They're also banned in CA.
Under the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

I've been using iPhones for a really long time, and typically get 3+ years out of them. It's been more than 3 years since I got my current iPhone, and the battery is just starting to show its age, which means I'll almost certainly upgrade once the initial release stupidity has calmed down. I don't know that I'll go for the ultra high end, but I'll at least get the plus.

Here's the thing, I like them. They take absolutely incredible pictures, work great as actual phones, and I easily integrate with my work security/email. They're not any more expensive than the android equivalents, and are far more stable from the anecdotal experience of myself, and many friends who use the full spectrum of phones. As one of them who used to work in development for an android app says: "I love coding for android. I *use* an iPhone."

In the end it's entirely personal preference. I *like* Apple products. I specifically like the iPhone. Use what you like, and the hell with anyone else's opinion. It's your money.

Regardless of the reason, California is an "At Will" employment state. This means anyone can be fired, for any reason, at any time. When someone is dumb enough to violate the corporate code of conduct, the firing is insanely easy, and entirely justified. He can sue all he wants. I expect Google will not roll over on this, and make him the poster child for why you should pay attention to the employee handbook.

For anyone unclear on why what he wrote wasn't the best idea, substitute the word "black", for the word "woman".

...I have a very nice bridge for sale in NY that you'd be interested in. Only a bit over 100 years old, and it great shape!

>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

You must mean that notoriously goddamn liberal hotbed of politics called Texas. They really don't like that whole goddamn liberal free market direct sale model. If only they could learn from that famous bastion of conservative thought that started the whole mess: California. Let's not cloud the issue with facts. They're terribly inconvenient.

Really? Your reponse is "everyone does it so we shouldn't even try to change it"? An extension of the "everyone else does it" defense that every kindergarden child can tell you won't get them off.

It's not the community of gamers that's objecting. It's the small, virulent subset that sees it as an attack on themselves. The ones who can't conceive their attacks are exactly the problem and prove her right by doing what they do. People who say "what should you expect" are the enablers.

Absolutely. A company or university can then discard all of the applicants that attended through high school in those states that do this crap. Makes it so much easier on the rest of us who have an education and might possibly have learned something that requires use of our brains.

There's no absolute in this. Some companies will pay for your training/certification and have you do it on company time. Others not. It really depends on the company.

I'm fortunate enough that the first option is pretty much always what happens for me. But it's entirely because of the type of company I work for. I'm a storage engineer for a big data center VAR, so I need to be up to speed on a huge number of different storage systems. The company gets financial incentives from the vendors to have employees get and maintain those certifications. The more of us with certifications from a particular vendor, the bigger the financial gain for the company. I take as much advantage of this perk as possible, and I'd suggest that anyone who can get their employer to pay for training jump on it. It makes you more valuable to the company, and in the job market in general.

Whether any of those certification is worth the paper they're printed on is a completely different discussion. :)

I just change the permissions on my cookies file to read only.

Accept all cookies and change the permissions for your cookies file to read only. Done.