inspire a lot of confidence, does it?
Except that both languages and "application architectures" are, so as to speak, both based on usefully constraining the set of valid programs.
Sorry I don't understand what this means. If you design a data schema that can't scale no language selection, amount of clustering, sharding, money or associated BS is going to be of much help... this is just reality.
This is true, but it does not lead to what you are claiming. A data schema (in a very general sense that goes beyond relational schema or XML data schema or whatever) might or might not scale (either by poor design choice, or by design).
But that schema will depend on specific concepts and assumptions that will be best realized with a specific family of technologies (or even a single one.) It would be possible (but very hard and stupid) to try to implement a relational data schema with a document-oriented database. And it would be very painful to implement a flexible document-oriented system using a RDBMS.
A good design of each type of system would achieve most, if not all of the requirements desired for such a system, but they will make a significant number of platform and language support assumptions.
Design and architecture are not some ethereal things up in the clouds; they are meant to be rooted on very specific language and runtime constrains.
Only when machines become smart enough to do the designing will this ever change.
And since that is an undecidable problem, we know that will never occur (not without heuristics and constant human intervention, validation and verification.)
Computers can do a lot on the margins but ultimately if you want scalability and performance in a non-trivial problem space YOU will have to work for it.
Yes, YOU have to work for it... using the appropriate levels of abstraction (be them run-times, frameworks, language features or any combination thereof.) Architecture and design are about constrains, about constraining the number of ways entire systems can be put into place within limited resources. That constrain alone dictates what language and platform features make architecture and design feasible.
What does constraint validation have to do with scalability and concurrency?
I'm not sure what the OP intended by "constrain validation", so I would present my own interpretation. A constrain or set of constrains will indicate how much scalability or concurrency you need. Those constrains then become vital for describing the means for testing, validation and verification (after all, a requirement is only valid when it is testable and verifiable.)
I could architect a large-scale e-commerce site with strict fault-tolerance and consistency requirements. Great. Then, I can, in theory, implement it in assembler, or C... or with a higher-level language and platform.
Similarly, I can architect a distributed operating system. I could implemented in Java or natively compiled BASIC... or I could do it in C/C++.
Proper architectures for each problem will prescribe the constrains of the design (and the means for verification and validation), and each will be better served by specific languages and tools.
Any non-trivial architecture will have a direct dependency to a set of language features. And any set of language features will have a relation of economic feasibility to families of problem domains and related architectures.
With that said, I disagree with this:
Why shouldn't a language solve the problem of concurrency and distributed applications?
Because this can only be effectively answered by the application?
An application can only effectively address such challenges when using the appropriate levels of abstraction. And by *appropriate* we mean not just appropriate in the level of high (or low) level features, but also in the amount of resources that are required to construct a system with the right synergies between application and supporting (underlying) platforms.
For instance, having an actor model supported as a language feature help application domain developers exploit (or create) the necessary abstractions for concurrency far more economically than using an actor model developed from scratch (or as an add-on framework)... at least for applications whose concurrency requirements are best served with an actor model over more low-level constructs (locks and shared resources)
Or think fault-tolerance. A language that has concepts such as a valves as actual language or run-time features is far more valuable for developing certain classes of fault tolerance systems than languages or runtimes that do not have any (a reason why most systems are not equipped with any means of throttling to cope with partial failures.)
Language does not enable non-trivial problems to scale out... application architecture enables this and concurrency is of the same coin.
Resource-efficient realization of an application architecture into a design and implementation are highly dependent on the language and run-times of choice.
So they just gave you time to think about your game consumption, and the opportunity to think about the "silent" in silent night.
They didn't *give* shit. They *forced* it upon people without giving them a choice. Anyone who think this was benevolent or positive in any way is an idiot living ideological fallacies as if they were real, positive options. #fileitunderfuckyou
The BlackBerry Classic Is One of the Best Phones of 2009
Meanwhile, the wheel has been nominated as the best invention of the 5th millennium BC.
Brought to you by... Captain Obvious!
Oh bilingual, how cute. I see a bright future ahead of you. Here, have a cookie.
I know that *some* (not all) taxes go to stuff like that. If you are claiming that NO TAXES go ever to public infrastructure, then you are going to have to do better than just pointing at counter examples.
I never claimed that ALL TAXES go to public infrastructure. I claim that taxes PAY for infrastructure. That claim does not says "ALL TAXES go to infrastructure" or that "infrastructure gets funded PROPERLY by ALL TAXES."
As a result, your reply, by logical necessity, is misplaced and inadequate. Unless you can prove anywhere that I've said anything that warrants your reply, you have to admit, if you are honest, that you are simply building a strawman.
Haven't you noticed that America's infrastructure is crumbling?
Now why is that?
Because its maintenance and expansion is not funded properly. This is no proof that taxes never go there. It is certainly not proof of the following statement:
And taxes are good, right? Not like that's stealing or anything.
People shouldn't expect not to be challenged when they post asinine shit like that without a context or at least some thought behind it.
Giving more tax income for the government is no better than giving a crackhead more money.
There is not one government. There is federal government, there is state and local government, and depending on the region, tribal government. Each operates differently, with different levels of efficiency and honesty (or lack thereof) when it comes to collecting taxes (and putting them to good use.)
In this specific context, this thread, taxation is being referred to state and local taxation. It is not accurate to describe taxation and public spending in such over-generalized terms. It is great from the point of rhetoric.
It has been a long time since the US government has made effective use of its money. Besides - all tax revenue is barely enough to cover the INTEREST on the deficit (even at these low low rates) - let alone the deficit. A few hundred million here or there will make zero difference to the ocean of pork.
Here you are properly elaborating a good point (finally). It still does not explain what states are to do with pot legalization, the war on drugs, state rights over their own taxation, their relation on that topic to the federal state, the nature of interstate commerce, free passage of citizens from one state to another to purchase an item and the arbiter role of federal government in such activities.
There are the goddamned subjects of this threat. Alcohol is already taxed with different sale taxes across the states, so logically legalization of pot by a state will imply its taxation by said state.
Inefficiency of (or even corruption during) taxation of an item by a government, be it local, state or federal, does not preclude a government, in particular a state government from exercising that sovereign power. If you oppose a state from taxing pot as a condition for legalization, you are going to have to do better than saying "taxation is bad or badly done."
We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"