It's a very problematic ruling, raises a lot of issues, and in my opinion should be reversed...
I am interested in why it is problematic, and what issues it raises. In the interest of saving this article's comments from the hordes of "oh my god we're gonna die the NSA will be able to name our children due to this ruling!" can you elaborate? Thanks.
"Several people in the UK have been diagnosed with electrosensitivity and received help for the disability but any financial allowance usually refers to a different name for the condition or a related condition," it [the court] said in a statement.
I'll bet the judge decided she was so delusional as to be unfit to work, and gave her benefits based on that. The "different name for the condition" could be delusional thinking (or whatever the correct psychiatric term for that is - IANAP). Mental illness certainly can be debilitating.
Now that's insightful.
Subject says it all. It really is time to start taking lawyers and other bottom feeders to task. Mentally ill people should be treated for their paranoia, not have it confirmed.
I'm just happy to see it happen somewhere other than the US. Turns out other countries have nuts and greedy lawyers, too.
Like computer science...
Consider that most people I know who have an undergraduate degree in "computer science" are as close to a scientist as a blog is to journalism. Computer Science degrees can mean as little as "more computer credits than liberal arts credits." But maybe that is endemic to popular degree programs.
I don't understand your reaction to my comment. I'm not suggesting that training should be required; rather, that any responsible gun owner should fully understand how their gun operates and how to operate their gun. I mountain bike, and I know how my mountain bike works. I drive a car, and I know, for the most part, how a car works. I use a computer, and I know, for the most part, how a computer works. I'm a software developer, and even though the garbage collector will come along and clean up after me (eventually), I consider how my use of various objects and techniques will affect performance.
The real question is, Would our troops accept the government telling them to mount an offensive against the populace? I was in the Air Force; my brother the Marines. As gung-ho and 'Merica shouting as some military folk are, the reality is that they aren't radically pro-government; instead, they are pro-liberty.
Fortunately, the radically pro-government types (Occupy *, et al), also tend to be radically against the military and violence by their own hands. Without an army, the best they can hope for is to vote in their party. But who will enforce the will of an overarching federal authority - should it ever come to that - if the military folks don't see eye-to-eye with that will?
Caveat - Admittedly hypothetical, and one of any number of ways such a thing could come about.
Go buy your own HDD (or SSD). Who cares how cheap your company is? They are all cheap, but the good devs spend their own money on tools / upgrades / etc.
Encrypted SSD drive. Public company dealing with PHI. I take care of having my favorite peripherals, but I don't mess with the computer hardware.
I thought this was how the wheels of bureaucracy were greased in Central America.
Friends of mine headed south from Belize to continue a trip we were on together, and they experienced it along the rest of their trip through Central America. Get to a border: Grease a palm. Get stopped randomly by the "police:" Grease a palm. Since money is paper, I guess you can call that "paperwork." Only, it is far more efficient than the other kind.
The Penn State Wellness fiasco? Unless you think that what amounts to a yearly fine is not forced,, I'm pretty surprised that a professional in benefits administration field would not have heard of that. It was dropped due ot employee outrage (some were even daring to breathe the dreaded "U" word, but it was going to be forced until cooler minds intervened. I posted a link above, but here it is again http://lcbpsusenate.blogspot.c...
Strictly speaking the employees would not have been forced had they been willing to part with $100 per pay check. Actually, it sounds like what I was describing, but in a different order. But to be fair, I see your point that it basically amounts to forcing people because lower paid employees may not have been able to afford the dock in pay.
Please note, I am a software developer for a consultancy, not a plan administrator, so I don't read up on the latest news in industry publications. My concern is optimized queries, efficient code, semantic HTML, cocktails, beer, and good food. Not necessarily in that order.
"My sense of purpose is gone! I have no idea who I AM!" "Oh, my God... You've.. You've turned him into a DEMOCRAT!" -- Doonesbury