Whatever it is, we have been dealing with this and a host of other issues from them for years.
Absolutely love the boards, and some of the staff is really cool, but the company really is abusive when it comes to this sort of stuff.
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
This is the question I've been asking every vociferous political activist I can find: What would your candidate have to either do or advocate to lose your support. It's a stumper for almost everyone. The truth is whether you are for Trump, Clinton, Johnson, or Stein, you are virtually guaranteed to have no idea where your line in the sand is. I find this both deeply disturbing and, I guess, unsurprising given how little we humans actually think about our opinions.
if it hadn't been for the emergency stop.... Hey, kids THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY STOP BUTTON!
There's (almost) always an e-stop. But my the time you can reach it someone is probably already as injured as they were going to get. I've been working in industrial automation for more than 20 years and I have prevented an impending injury with an e-stop precisely once. Even then it was because I had specifically told that person not to be where they were and I was moving to the e-stop at the moment the machine ran away (because someone shorted out a motor controller feedback circuit). Even then in the time it took me to react and respond the machine moved almost 10 feet (straight at his face). Missed him by less than two inches (because he flinched).
E-stops have two purposes: 1) locking out the system while you will be in a dangerous interference location, and 2) releasing the machine so you can extract the mangled remains. In this case it appears to have been the latter. Fortunately it was his leg not his torso or head.
No, they want him to do what most businesses do: plan for only what you know you can already do. Also, focus only on short term profits...because if you can't explain how you'll make a profit it definitely isn't worth doing. Don't you know this is how innovation works?
Yes, your description is exactly the reason, but my point is that Facebook really has no room to complain about a lack of engagement when they've filled my feed with things I can't engage with. Give me a way to filter out the people who've declared they don't want me intruding on their echo chamber anyway.
Disclaimer: The above is almost certainly a simplification. There's rather more important things to worry about than an inability to comment on a random Facebook post.
Pshaw! Nothing is more important than telling someone you don't know that they are wrong, especially online.
In the last two years there's been a steady increase in the prevalence of what I call voyeur posts. Items I can see but I can't either like (emote?) or comment on. I don't really care why that is, I'm much more interested in filtering it from my social media feed. There's no way to do that. So, Facebook, if you would like to increase my ability to "interact and post more" make it so my news feed is filled with things that I can, you know, interact with.
*grumble*grumble*humperdinck-a-mumble*young*whippersnappers*grumble*off*my*lawn*
When do you hold Services?
I'd guess it centers around the "devout young maidens with whom I celebrate in connubial bliss every day".
something he was authorized to do. In fact it was his job.
Not after he was let go from the company.
It's incredibly easy to remove or restrict a login account that has any kind of password. It is *universal* policy to do this when employees should no longer have access to specific accounts. Were I a judge I think I'd have to at least consider whether KTXL made a good faith effort to secure their system, and whether that lack of effort should mitigate the punishment handed down. When consent can clearly, easily, and unequivocably be retracted does the fact that said consent wasn't retracted imply consent? despite other factors?
As with so many things in the law, it falls back on the violator's intent to do harm, which was, in this case, clearly established. If he'd done the exact same thing with the intent to correct an error in their publication I doubt he'd be going to jail, and possibly he'd avoid the felony record.
I found that they don't help me in the posture department because I had to shift so much weight forward in order to balance myself.
Wouldn't they be protected by safe harbour provisions as long as they are flying a flag of a country that permits carrying weapons and never remove them from the vessel?
Stealthily pushing out an update that will make cracking the Secure Enclave easier in future FBI investigations?
I knew we shouldn't have signed that contract that says we have to eat a dick during every TV break!
May I recommend the Bachelorette Party Weenie Bites as a temporary work-around while you re-negotiate.
With your bare hands?!?
