|
mostlygray posted:I wish I had a video of myself but it was many years ago before smart phones. I once (only once, never again) made a stupid mistake like this when I was about 13. Fortunately, I was only playing with a friends air pistol and the amount of skin removed was minimal. I was trying to shoot a catkin out of my hand and nailed my forefinger and thumb. Hurt like the dickens and I am smarter for it. I pretended it didn't hurt and that's the Schadenfreude. We were all chatting and being kids and, in my mind, I was in the process of actively dying from pain. In retrospect, it was hilarious. I took my girlfriend shooting for the first time on Sunday and you've really got to guide a new shooter against anything like this. "Don't point the gun at yourself" really isn't ingrained in anyone's head from birth; even though everyone "knows" that guns are dangerous, it takes a surprising amount of focus for a newbie to not accidentally point a gun at their hand or the guy next to them or something. Probably because for most people, it's not something you really have to do in your normal day's work. I think the most common flagging on the range itself would be someone struggling to pull back the slide on a pistol and turning the gun sideways or slightly backwards. But yeah, that guy needs his loving eyes checked. Unless there's a spotlight at the backstop shining in his eyes, he should be able to see the laser shining.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Zamboni_Rodeo posted:Post has been removed. It was fake. Short version is guy said he ran command to delete some files, accidentally deleted all files for a company, asked for help. Community told him to do a low level copy to a blank drive so he could work on retrieving it without further risk, reversed the command and copied the blank on to the deleted drive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
An Australian current affairs TV program sent a crew to Lebanon to help a mother get her children back from her estranged husband and gave the mother $115,000 to pay a 'child recovery' company to snatch them off the street, assaulting their grandmother and nanny in the process. The entire TV crew ended up in Lebanese jail under child kidnapping charges and pretty much all of Australia are lining up to call them idiots. http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...5b0b23ab8ff91ba
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:It's almost as if companies know how people will react and that they can get away with poo poo like this. If you're in the US that's a good discrimation lawsuit right there. They can make a workplace smoke-free, but you can't financially penalize someone for smoking on their own time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Good dog. I sincerely hope some of those excavator ones are fake. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at how many people simply can't hold onto a bucket, or didn't even bother to test out there cool trick ahead of smashing a garbage can on top of their head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If you're in the US that's a good discrimation lawsuit right there. They can make a workplace smoke-free, but you can't financially penalize someone for smoking on their own time. When the gently caress did "smoker" become a protected status 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Eventually the process will stop, but that's because it gets into the system files and deletes something the computer needs to stay alive. So the system gradually slows down its rendition of 'Daisy' until the red light goes out? Sounds peaceful almost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
it actually gets faster as the few programs that were running in memory crash in sequence when their repositories go bye bye.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
GOTTA STAY FAI posted:When the gently caress did "smoker" become a protected status Maybe they were born smokers?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Smoking: Nature or Nurture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If you're in the US that's a good discrimation lawsuit right there. They can make a workplace smoke-free, but you can't financially penalize someone for smoking on their own time. They can and have for at least ten years. The way it's set up is less of a penalty and more of a break for self-reporting non-smokers. If you choose not to report smoker/non-smoker, you can get a $100 break. If you report as a non-smoker, but someone in the insurance company or your HR department gets ahold of a picture of you smoking a cigar on a fishing trip, they can pull your coverage and sue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
A friend of mine - as part of his employers health insurance program, there was an annual blood test. If they detected nicotine in your blood then you had to pay extra for the insurance. I'd guess this is probably similar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I took my girlfriend shooting for the first time on Sunday and you've really got to guide a new shooter against anything like this. "Don't point the gun at yourself" really isn't ingrained in anyone's head from birth; even though everyone "knows" that guns are dangerous, it takes a surprising amount of focus for a newbie to not accidentally point a gun at their hand or the guy next to them or something. Probably because for most people, it's not something you really have to do in your normal day's work. I think the most common flagging on the range itself would be someone struggling to pull back the slide on a pistol and turning the gun sideways or slightly backwards. Another part of this is that the process in your brain that prevents you from stabbing yourself (to the point that some people are incapable of self administering injections) or from biting your fingers/tongue off doesn't really apply to guns (or a lot of other powered power tools). By the time your brain goes "Hey, quit it man!" it's too late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:If you think that's anything other than super fake I don't know what to tell you I'm honestly never sure of these because I've seen plenty of people react that way to similar disappointments. My father destroyed the medicine cabinet and toilet seat in the bathroom when the Yankees lost the World Series in 2001.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:A friend of mine - as part of his employers health insurance program, there was an annual blood test. If they detected nicotine in your blood then you had to pay extra for the insurance. I'd guess this is probably similar. Motherfuckers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
`Nemesis posted:A friend of mine - as part of his employers health insurance program, there was an annual blood test. If they detected nicotine in your blood then you had to pay extra for the insurance. I'd guess this is probably similar. It's a distribution company, so I don't think even the people who came up with this policy are stupid enough to blood / hair test a bunch of warehouse employees. It'll probably effectively be an honesty tax.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:It'll probably effectively be an honesty tax. Also a neat way for them to write up any smokers they dislike if they feel like it. "So, Johnson, I can't help but notice you've been taking regular smoke breaks these last 4 months but you never signed up for the monthly smoking fee. Here's your first written warning."
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:It's a distribution company, so I don't think even the people who came up with this policy are stupid enough to blood / hair test a bunch of warehouse employees. It'll probably effectively be an honesty tax. Dunno, it was all the insurance company, they also checked cholesterol and blood sugar and all that other stuff too. He was an office worker, but his employer had warehouse/manufacturing as well. I'm guessing they got a nice discount from the insurance provider for allowing the tests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/FdpwdwZ.webm
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:If you're in the US that's a good discrimation lawsuit right there. They can make a workplace smoke-free, but you can't financially penalize someone for smoking on their own time. You absolutely can. What discrimination law do you think is implicated here? "Smokers" aren't a protected class in any discrimination law I've ever seen. Charging workers who smoke higher insurance premium, even if they confine their smoking to off-duty hours, is pretty common. Companies are even free to not hire people if they smoke, just because they smoke. "Discrimination" is generally entirely legal, unless there's a law prohibiting it. There's no law which prohibits discrimination against smokers, or people who wear purple, or guys named Dave.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
People get confused about discrimination laws because for the most part companies play it extremely safe when it comes to hiring and firing people. Even bogus lawsuits can potentially cost the company lots of money in attorney's fees, so most HR departments make their managers jump through tons of hoops if they want to fire someone. In most cases they're going way above and beyond what the law actually says to make sure there isn't any temptation to sue. Even then dumb people will still sue when they have no legal leg to stand on. There's probably plenty of companies where HR would tell them no to institute anti-smoking policies just out of fear of frivolous lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Yeah people get confused by all this weird unjust bullshit being legal, you can't really blame them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Sure yea employers should just deal with whatever issues their employees may have, regardless of whether or not they are contributing to those issues or how badly it is effecting their job performance. Your employer isn't your mom or your dad or your therapist, your addiction problem isn't something they should be on the hook for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:You absolutely can. What discrimination law do you think is implicated here? "Smokers" aren't a protected class in any discrimination law I've ever seen. Charging workers who smoke higher insurance premium, even if they confine their smoking to off-duty hours, is pretty common. Companies are even free to not hire people if they smoke, just because they smoke. I know that Cleveland Clinic will not hire you if you smoke, and they don't allow smoking anywhere on Cleveland Clinic property. Even if you were hired as a smoker, you'd have to spend a good 5-10 minutes walking just to get to a place where you could smoke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Sure yea employers should just deal with whatever issues their employees may have, regardless of whether or not they are contributing to those issues or how badly it is effecting their job performance. Your employer isn't your mom or your dad or your therapist, your addiction problem isn't something they should be on the hook for. Separating people out and making them pay more kinda defeats the purpose of collectively sharing the cost of medical care so that everyone pays less. Also people could smoke their whole life and never suffer consequences, so they would have been paying more for nothing. hawowanlawow has a new favorite as of 20:13 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Huh, I've never encountered such an rear end in a top hat move by a company I guess. Then again, when I worked at a bakery we wouldn't allow therapy animals in since all our batter and ingredients and everything were only separated from the customer area by like 2 feet deep of display case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:Separating people out and making them pay more kinda defeats the purpose of collectively sharing the cost of medical care so that everyone pays less. It's insurance. The purpose of insurance is to share *risk*, not *cost*. If you are a lovely driver with a lot of wrecks on your driving record, or you have a lot of traffic violations, auto insurance will cost you more because you are a higher risk for the insurer. If you are a fatass lardbody who smokes two packs of Camels a day, health insurance will cost you more because you are a higher risk for the insurer. Insurance is not so someone else pays part of the costs of what you're doing in exchange for you paying them money. Insurance is someone else agreeing to take some of the risk of what you're doing in exchange for your money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Yup. Never forget, health insurance is about making money from healthy people, not about treating sick people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:Separating people out and making them pay more kinda defeats the purpose of collectively sharing the cost of medical care so that everyone pays less. Also people could smoke their whole life and never suffer consequences, so they would have been paying more for nothing. You're looking at it backwards. The company isn't separating anyone out, they're doing that for themselves by choosing to smoke. The company is offering you insurance as a perk of the job. If you want it you play by their rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Wait, was this for insurance or a fine employees had to pay? I thought it was a fine. It makes perfect sense if its for insurance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Wait, was this for insurance or a fine employees had to pay? I thought it was a fine. It makes perfect sense if its for insurance. It's usually a fine in that your insurance premium will be 100 more expensive per month.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
Oh ok. I thought it was like a "we're taking $100 directly out of your paycheck because you smoke" and not "we're charging you more for insurance because you smoke." I get the insurance costing more because of the added risk, but just charging employees outside of that for smoking I think was a little loving crazy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Yup. If it were only about that, nobody would ever buy it. Again, it is about sharing risk. As a young healthy person, your risk of winding up hospitalized or seriously ill is low, but if it does happen, you won't be able to afford it, so you hedge, share your risk, and give an insurance company some of your money in exchange for them agreeing to cover the cost in the event that small risk of you getting hosed up comes to pass. If you're less young or less healthy, that risk goes up, so the premium's going to go up. I mean, it's like saying: "Never forget, auto insurance is about making money from good drivers, not fixing wrecks." True in a sense, but the good driver still gets something out of being insured above the bare minimum required by law. Solice Kirsk posted:Oh ok. I thought it was like a "we're taking $100 directly out of your paycheck because you smoke" and not "we're charging you more for insurance because you smoke." I get the insurance costing more because of the added risk, but just charging employees outside of that for smoking I think was a little loving crazy. There's no difference. Money is fungible. Whether your paycheck's $100 smaller because it's a "fine" or an "increased premium" makes no difference. In either case, the fact that you're a smoking is driving up your employer's costs of keeping you employed, and they're paying you less in order to offset that cost. Enginefreude: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCsSVLZ6wCI Phanatic has a new favorite as of 20:39 on Apr 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
bamhand posted:It's usually a fine in that your insurance premium will be 100 more expensive per month. Yes, everyone else pays the same except smokers now pay 100/mo more. The company employs many thousands of people. With that many people the risk in insuring each individual person shouldn't matter because it averages out. This is just a ploy transfer more of the cost onto the employees because they don't care about them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Yup. but what about obamacare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
radiatinglines posted:Yes, everyone else pays the same except smokers now pay 100/mo more. It doesn't average out. The baseline is "regular average nonsmoking human." Smoking humans are way unhealthier, and if your workplace employs many thousands of people, then some thousands of those people smoke. The only way the non-smokers would "average that out" to the baseline is if they're all triathletes, which they're not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It doesn't average out. The baseline is "regular average nonsmoking human." Smoking humans are way unhealthier, and if your workplace employs many thousands of people, then some thousands of those people smoke. The only way the non-smokers would "average that out" to the baseline is if they're all triathletes, which they're not. The baseline is average person regardless of whether they smoke, or drink, or ride a motorcycle, or eat McDonald's every day. You can just get away with singling smokers out because it's stigmatized, even though being a fat rear end will kill you quicker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Idiot. http://i.imgur.com/UdmIDfq.gifv
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
It depends on the size of the company. A small business has a far smaller risk pool, so curbing habits like smoking make a big difference in cost. One sick person in a small risk pool drives up prices dramatically. My hair stylist could get insurance from her job, but her boss has had two heart transplants. It's much cheaper for her to buy an individual policy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 17:31 |
|
|
Io_ posted:After seeing the warhead gifs on here I decided to buy some off amazon and ended up being disappointed. Didn't think they were that sour at all. Barnetts mega sour balls might be what you're looking for, it's the sourest candy I've ever had http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00D0U7KHS
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2016 21:10
|
|
