They are applying for a job using an online system, which can be accomplished in less than three minutes if they already have their resume together and ready to upload.
That is the way it should be. This discussion is about why it takes an hour or two and then it throws away everything you have entered.
I certainly understand the frustration with filling in an online application, but if that's the biggest obstacle to getting the job, it's not that great of a job. Look at the fields required, copy them over to a text file, take your sweet time filling out the responses, and the online part can be a quick copy/paste. It's not that hard. Sure, find better ways to do it, but don't pretend it's this insurmountable challenge.
I think you are assuming that the online application looks something like the one-page paper applications we went around filling out when we got out of high school. It is more like doing your taxes online with a state return or two thrown in. Oh, and you will be logged out a few times and sometimes the Next button will not work and the only way to get past it is to throw away some of your work and try again or try a different web browser. It could easily stretch to 50 pages and take several hours to fill out. No, I am not kidding.
Maybe being able to get through an application form on a webpage is the first test that weeds out the incompetent.
I suppose if they were applying for IT jobs that might make sense. Then they could pick from those who found workarounds for the problems on the website which stopped other applicants in their tracks. But putting applicants for the position of cashier though a few hours of techno-torture before you will accept their applications doesn't make any sense.
I think you're misunderestimating just how bad many of these things are. They aren't just badly designed. They hang, they freeze, they throw ASP errors just before the final submit (or just after, leaving you wondering if it sent or not).
I'll second that. I once helped someone who was struggling to fill out a large retailer's online job application forms. With all of the hangs, weird errors, incompatibilty with modern web browsers, tedious prodedure for resuming after a disconnect, and the dozens of pages of redundant questions interspersed with nag screens demanding that the application afirmatively acknowledge assurances as to the fairness of the hiring process, it took about four hours. Then they tell you they will keep it for six months at which time if you are still interested you have to do it all again from scratch.
I wondered at times if it might not be some kind of test, but the signs of simple programmer incompetence aggrevated by managers who kept pouring more stuff into the application were too obvious to miss.
There is no need for a secure override code.
The problem here is that when used in POS this code looks like a secure code, walks like a secure code, and quacks like a secure code, but isn't a secure code.
It's not a security code, it's a reference number. The transaction isn't formally authorised by the bank until the end of the day when they receive that reference number and tally it with the corresponding phone call from the retailer. *Then* the transaction is authorised. (Assuming said phone call included verbal authorisation of the transaction.)
That the Apple Store didn't know this is how the system works means it was completely open to abuse.
In other words, the way it works is completely counter-intuitive. Any reasonable person observing the process would assume that the bank was contacted both times. Even if you train employees to use differnet procedures, the strong (though false) reassurance provided by the part of the process which they can observe will cause them to get lax.
While such numbers might result in some net gain, it will probably end up pissing off ISPs to the point of either finding ways of faking the data, blocking the data, or just as policy telling customers to ignore the speed numbers.
I don't know what data you think they could fake or block. Mysidia is proposing that the web browser measure the speed at which the content is delivered. If they block that data, the page won't open. And they can't fake delivering the page more quickly, can they?
The real problem with this proposal is that such measurements would show that there is a bottleneck but would not show where it was. People would blame their ISPs even if another ISP were at fault or the server's Internet connection wasn't fast enough. The ISPs would indeed tell their customers to ignore these numbers, tand they would be right.
You don't get to pick and choose on a spectrum of "obeying the law." The DMCA is so poorly written that even a little hesitation or restraint causes a business to lose its liability protection under the "red flag" tests.
To preserve its safe harbor protection an ISP must take material down whenever it receives a DMCA notice. They DMCA notice also relieves the ISP from potential liability to the owner of the site taken down.
But what should the ISP do if it receives a piece of paper with the words "DMCA Notice" at the top but it does not contain all of the legally required information? Take the site down anyway? Then they could be liable to the site owner. What if some of the answers are not just hard to believe, but actually nonsensical? What if it is signed "Mickey Mouse"? Or what about this requirement:
''(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site."
What if the complainant wrote "The copyright protected work is my name, John Jones." That is a nonsense answer. It is not much different than writing "Not telling!" or "Get lost!" in the space. I would say that the ISP should send the request back with a note that it is not a legally valid DMCA notice. The ISP is not expected to verify that the information provided is true, but they should verify that all of the required information is present.
This is sort of like saying "tell us where you buried the bodies or we'll jail you permanently for contempt". Actually no, it's EXACTLY like saying that. The key sure as fuck IS incriminating evidence, just the same as the location of a dead body.
No, it is not like that at all. If he told them where the body was he would be admitting that he was somehow connected with the crime. This is more like: We suspect that you murdered and buried the body. Tell us the address of that summer cottage in Vermont you were telling us about so that we can go search there.
It's not so clear cut.
They generally can't compel you to turn over your encryption keys so they can go on a fishing expedition through your encrypted hard drive, looking for evidence with which to proceed... but they can compel you if they know you have specific evidence that they will find (ie they saw kiddie porn on your PC before you closed it and it required a password to log back in)
How sure they are that they know what is on the hard disk is not important as long as it was enough to get a warrant. According to this decision the important point is whether by unlocking the drive the accused will be admitting that the encrypted volume is his.
Ultimately, the problem is one of a practical nature: until the incriminating evidence is actually shown to be on the encrypted hard drive, it is only suspected to be there, by any legal interpretation of "suspicion" -- if it was legally known to exist there, you could be found guilty without the bothersome effort of having to decrypt the data. Thus, by the wording of the ruling, the court is allowed to compel testimony in the form of a passphrase under literally any circumstance, since any suspect is, by definition, under "reasonable suspicion."
Welcome to the new world order. Papers, please...
That is not quite what decision says. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to get a search warrant and the authorities can take the hard disk and try to break the encryption. The defendant can be compelled to give them the key only if it is already proven (not just reasonably suspected) that he has it. This defendant lost because he bragged to the cops that he had the key.
The reasoning is that when a defendant decrypts a hard disk for the police he is admitted that he had access to its contents. But he has already admitted that. So now by unlocking the drive he will be telling the police anything new. He is simply unlocking the door so that the cops can go in with warrant in hand.
When the judge issues an arrest warrant for someone preventing someone boarding an airplane due to being on a no fly list, I'll believe it will make a difference.
Actually it will be respected when a judge requires the government to either explain why a person is on the list or take his name off. The government has been claiming that the reasons must be kept secret for reasons of national security and that this does not violate the "due process of law" requirement of the constitution because the persons on the list are not being deprived of "life or liberty".
The judge has just ruled at these persons are being "deprived of liberty" and that the appeal process does not constitute "due process of law". Thus, it is unconstitional. The judge has said in effect: "I understand your concerns about national security, but what you are doing is illegal. I don't care how you fix it, just fix it."
The appeals process does not constitue due process of law because the party on the list is not informed of the accusations which he is to refute. The government expects him to guess what information might alay their fears. For a truly innocent person about whom completely nonsensical accusations have been lodged, this is impossible. No one has ever been able to get off this way. Only one person has gotten his name removed from the list and that was by getting an FBI agent to admit that he had checked the wrong box on the form nominating the person for the list. Even then it took a sternly worded court order.
I'm just baffled as to how IT managed to avoid being lynched by the cube drones if their standards for data retention and redundancy are in fact that low.
People hate losing data, and storing it the employee's HDD (except as an expendable cache purely for speed and bandwidth purposes) is roughly equivalent, once you have a decent number of people in the office, to just randomly deleting some sucker's email every week or two. Even in complete absence of any legal requirements, the users would either switch to unofficially using some shit webmail service or rise up with pitchforks in short order.
Actually, I am surprise by how accepting users can be of data loss. People frequenly accept the loss of things far more important than an bunch of boring e-mail messages. I have know people to format hard drives with hundreds of family pictures because they really want to get the computer working again.
These people were not engaged in a creative endevor and did not lose an irreplacable work product. Without this investigation, what they lost would be junk.
A clarification to my own post:
I believe that we should examine the evidence of whether life is natural or artificial make an informed our choice of theism or atheism, not the other way around. In other words, we should not chose atheism or theism and then use that as a basis for deciding whether life is artificial or natural. I suspect that evolutionists who claim that our prescence on Earth proves a natural origin of life are doing just that.
It's only when the school is presenting any religiously influenced doctrine as true when the scientific consensus disagrees that we have problems.
I for one would like to see good scientific evidence for whether the Earth and life on it are natural or artificial. I don't see how dismissing any assertion that they are artificial as "religiously influenced" helps. Furthur, the scientific concensus to which you refer seems to be a result of the influence of atheists who pretty much have to conclude that the Earth is of natural origin.
Examination of human communities and their beliefs tells us nothing about whether the Earth is of natural or of artificial origin.
I find the idea that science teachers must assert that the Earth is of natural origin because the idea that it is artificial is forever tainted by superstituious belief systems incomprehensible.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno
